As I understand it, the Conservative Party position is roughly equivalent to the legislation brought in by the Socialist government of France, under PM Lionel Jospin. I say roughly, because the French PACS do not indlude all of the legal benefits of marriage.

Very perceptive - & thank you for crystalizing the real issue so well. Indeed, they are arguing about "same sex", not "same sex marriage", and further, they are using dangerous religious arguments to establish their legitimacy. I say dangerous, because I believe that the state and religion must be kept separate, whilst "they" are using sectarian religious arguments upon a point of law – human rights, and many people are quite insensitive to this. I can only hope that rational minds & generosity of spirit will prevail, & Canada will wind up with at least equality of the right to marry (whether you believe in marriage or not, which I don't, or at least I'm not the marrying kind…) which may establish a beachead for the growth of recognition of true human rights – the right to be, safely, securely, with all the protections a humane society can offer, not matter what your sexual, religious, political orientations are.

Thanks Stan,but what about followwing the dollars,the moolah.Two points i see as not being mentioned ,first marrieds can only declare one principal residence[if two reses are owned only one is capable of declaration so to be free of capital gains tax ,maybe a tax grab?]Perhaps amarried couple may get around this but i 'm just saying;secondly a recent court case of a single person[a judge herself] tried to get the CPP spousal differential as marrieds do get if widowed/widwowered this was not allowed the Supreme C decided.This spousal benefit may be actually what couples of same gender want to dip into especially since i know of a couple who haave desired this since say 1984 when i first met them.AIDS has left many spouses of these couplings bereft of survival skills,etc.and is very different than say a single. Overall as one views this topic it appears to me that singles are not favoured at all but marrieds are,maybe as a vote getting scheme inherited from pre1960's,anyhow if all citizens were treated equal under the administration of varrious tax laws then this whole thing might be amoot point ,so i suggest their is advantages for marrieds over singles. This side bar of sexual liberation is what the spin the media puts on this not indepentant of the parties in power,somewhat like creating news by not asking pertinent questions but letting the viewer /reader hang in for the next episode.Continum of audience may have something to do with it. Just saying, no data sorry.

The Con Party isn't trying to legislate against queer sexual practices at all. Whereas the straw-minded Catholics would if they could, but that's no real surprise. The Con Party endorses civil unions between queers, so I don't see an anti-homosex agenda there. Rather, conservative-minded folks are being true to their name on this issue, in that they're trying to conserve or maintain the status quo on an institution ("marriage") that they feel their religious forebearers invented and nuture through history, of which they feel queers are now trying to co-opt. But given that the State has assumed responsibility for this institution, it has no recourse but to let gay-marriage emerge into this fledgling Charter-based society. I suppose the Church didn't see that one coming. Me thinks the Church is fighting for its very survival, more or less, on this and many other issues, and its desperate rallying cries on these issues come across as someone sliding panickingly down the slippery slope of decay.

The only real solution at this point is to do away with the institution of "marriage" entirely as a legal entity. Civil Unions for all - man/woman/transgendered or any combination thereof - who wish to benefit from the legal contract of such an arragement. And have them performed or endorsed only by a public service employee (such as the JPs who do it now). Once the church is no longer legally ordained to endorse "civil unions" they'll no longer have a leg to stand on in their discrimination of those who are born homosexual. This leaves the church entirely outside a position of being able to deny performing a "marriage" for those it chooses to discriminate against. It's time to move beyond teaching "tolerance" of those who may be of a different race/sex/orientation/etc. (which is what the Conservative position of Civil Union vs. Marriage is) and move to a society of ACCEPTANCE that everyone is equal, and deserves an equal set of rights that have no basis on anything other than our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What is the rationale for having the State involved in sanctioning (and tax-incentivizing) marriage anyway? Shouldn't that issue be entirely up to me, my partner, and if we choose, our religion(s)? Why does the law distinguish between married people and single people anyway? Isn't that inappropriate?

Modern "traditional marriage," as in the union of one man and one woman, is the result of millennia of traditions common in many different cultures. Not all cultures share this tradition, obviously, but enough do to influence millions of people to be leery of same-sex marriage and "homosex" (is that one of the new words added to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary?) in general. Expect people who consider these traditions important to fight for them just as hard as gay couples are fighting for recognition of same-sex marriage. It's unfair and completely inappropriate to refer to people who oppose same-sex marriage and "homosex" as religious fanatics, homo-haters and discriminators. This is a country where we don't all have to agree. Just because someone doesn't approve of my behaviour doesn't give me the justification to make all kinds of straw man attacks on them. A philosophy teacher should know that.

Paul Martin is a clever boy, by introducing this legistlation on the eve of Jean's testimony before the Sponsorship commission. Harper fell for it. Clearly everyone has the same right to love and spend their life with whom they wish. To argue that homosexual marriage cheapens heterosexual marriage is misguided.

I would like to contribute a word or two about the absurd idea that marriage is for procreation and gay marriages don't qualify because same sex sex doesn't lead to procreation. Well, a lot of people take pretty permanent measures so they can't procreate and we let them marry (or in that case usually re-marry). Then there are people who cannot have children because of some detected or undetected problem conceiving. Yet they are permitted to marry. Take me, for instance, I'm too old to have babies. Does this mean I can't get married (or stay married). These obvious observations point very clearly to the reality that it is same sex sex that is the issue. The anti- gay marriage argument is based solely on same sex phobia and the inability to accept the minority of people who were born to be attracted to their own gender. I believe being born left handed, which I was, would put me in a similar minority, which is, being born with an attribute shared by less than half the population. Let's get real and accept gay marriage or have civil marriage for everyone (and forget the civil union crap). Then the church could "bless" our (civil) marriage if we so choose. We're not all the same. Get over it.

Well said, KJ. But still, the Con party would not be trying to distinguish between "marriage" for straights and "unions" for gays were it not for their distaste for homosex. So I'd say there's plenty of room for Stan's argument as well. And Jennifer, I love how you distinguish "tolerance" vs ACCEPTANCE. Bravo. My only question to you is how you would propose to abolish "marriage" without violating the charter rights of not only Christians, but all religions that practice marriage, to practice marriage according to their dictates.

The State's involved in marriage by various means for the same reason it's involved in immigration: the perpetuation of the State through population control, just as the Church was (and still desires to be). As for my contention about the Church's "desperate rallying cries," I should have added along with that: "desperate efforts." Case in point: "Expect people who consider these traditions important to fight for them just as hard as gay couples are fighting for recognition of same-sex marriage." The thing is, gay couples aren't really doing the heavy lifting on this issue: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is.

Persky's cohort Brian Fawcett pointed out 15 years ago, in a rant about the ever-rising divorce rate, that marriage had ceased to hold any political import at all. This whole debate is as full of holes as swiss cheese. Its largely unspoken crux is, of course, the conceiving of children, and the notion that that ability should bring special status. But fertility is its own reward -- it can't be dictated by an order of state or court. What next -- mandatory riders to the marriage contract that married couples MUST make babies? Family-values proponents are right in that so-called 'family values' ARE under attack. Homos are the straw men of the day, because nobody wants to address the real culprit -- the market-uber-alles conservative agenda that makes work and consumption the entire point and measure of human existence.

Is it all really about "homosex" (which I assume means actual sex acts in all their variety between same-sex folks)? With very few exceptions, there isn't an act that unsame-sex people can't indulge in or at least simulate. So I'm not so sure it's the actual acts themselves that Harper and religous-types distaste (because if it is, then they should be looking at opposing marriage for those who indulge in whatever they don't like, regardless of sex-type), but rather their opposition seems to come from a place of intolerance that fears difference and its exclusion because of that difference - a fear which the Church has used to its advantage for "millennia" and has endeavoured to eliminate through coercive dogma. But there's a new dogma in town, and its initials are: CCRF.

I wish that I would read lots and lots of letters against war and killing. What we're objecting to here is LOVE. One person loves another person and want to make a commitment. What is so very bad about that? Let's have more love and less killing.

"I wish that I would read lots and lots of letters against war and killing."

You are.

I think it's mostly smoke and mirrors. In the same way Karl Rove and the Neo-cons south of the border turned the last election into a moral battleground rather than a political one, Harper et al see the efficacy of focussing the public on an inflammatory issue rather than important ones. The irony is that those in control of the neo-con agenda tend to have in a very different belief system than they espouse.

It's all another exercise by homosexuals in support of their continuing need to legitamize their sexual orientation. Never quite sure if they should be the way they are they continue to interupt our lives with inane issues such as same sex marriages and the like. Give us a break, there are far more important issues to deal with in this world than whether or not someone's sexual orientation is right or wrong. Feed the children, I say!

"It's all another exercise by homosexuals in support of their continuing need to legitamize their sexual orientation." Are you for real?

There will always be jws. Unfortunately everyone seems to have to fight for their human rights. Hi Stan Persky. I remember what a great activist you were, and Gabor Mate, too, back in the sixties at UBC. Did the engineers ever throw you into the pool? Remember Tommy Douglas at Brock Hall?

I just don't get it... I probably never will. Growing up I never gave marriage a thought- still don't and I'm 34/straight, and these days with all the anti-gay marriage business it has made me REVOLT against the very idea of marriage. I wouldn't get married now simply out of PRINCIPLE, because I want nothing to do with an institution so... argh, I don't know- so controlling, so "this is what you're supposed to do", which perhaps, is sad, at least for my mum (haha). I liked what Greg B wrote in his last line... and hey yeah, why are marrieds favoured over singles? That's BS; some of just happen to be free/single spirits, perhaps forever- I happen to think we should be rewarded somehow... :)

Humans are sexual beings and they tend to express this urge with other humans , animals , plants , blow up dolls, computers, whatever. If we could all just accept this basic fact, maybe we could stop obsessing about who is doing what to whom and try to think about evolving as a species. As for marriage in order to procreate, I don't know if anybody has noticed but we have successfully procreated ourselves into a really dramatic state of global overpopulation.

I think people who want to have sex should apply for a permit from the government, whether it be municipal, provincial or federal (or maybe al three). This would include hetro sex, homo sex, and singular sex. The purpose of this would be to determine if the people wanting sex wish it for procreation or recreation. If it's the latter, it would be summarily rejected, as sex is supposed to be a chore for procreation, and not for any kind of dubious pleasure.

re: "It's unfair & completely inappropriate to refer to people who oppose same-sex marriage & "homosex" as religious fanatics, homo-haters, and discriminators." As long as YOU come into our communities and club us to death, YOU should be prepared to be labelled as such.

Marriage is not really about sex, although it may start out that way. It is a very nice component of marriage, but there are many successful marriages where sex is no longer possible. And why do many married people with unsatifactory sexual relationships stick together? Finances. I think lokijy's comments about the "moolah" and the financial benefits of marriage are closer to what's really going on behind the push for this.

Church opposition to gay marriage is about oppositon to difference rahter than sex, that is, the kind of difference that inherently excludes or is inaccessible to others not of that group. This fear is further exacerbated when this group has an entrenched power base that could pose a threat to some order or another, like the Church, for instance. Funny thing is the Church espouses and exhibits the very behaviours of difference which itself opposes of others.

Poor article, No balance. A solution, Marriage for the religios people, Civil union for others. Maintain all rights. Do not impose gay views onto religous people, they have the RIGHT to protect their RIGHTS. We all win and move on. BUT.... This is only a ploy of a minority government trying to be a majority. Becareful of the propaganda, what we percive may not be the truth. Roman

Let me start by saying I really don't care about gay marriages (or straight ones either); however I think the strategy needs some reflection. Look what happened in the USA-the issue re-elected a moron for another term and caused a number of states to outlaw it...I wouldn't be surprised to see the right-wing push for a constitutional ammendment against gay marriages succeed over the next few years. Don't think it can't happen here also. All for what? A piece of paper and a chance to get a divorce a few years later like most straights do? Persky's correct; the whole issue is a sham. It has given the religious right and homophobes in general a rallying point to gay-bash. They appear to be succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. Is it worth it??

"Just because someone doesn't approve of my behaviour doesn't give me the justification to make all kinds of straw man attacks on them. A philosophy teacher should know that." Try telling that to a family who is attending the funeral of their gay teenager who took their life because it was only a "straw man" that instilled into them such a fear of growing up gay in a straight world that they would rather die then face a life ahead full of bigotry, prejudice, ridicule, rejection and hatred.

Why does Steven Harper always look so odd?

Dear Sparky. Yes, it's worth it. The religious right will not prevail. Love will. And Spongebob Squarepants can hold hands openly and freely with whoever he wants, Mr. Sobson, oops I mean Dobson!

Mr. Harper looks so odd because he's so puffed up with himself that his head's about to pop off. Someone needs to just let a little air out - it might help his eyes not look so squished together. Boring hair, too. He needs blond highlights...

Someone suggested calling gay/lesbian unions "garriage." Near as I can figure out, the fight now comes down to use of the word marriage. There's an element of homophobia in the position of those who want to retain the term exclusively for heteros, but there's also an element that objects to emphasizing the adult component of marriage at the expense of children by de-linking marriage from procreation, which has always been one of its functions, though clearly there are other aspects. Wrinklies out there, in addressing this point, should note that adultery is in most societies grounds for divorce, but infertility is not. On the other side, the agenda of gays and lesbians who insist on calling their relationships marriage includes making a statement that sexual orientation is a distinction without a difference. You say tomato, I say tomah-toe. Other gays and lesbians say their distinctiveness is important, and for this and other reasons they reject marriage as a bourgeois institution. One thing to note about both camps is that neither is proposing to end all discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation--for example, the discrimination against a bi-sexual person who may want to marry one partner of either gender, or against a trans-gendered person who may want to remain married to his/her spouse and acquire another of the other gender. Other than the standard objections against same-sex marriage, I can't think of a single reason the state would forbid either, though that's what Paul Martin is proposing in his new definition of marriage that will be tabled on Tuesday.

I am surprised Carol Judd's analysis sort of got overlooked...the "marriage is for procreation" argument would make ineligible large numbers of non-fertile couples. I am an old dyke, and one thing I find both annoying and hilarious is the reaction of some people..."but you have children"... well, yes. And grandchildren. What in that in any way makes me ineligible for dykehood? Little Stevie Harper is blundering around making an idiot of himself (again)because he's a wind-up toy. Turn the key, point him in any given direction and watch him lurch off mouthing what he was told to say. "Open the bomb bay doors, Hal..."...Now you know what the SciFi android is going to look and sound...Groot, that's why the guy always looks so odd, he needs his lubrication fluid topped up..

Follow the money. There are many financial breaks for marrieds, golly gee Clem, if alla them queers get married we're gonna lose a bundle of tax income. Jeez, Homer, yer right, give us some kinda moral high ground to yammer from and we'll nip this buggery in the bud...

I was married for seventeen years , to the father of my children. I can't explain to myself let alone anyone else why I spent the last fourteen years of it trying to ...what? Bored? To desperation!I think I remember telling myself I was "sticking it out for the kids", but I can't believe I was so dense as to even try to believe that. It cost me thousands of dollars to get divorced. Would I get married again? Not a chance. Would I go for civil union? Not a chance. Those choices in no way interfere with my ability to give or receive love and affection. As for Steve Harper and this entire inflamed debate...it's like the three ring circus... they've got the spotlight on the ring where the nutbars are arguing with the wingnuts about the affairs of the heart of people they wouldn't invite to dinner anyway...and in the second ring we've got the ex Prime Minister accusing a judge of...rah rah...excuse yourself and bring to a halt the multi million dollar investigation into trough-swilling skullduggery... but WHAT IN HELL IS GOING ON IN THE THIRD RING? No spotlight there! In the darkness these witherdick arstles are plotting how to slide us into Star Wars against our will. And all this other bumph is just smoke and mirrors to try to hide the fact they are bent over, gripping their ankles, forcing wide smiles, praying for vaseline and waiting for their amerikkkan butt buddies to send it all the way up. Again.

Just like NAFTA and a few other dry entry corn cobs...follow the $$$ and remember the God they claim to worship is GoldOilDrugs.......

Love & Marriage, love & marriage, it's an institute you can't disparage, Ask the local gentry, and they will say it's elementary

Norman, you're making specious moral and logical equivalency claims. I haven't seen these old argumenting tricks for a while, (although, you did claim, that because the Toronto Star's biased, we have no justified complaint against Canwest etc etc.) but a good recent analogy is Senator Ann Cools pretending that Svend Robinson's request that "sexual orientation" be included in hate-crime legislation, was, in fact, aiding and abetting pedophiles. I can go over your arguments inch by inch, if you request, but I don't really think you're serious--only having fun with Stan. While I wouldn't normally (no pun intended) consider you in the same diminished intellectual honest category with Cools (our own Ann Coulter), I may take this possibility under advisement.

First, thanks to all the people who have commented on my article. I'm astonished by the amount and rapidity of response, and will try to respond to a few of the comments. 1) We should be cautious about referring in a blanket manner to the opposition of "the Church" to same sex marriage and same sex sex. It's true that the Catholic Church of Canada has organized an evil campaign against gay marriage ("evil" because they're committing the sin of pride in pretending to know what God, if there is one, thinks about this issue), and that several other denominations adamantly oppose same sex everything. But it's also true that many churches -- the United Church of Canada, the Metropolitan Community Church among them -- have welcomed same sex relations and are willing to perform ceremonies consecrating those relationships. As well, there has been an important debate within the Anglican Church about the issue. So, it's not correct to say that there is uniform religious opposition to same sex marriage. 2) On the role of marriage in relation to the "state": unless you're a principled anarchist, we ought to see the "state" as "us" --as us, collectively. From that perspective, it's possible to see how marriage works, why the state confers benefits on married people, and why it issues marriage licenses rather than leaving it to private organizations (and also why it doesn't ban private organizations, like churches, from performing or not performing religious ceremonies concerning marriage). Apart from the historical relation of marriage and state in modern times, the theoretical idea is pretty simple: we the society see people forming couples, having children, weaving together neighbourhoods, etc., as a benefit to the whole society in terms of stability and civility. Whether this is true in fact or not, that's the idea, and that's why we give marrieds tax breaks. For those of us who are not the marrying and/or child-producing kind, this is no more offensive that my having to pay taxes for schools even though I don't produce children. I pay the taxes happily because I think producing and educating children is a good thing. Since this coupling stuff is a public benefit to society, the state licenses the activity (and this is where homos come into the picture, seeking equal rights since their couplings provide equal benefits to society). From our state point of view, the having of children is very nice but not absolutely essential to our encouragement of stable couples. And of course many gay couples often do have children from previous relationships or adopt and raise children. 3) Since Norman Spector has been kind enough to contribute not once but twice to the discussion (and has taken a position on the subject in many of his newspaper columns), I'll try to address his concern. He says, first, that "the Conservative Party position is roughly equivalent to the legislation brought in by the [former] socialist government of France," although he admits that the French partnerships don't provide all the legal benefits of marriage. I'm not sure what his point is here. I think that he's making a "virtue by association" argument (the opposite of a "guilt by association" argument). It goes: since the Canadian Conservatives are taking a position similar to the lefty French, then the Conservative Party can't be so bad, homophobic, deceptive, nasty as we think they are. There are 2 answers to this argument: 1) The circumstances under which the similar positions were taken are completely different and differently motivated. The French Socialists legalised gay partnerships several years ago as an attempted positive move in the French context; the Conservatives are suddenly for gay civil unions as a defensive retreat strategy in their fight against gay marriage. Any examination of previous Family Caucus, Reform, and Alliance positions will show the depth of their opposition to same sex everything. 2) The French socialists were wrong, and so are the Canadian Conservatives (if their position is similar). The whole civil union argument stinks of separate-but-ha-ha-equal institutions from the U.S. school segregation debate. (By the way, there's a temptation in the face of the civil union versus full-court marriage spat to throw up one's hands and say things like, Let's get rid of marriage altogether. I think that's silly. And why get rid of marriage just as same sex couples are coming forward to claim its privileges? It's like taking away the toys because somebody you don't like has come along to play the game. In this case, the toys are public property, not someone's private ball.) In his second comment, Mr. Spector raises the spectre that two-person same sex marriage will either create a slippery slope to other terrible forms of relationships or possibly discriminate against bisexuals and transgendered people who want marriages involving more than two people. This is what I call the "sex with your goat" argument. It's an argument designed to stir up "moral panic" more than anything else. Mr. Spector is more explicit about this in his most recent G&M/Le Devoir columns from late last December, when he says, "As a conservative, I can think of several reasons it would not be in Canada's interests to become the third country to legalize same sex marriage." Although he doesn't state the reasons, he notes that the Supreme Court of Canada has apparently "dismissed these arguments," and because it has, Mr. Spector goes on to say, "I can't think of a single additional reason to prohibit a woman from voluntarily choosing to become Paul Martin's second wife..." I.e., if we allow gay marriage, what's to stop polygamy or sex with your goat? The polygamy danger has been cited in a rhetorical way not only by Mr. Spector, but by Mr. Harper and many other religious and political figures, on the assumption there's not an answer to it. But if it's a real question, not just a rhetorical question, there's an answer to it. It goes like this: 1) We're against polygamy because we have a lot of historical evidence to suggest that it causes harm, to wit, that it discriminates against and oppresses women. That is, it tends to violate rather than foster constitutional equal rights. In theory, I suppose, it doesn't have to, but in fact, we have a lot of historical material, usually from extremist splinter church groups or cults, about polygamy and there is a serious question both about whether the people involved have really consented or been brainwashed, and about the results of polygamy. 2) There really is a same sex marriage discussion and a real constituency of thousands of people interested in it, whereas the polygamy issue, like the sex with your goat issue, is simply a scare tactic. The only people interested in arguing for polygamy in this country are a few religious extremists. We have a view that couples produce benefits for society, but we don't yet have evidence that polygamy does. It might, but we have no reason so far to think so. If people who cry polygamy as a scare tactic think the rest of us are afraid of discussing it rationally, they're wrong. And for those who want to legalize having sex with their goats, we're against that, in case you were wondering, because we don't think goats are capable of meaningful consent. I've already taken up considerable space, so I apologize if I haven't responded directly to your concerns. If you'd like a direct personal response, I'm available at

.

Stan, The articles you quote make clear that I do not endorse the slippery slope argument. In fact, I reject it. I'm very surprised you would equate bi-sexual and transgendered sexuality with bestiality. Until now, I had thought the argument was the preserve of homophobes. I'm also surprised you would dismiss the scheme brought in by the French socialist government in a country that historically has been a cradle of human rights. I suspect you'd rather not grapple with the fact that only two countries in the world have legislated same-sex marriage and among those that have not are many that are governed by socialist or social democratic governments--including the UK, Spain, Brazil, Germany, Cuba, and I could go on. Nor do I think we'll see same sex marriage in these countries any time soon. In fact, Stephen Harper is more liberal on the issue than the leaders of these countries. No doubt there's political tactics at play, but I for one am pleased that he's pulling his constituency along with him and, that so far, we've by and large been able to avoid sick rhetoric such as the bestiality analogy.

Sorry all, but Mr. Persky is 100% on mark. The debate is not about same sex marrieage, it is about homophobes crying the sky is falling if we let this happen! I am married and straight, and I have asked my wife if she could have any possible concerns about same sex marriage, of course the answer is no. Why should it matter to us or to God or to anyone else if two people who love each other wish to unite in a legal way? I cannot understand the debate, except that whenever I get into it with "normal" people it sooner or later turns to "it's unnatural or would you let them teach your kids" so the homophobe comes out and rears its ugly head. You know what, if your "God" is against same sex marriage well you will find out when you die. And if you were this great little Christian or Muslim or whatever and you held out and you were right well you will be ok, and the rest of us that don't believe in all that religious bull, well we will suffer in Hell or whatever place it is. So all the rligious clowns should just sit back and let the rest of us, the ones that believe in basic human rights, continue on, because you will have the last laugh as we all burn in Hell, maybe? Give this whole deal a rest. Get married and enjoy your ralationship.

No one has challenged Mr. Persky's declaration that homosex causes no "harm". That's not what the Krever inquiry found. Where do people think all that tainted blood came from? No harm? Tell that to the families of those who died from HIV and Hepatitis. About 70% of HIV infections in Canada and are from men who have sex with men (and the rate of infection in that population has been increasing), even though the last census put the entire population of homosexuals and bisexuals at 1.7%. Do the math. We are all paying a huge price for the harm that is a direct result of homosexual behaviour.

So really this article is HATE propaganda against almost all religions. Should you next have these groups wear the star of David? So you can yell Homophopic as they walk by in the gutter? Strange Not my kind of Canada.

so chris are you saying that homosex causes HIV and hapatitis? come on, that's a little far fetched even for you. But perhaps you are at the part of this debate where you really need to grasp at straws to justify your god given right to hate. your a wonderful christian chris, a real gem. On another note, we heard from Fi, who refuses to get married. well, i'll give the perspective from someone who recently got married. I'm hetero and the only reason i say that i am is because of the one arguement that doesn't misrepresent what the bible says is that gay marriage is a threat to the institution of the tradition that marriage is between a man and woman. well, i've never felt threatened by gay marriage and i'm not sure about the theoretical link - perhaps chris kempling could enlighten me. yesterday morning, the cbc interviewed a kemplingite about the societal harms that will result from gay marriage and his claims were centred on the tradition family. only a man and woman can raise a child was the basic claim, despite the fact that many very well balanced people were raised by single mothers. i think that the hate speach that's implicit in the rhetoric of anti-gay-marriage crowd far outweigh freedom of speech. anyway, i've gotta get my arse back to work...

Chris, there's an incredibly simple answer to that: If the virus is brought into an area by a person who wears blue shirts, and he has sex mostly with other people who wear blue shirts, it is fairly likely that people who wear blue shirts will be much more likely to get the virus. World-wide, more straight people have the virus than gay. Your 1.7% estimate seems a bit suspicious, too. Norm, the Brazilian police shot 30,000 nuisance street children last year, and heaven knows, Spain, Germany, Cuba and the U.K. have all taken their turns at human rights abuses. Socialist, or not, whether or not they bring in similar legislation is of no bearing. Stan, with a few exceptions, took your argument apart inch by inch, but then you could have done the same thing, with your excellent brain, if you weren't just playing devil's advocate. Your rhetorical style seems familiar. (Besides being one extended non-sequitur) Oh, yeah, I remember. When Southern intellectuals tried to support their arguments against civil rights for blacks they used them.(In spite of Ann Cools assuring us that the same sex marriage argument is not about civil rights.) We called it "Mississippi Reasoning." Morality is about what we "ought" to do, not about what others are doing. Stan, you're a bit weak on your polygamy argument. Straight or monogamous marriage may cause harm too--hardly a good reason for outlawing it. Norm has drawn you into an unnecessary defence. And as for the polygamy argument, you've fallen into the same error as those who use the "cultural" argument against same sex marriage. Providing gays with all the rights and freedoms the rest of us have is the only way to go. It's a matter of decency and kindness. Norm, you might take a wee look back into the history of people who are treated unfairly. Certainly, people who looked like me would still be working for free if those who resorted to your dishonest kind of reasoning prevailed.

I guess I could be a bit of a cynic and ask just which party is paying the piper here. From my perspective, the answer certainly isn't the churches and especially not the Catholic church. These ecclesiastical corporations continue to enjoy a tax free ride while demanding the right to tell taxpayers, straight or gay, what they can and can't do. I find it extremely insulting that Catholic bishops like the bigot in Calgary, can matter-of-factly compare a homosexual lifestyle to adultery, prostitution and pornography. It's a bit like comparing men of the cloth with the ogres who ran Indian residential schools or those zealots who once championed the slaying of anyone not Christian. Look, when you get to heaven and through the pearly gates you can then tsk, tsk all you want, but until then I'd suggest there are no trade marks or limits of useage on the word marriage.

Oooh, it's all so scary, isn't it? Thus far all I've heard from the moral opponents of same sex marriage (ss&m) is about the precious traditions that will fall by the wayside should we, oh so rashly, extend the same courtesy to gays, lesbians and transgendered individuals. Tradition. A great word for "don't change this, it's frightening and I don't understand". Face it, gay or straight, the tradition is hardly intact. It used to be traditional to stay in a loveless, miserable marriage until you died (thus, "til death do us part"). Not so much a tradition now, eh? How about the tradition of producing as many children as possible, until the wife died in childbirth or simply could no longer conceive? Still doin' that, Kempling? How about the tradition of the ancient Greeks, who kept wives for progeny, but always had a "shield buddy" for real nighttime fun? Care to partake, or does the Spectre scare you? "Tradition" is no longer traditional. Quit trying to save the poor, dead beast, and get on with your actual life. I promise I won't come after your wife, even if I'm allowed to marry her. Geez, people, seems to me if you're that frightened of gaylove or SS&M, you've got troubles with your own relationship that should probably be dealt with before you come and stick your nose into mine.

It seems to me that social institutions survive only when they are able to adjust to changing circumstances (as marriage has done by allowing divorce, for example). True, some that fail are "smashed" and others simply become irrelevant and whither away. But those that remain are typically adjusted by clever "progressive conservatives". Since homosexuals' hard won social acceptance is a fact admitted by all, the true question is what is more likely to preserve marriage: adjusting it slightly to include these newly recognised relationships, or attempt to preserve in it some former state of social relations. I think history suggests the first is the surer course. Those who see a third path are (I think) deluded: civil unions that are de jure "marriages" will either displace marriage, or eventually they will be assimilated, if only for efficiency (all the forms will be identical, as will the registry procedures, and in the end, the name.) Those who ask for the "government" to get out of the marriage business entirely (the "obvious" solution proposed by so many) and make all "marriages" also also pointing down the slippery slope to the decline of the institution. Churches are on then their own, and why should any recognise the "marriages" of the others? Someone will invent a term that falls more trippingly from the tongue than civil union, and "marriage" will go the way of vassalage. As for the off-the-wall isn't it a "human right" also then to let me marry my pet goat can be easily dismissed from this perspective: when it is broadly agreed in society that human-goat relationships are acceptable, say when open goat lovers (or bigamists) are elected to Parliament, then , yes , these too should be considered marriage. Until then, no.

Rib: either we've read & are commenting on ENTIRELY different articles, or you're a total idiot. My money's on the second guess.

Eventually we will find out that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows almost any aspect of our lives to be justified. What a stupid idea it was for Pierre to add this to our cocntitution. It's one huge legal loophole. Just wait until us Neocons start challenging Agricultural Land Reserves and almost anything else we see fit. It's coming, so be prepared for the onslaught.

a relationship by any other name is just as sweet>>>bittersweet>>>bitter>>>divorce>>>sweet >>>bittersweet....

no need for stars of david, rib, they voluntary wear crosses...

Re Chris Kempling: Here's a flash from the past courtesy of the CBC: "Anti-gay teacher can't claim charter protection: B.C. court Last Updated Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:10:49 VANCOUVER - A high school teacher in British Columbia, punished for writing publicly against homosexuality, is not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the province's Supreme Court has ruled. Chris Kempling, a teacher and guidance counsellor in a Quesnel high school said the ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court is "a significant blow to freedom of speech and freedom of religion," denying Christian teachers the right to speak out on controversial issues. Kempling says he intends to appeal the ruling. In 2002, the British Columbia College of Teachers suspended Kempling for one month for "professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a BCCT member." It had been investigating a complaint received after Kempling wrote a series of letters to his local newspaper between 1997 and 2000 saying homosexuality was wrong. One letter said in part: "I refuse to be a false teacher saying that promiscuity is acceptable, perversion is normal, and immorality is simply 'cultural diversity' of which we should be proud." The college said the letters were discriminatory and derogatory, and contrary to its commitment to provide a supportive learning environment for all students. .... "By publicly linking his private, discriminatory views of homosexuality with his status and professional judgment as a teacher and secondary school counsellor, the appellant called into question his own preparedness to be impartial in the fulfilment of his professional and legal obligations to all students, as well as the impartiality of the school system," the judge wrote. read more at cbc's website: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/05/teacher_court040205

One thing we need to know-especially from the people against same-sex marriange-is if they have ever been divorced, especially the MP's who will be voting. How else are we to know how they view the "sanctity of marriage". We know people like Ralph Klein believes in traditional divorce because he is on his second marriage(he likes it so much). By the way, children and animals are not consenting adults.

I think the anti-gay crowd mistakenly thinks public bowery type behaviors exhibited by some gay communities is inherent to homosexuality. I did. I think the anti-gay crowd mistakenly attributes deviant behaviours such as male-pedophilia to homosexuality. I did. I don't understand or approve either of the two examples, but I don't think either of them, among others, are in anyway connected to homosexuality, never mind lesbians, transgenders, or transexuals. Unhealthy and dangerous behaviours are not the domain of anyone group.

Let the church authorize marriages. Let the state (or federal government) authorize civil unions. After all ... Why would a secular couple care what a church has to offer regarding their union? Why would a religious couple consider marrying outside the parameters of their faith? End of story. Still .... I wonder who is paying so much to lobby the government about this issue which serves mostly to detract from real issues like health care and environment and preserving our sovereignty in order to protect our natural resources from warmongering monopolistic buffoons.

The assessment that opposition to gay marriage is ultimately an expression of disgust with homosex itself is dead-on. The fight about the right to call it marriage (as opposed to civil union) is about more than equal legal rights, it's about public legitimacy. It's about a society affirming to it's citizens that there is nothing shameful about one's sexual behaviour, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, as long as it's behaviour which takes place between two competent and consenting adults. Claims that gay marriage is a threat to "the family" seem to rest on the belief that one can "catch" homosexuality (i.e. if we give homosex the public stamp of approval, so many people will become gay that we will no longer have "families" as we know them). Beyond this, the main argument seems to be "God says so" - hardly a convincing basis for public policy. (Interestingly enough, the religious impulse holds about the same relationship to civil society in Canada as the homosexual one -- you're free to behave in accordance with it as long as you don't try to force it on anyone else). In any case, neither of these arguments deserves a response, and I tire of the debate. Let's get it done and move on.

Norman Spector must think that the people who read his columns are pretty stupid and tries logical tricks and non-sequitors to advance his specious logic. Fortunately, it seems that most of the posters here are pretty smart (not all, though...). Therefore they will see that Stan did not equate bi-sexuality and transgendered sexuality with bestiality. He said, "possibly discriminate against bisexuals and transgendered people who want marriages involving more than two people." The second clause qualifies the first as a subset that desires polygamy. And Stan's original article linked polygamy and bestiality as two issues thrown in to confuse the the public about the same-sex marriage issue. Then what about that "the UK, Spain, Brazil, Germany, Cuba" are not considering same-sex marriage (is that a fact; is he sure?). And his point is...? All of a sudden Norman wants us to take our lead from countries who have socialist or social democratic governments? Are there any other things that they do that we should ape? And is there some reason why Canada cannot be a world leader in equality rights? Sorry Norman, you can't pass off your muddled thinking in this forum. We see through it.

Here's a simple solution to the whole problem. Let the 'churches' have exclusive right to matrimony, and the rest of us can happily carry on with marriage. Of course, that dosen't address the real issue that Stan Persky points out.

So...great article, great talkback. Narwhal is right on when he points out that the benefits of marriage are largely (I'm not saying mostly) financial. It's a can of worms for things like inheritance. Anne C has produced a prodigiously entertaining rant which suggests that this issue is, advertently or not, a distraction from more pressing business in the House. As a final question to other posters, what do you make of our intolerance of the intolerant? Surely, fellow small-l's, people are entitled to not like gays. If Stan can recount his affinity for passive anal in a novel extract (Buddies?) for the Vancouver Sun, surely the prim Godlies can be allowed to tut-tut, if not to oppress us "free thinkers."

Mirriam-Webster defines marriage (in part) as: (3) an intimate or close union Well, I guess that settles that!

I really don't want to get married. And what is it with straights and their tacky weddings anyway? I mean, really, every chic-flick revolves around a wedding. And soap operas...don't get me started. Is a big splashy wedding all that a straight girl really really wants and is the only thing to look forward to? $40,000 for a wedding? Give it to the SPCA!!! However, I do believe that "winning" the legal right to this absurd union is important for furthering equal rights (like letting straight women vote, even if they'd rather be flipping through bridal magazines then heading for the polls.) As for "straight" conservatives that would prefer a homo like me not to marry...fine, but quit collecting $$$ from me at work for every f***ing wedding and baby shower (breeders!) Also, not sure if all of you know this, but you can deduct your same-sex partner on your T1, similar to opposite (opposing?) sex partners living common law...it (quietly) became law several years ago. I've been getting a whopping deduction for the last several years for my house husband since he doesn't earn any money (though he does cook and do laundry...when he's not watching all those weddings on soap operas all day long.) And, lastly, before the flaming starts, please realize that my tongue is firmly planted in (my own) cheek: I really don't bear any ill will towards straight people, married with children or not, or straight women in particular, though I would personally never spend that much money on my nails. Cheers!

Ron- no one here is saying people aren't entitled to not like gays- heck, I don't like a lot of things. I'm sure you don't either. I don't particularly like the guy who broke into my friend's house the other night (but B pounded him nicely before he got away- turns out the description he gave to the police matches that of a known thief/sexual assaulter who has been breaking in a lot around our neighbourhood; yours and mine, Ron). Hold on... I think I'm on the wrong thread; I wanted to add to Anne's awesome comments on the Pit Bull thread- yeah, see- it was a "30-ish male" who B found in his house when the alarm went off- I'm not kidding!! It WASN'T a pitbull breaking in- can you believe it?? Ok, sorry for going off topic there... and Ron, I liked your article in Shared Vision :)

Fascinating comments -- a couple comments/questions of my own: 1) Stan, thanks for laying out clearly the idea that it's reasonable for the state to be involved in marriage licensing because marriage (at least a healthy one) benefits society. If I read you right, you suggest that producing children is not the defining benefit; rather, coupling is the essential element of marriage. To be slightly more precise, would you consider sexual coupling to be the defining benefit of marriage, or would a platonic two-person cohabitation be equally profitable for the community? I currently have a roommate who is not my sexual partner -- if we were to live together long-term, would our cohabitation be sufficiently good for society to justify the special state endorsement of a marriage license? Various people, from gay-marriage opponents to the Law Commission of Canada, see no logical reason why we would not have the right to a marriage license; what do you think on that? 2) Chris Kempling, good on you for continuing to exercise your free speech, despite the exceeding scariness of the CBC and its "archives." And no one has answered Chris' challenge except by ad hominem, with the partial exception of Truman. But Truman, are you suggesting that Hep C and HIV spread equally fast within the heterosexual community -- that is, that just as high a percentage of heterosexuals would have these diseases today if in, say, 1980 the number of infected persons in the heterosexual and homosexual communities had been proportionate (to use Chris' numbers, if in 1980 there had been 59 infected heterosexuals for every infected homosexual)? If that's what you're suggesting, you've (mostly) rebutted Chris' point. If that's not what you're suggesting, you haven't. Even if you haven't, there is no more reason to prohibit homosex than there is to ban junk food, though there might be as much reason not to promote homosex as there is not to promote smoking. But there is at least good reason to encourage people not to engage in the stereotypical gay lifestyle (lots of sex, many partners). Now, I'm sure someone out that could give an intelligent rebuttal to Chris' points or my own. Perhaps someone would go to the effort to do so.

Very interesting discussion thread. In reply to Andrei, here's what Stan wrote: "Mr. Spector raises the spectre that two-person same sex marriage will either create a slippery slope to other terrible forms of relationships or possibly discriminate against bisexuals and transgendered people who want marriages involving more than two people. This is what I call the "sex with your goat" argument." In my view, the issue of bestiality has no place anywhere in a discussion of human sexual orientation--either on the right or on the left.

Joel, it's not so much about offering a rebuttal to the statistics that Kempling uses. I could do the research to confirm numbers, or perhaps I could use the statistics and studies to draw different conclusions of my own. I just simply have better things to do – but it does not mean that I cannot offer a rebuttal of my own. The criticisms of kempling do not stem from his use of statistics, it’s his insinuations. Kempling, first and foremost, believes that homosexuality is wrong. In past posts, he’s made it abundantly clear that his beliefs stem from his faith, and he uses numbers to insinuate cause and effect. Why? Because, I my opinion, he preaches hatred of the other, then he cowardly hides behind free speech when the alarm bells go off. You may praise kempling for fighting for free speech, but where does that fine line stop for you Joel? Is the KKK just exercising free speech when they’re burning crosses?

Fantastic article. It sums up what I have observed since the issue has been in the spotlight recently. I have come to the conclusion that all those that are "defending" traditional marriage are doing it because of their belief that homosexuality is a harmful, deviant behaviour. Any other argument is pretty much irrelevant. Remember, they aren't arguing that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt. They aren't arguing that acts of homosexuality should be illegal. They aren't even arguing that homosexual couples shouldn't have the same rights and responsibilities of traditionally married couples. They merely want to preserve their belief that homosexuality is deviant. That is what defending the word "marriage" is all about. It would be refreshing if Stephen Harper would stand up and be upfront about this. It seems that there are still a lot of bigots out there. No need to defend my traditional marriage. It will still be there tomorrow.

what do the harperites have against two people affirming their love for one another in front of their friends and family in possibly a religious setting? is`nt the fact that the two people love each other enough that they want to affirm that in marrige good enough? these are simple questions and i would ask all the naysayers to explain themselves on this.

what do the harperites have against two people affirming their love for one another in front of their friends and family in possibly a religious setting? is`nt the fact that the two people love each other enough that they want to affirm that in marrige good enough? these are simple questions and i would ask all the naysayers to explain themselves on this.

M, thanks for the response. Three comments: 1) Do you know Kempling personally? I don't. However, I would love to witness a meeting between the two of you in which neither of you knew who the other was. I suspect that you would find Chris Kempling very easy to get along with, a very decent person who was very respectful toward others, etc. It would be most delightful to see your consternation two months later when you realized that this very nice person was in fact the diabolical Chris Kempling. Of course, I could be wrong about what Chris Kempling is like, since I don't know him, and the fact that he was very nice may of course not change the fact that you believe his views about sexuality are morally wrong. But I do know other people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong, and who also do not hate homosexuals. Contrary to exercising or preaching hatred of the other, they are all about love for the other. You (and, from the opposite side of the debate, I) have to face the fact that many who disagree with us are even better people than ourselves, and that we need to address the rightness or wrongness of their views in their own right -- that we will have a hard time finding any supplementary help for our position by talking about what type of person our opponent is. 2) I think you're right that "Kempling, first and foremost, believes that homosexuality is wrong." However, most of us can agree that government in our society in many respects does not deal with questions of right versus wrong, but rather of beneficial versus harmful. Our law and government tries to encourage things that benefit society and to discourage things that harm it. If the name and motivations of Kempling are too distracting for you, you can deal with his statistics (and their implications for the issue of benefit versus harm) by imagining that a medical official who believes that homosexuality is not wrong also becomes convinced that stereotypical homosex practices actually do carry unusually high risks of contracting Hep C or HIV. How would that official deal with the issue? He would have to a) discover that he was mistaken about the health risks, b) decide that government should not specifically endorse homosex since it is bad for people's health, or c) identify public benefits to be gained from government endorsation of homosex that would override any health detriment created, and thus justify such governement endorsation. The fact that Kempling's real concern might be his religious or moral views does not change the fact that the benefit/harm issues he raises may be a big concern for the public and many individuals, quite apart from any religious or moral ideas. 3) I will have to admit that I'm not sure where the fine line of free speech should stop, being, as it is, a very fine line. However, if the case of the KKK and burning crosses, I'm not aware that by burning crosses the KKK is trying to say anything about benefits or harms to society or its members -- they're simply making an inarticulated statement of their desire for white supremacy. They are not raising any issue that demands public debate -- they are not giving us any reason to think that white supremacy is beneficial to society, or that non-white presence is detrimental to society. By contrast, most of us would agree that Hep C and AIDS are not pleasant diseases for anyone to get, and that it would be good to help all Canadians, within the framework of any sexual lifestyle, to minimize the risks of getting these diseases. If Kempling's numbers are even remotely within the ballpark of accuracy (and I don't know one way or the other), then he is raising a valid issue for public discussion. There would be reason not to specially promote the stereotypical many-partner gay lifestyle, or at least to help homosexuals be aware of potential health risks so that they could protect themselves as they saw fit, as is currently done for tobacco smokers. If Kempling's numbers are wrong, then someone should demonstrate them to be so so that the ignorant masses would not be deceived by his propaganda. Or even if his numbers are partially right, his opponents may be able to make a strong case that a homosexual lifestyle should be specifically endorsed anyway, and that it is not in the public's interest to be aware of the figures Kempling presents. But the burden of proof rests upon his opponents to show why this is so, and thereby to show that he should not have the right of free speech to raise the issue. And please do not say that it would be a bad idea to debate with him because that would publicly legitimize his views. I assure you that there are millions of Canadians who already believe that his views are legitimate. When people refuse to debate these issues, it only reassures me that they are probably wrong, since they don't have the courage to address their critics' arguments. If people like myself are wrong in our views, we need to be shown our error so that we can change and stop harming ourselves and others. Likewise for those of opposing views. All of this will take hard work and patient discussion, but in the process we'll have some fun, come to appreciate each other more, and maybe make some good policy. Or we could just yell at each other.

I wonder why proponents of this issue feel the need to label opponents of same-sex marriage (who may also be supportive of same-sex cdivil union) as hate-driven? Clearly it's a tactic to muddy genuine discussion (who can have a debate with hate-mongers, right?).

Joel, I must say, thank you for your response. Believe me, I’m all for civilized debate over yelling at each other. Apologies if I have come across that way. Anyway, you’ve taken the time to respond to me, so I’ll do the same – I’ll have to keep it short due to time so I must warn you that this may not be as articulate as I’d like; regardless I’ll address each of your points, albeit briefly. 1. Perhaps making comments about the character of chris kempling isn’t the most articulate way to go; however, he has, in past posts on this site, cited very biased studies about homosexuality that I find questionable (again, I’m not going back to find specifics quotes, etc.) When someone makes a derogatory post about women, immigrants, gays, it stirs something up in me. Should kempling be silenced? Perhaps not – I do believe in the freedom of speech. But when someone’s speech implicates that the way someone is, not through choice, is morally wrong, I feel that we cannot stand by and let that happen. Whether or not kempling is a nice guy is irrelevant. He has, in the past, expressed hate toward a group of people, cited questionable studies to support his beliefs, then hid behind the tenants of free speech when someone (the BCCT) said to him, “no teaching your bigoted views”. It is hate Joel, in spite of your claim that you “know other people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong, and who also do not hate homosexuals”. I believe that is an impossibility. Ignorance, fear, and hatred of the other Joel, there’s not much separation. 2. Your second point discusses harm versus benefits to society. How gay marriage or homosex harms society still remains a mystery to me. And bringing up homosex behaviour Joel, that harkens back to the 1980’s when little was publicly known about AIDS other than it was a gay disease. What is homosex behaviour Joel? As far as I can tell that only difference is it (at it’s most basic) involves two individuals of the same sex. Heteros engage in the same sexual activities as gays Joel. I think that distinguishing homosex behaviours from hetrosex behaviours is a display of ignorance. If you’re referring to promiscuous, unsafe sexual practices that increase the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, then you must know that both gays and straits partake in such activities. 3. Free speech. Should people be silenced for inducing hate? I think that’s a topic for a different thread, plus I’ve touched on it already. Suffice to say the white supremacists, in some form (i.e. Nazis) used science in a similar way that kempling does. Obviously kempling isn’t suggesting the same extremes but to twist scientific enquiry (and statistics is a form of scientific enquiry) to justify the superiority of your way of life is arrogant and smacks of bigotry.

The same-sex marriage debate is extremely informative. If we look closely at the arguments presented on this thread it’s possible to see a connection to issues, present and historical, that draw heated debate and argument from all sides.

References to faulty logic are not all that uncommon as each side tries to support their claim. Unfortunately, Stan Persky’s arguments suffer from errors of logic that others in the debate have used. Persky makes the claim that we need to see the “‘state’ as ‘us’, collectively” if we are going to “see how marriage works”. This is the basis for the entire argument. The premise here is that “us” and the “state” are the same and therefore the state is really us speaking for us. This is like saying an ant colony is just the result of a collection of ants or a bee’s nest is just the result of a collection of bees.

Unfortunately we can’t simply look at the collective to see how a particular behaviour works: it is much more complex. And the failure to recognize this error in deductive reasoning can and has led to some very destructive results. The error here is one of basing the argument on a faulty premise, and if you start with a faulty premise the rest of the argument is faulty.

This error can be further compounded by a couple of fallacies: The “group think” fallacy, which says that if the majority decides a certain activity, belief or behaviour is harmful, it must be harmful; and the “stop think fallacy” which follows group think and says if the majority believes this to be true we needn’t think any further. Society was recently reminded of the power and destructiveness of this thinking: This is the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

The state, in addition to the “us”, is a collection of fictions that have evolved to control the behaviour of members of the state (lots of historical evidence). Population size, the relative level of affluence, the environment, and historical precedent are some of the factors that determine the kinds and numbers of fictions that develop within the state. These fictions become the environmental variables that shape social, economic and political evolution, and that ultimately influence the decisions made by the collective. History reminds us that these fictions cannot be ignored.

Perhaps it is time to stop examining these issues from a purely logical perspective and approach the debate by asking some different questions. Why is the acceptance of same-sex marriage so painful? Who is in pain? What is the source of the pain? The folks that seem to want to condemn same-sex sex and same-sex marriage must find acceptance of these behaviours extremely painful. And given that the objects of their scorn are not causing them direct pain (not hitting, biting, kicking them, or threatening their wellbeing in any way) the pain they're experiencing is a result of pain-related judgmental labeling that forms the basis of their thinking.

Mr. Persky seems unable to grasp the distinction between a "freedom", a "right" and a "constitutional right". And that's pretty scarey, since he apparently teaches philosophy at Capilano College. I understand him to be saying that there is a constitutional right to any activity which is not directly harmful to anyone else. Not just a freedom. Not just a right. A constitutional right. And since Mr. Persky believes "everything is a matter of taste", I guess he's including "anything that's a matter of taste" as a protected ground under Section 15 of the Charter. I guess that's where the goat comes in.

Chris, I think it is apparent that sexual promiscuity is the reason that the homosexual community contracted aids in such high numbers after it was first introduced to North American. It can therefore be deduced that it was a homosexual person who brought the virus from wherever it originated, probably Africa. If this is true, there is plenty of cause to criticize those who practise dangerous sexual behavior. Even so, it does not follow that it is the sexual orientation that is at fault, and which should be condemned or disapproved of. I think my "blue shirt" analogy applies here. If the virus had been introduced to North America by heterosexual people, and they had sex almost exclusively, or even predominantly with other heterosexual people, there is no reason to believe that the heterosexual community would not have contracted the virus in similar proportionality. It is well-documented that the African infection is by far greatest in the heterosexual community, and that is undoubtedly because it was introduced via heterosexuals, who had dangerous, unprotected sex. It is true that the North American virus is a slightly different mutation of the original simian virus,(I happen to believe it was SV40 or a mutation resulting from pharmaceutical laboratory manipulation) but it is not deniable that each responds to unsafe sexual practises in a similar fashion. I don't think this is a very difficult problem. To reinterate: The fault is unsafe sex, not sexual orientation. And it must therefore logically follow that objections to same sex marriage, as presented by Joel and Chris Kempling, so far as they condemn promiscuous sex, are in effect, ENDOSEMENTS for the same-sex marriage that they unwittingly attempt to condemn. Surely, committed monogamous relationships are a bulwark against promiscuous behaviour, and therefore against the HIV virus. The main fault of Joel's argument against a "homosexual lifestyle" is that he, A PRIORI, equates it to dangerous sexual promiscuity. While it certainly seems apparent that many homosexuals have engaged in such practises, and many have paid the ultimate price, to suggest that there is an intrinsic link between homosexuality and promiscuity is to rely on a serious logical error. There is, of course, another very obvious problem with Joel and Chris' association of HIV with homosexuality--as a lifestyle or a sexual orientation: Last I heard lesbians are homosexuals too. There is no evidence that the incidence of aids is prevalent among lesbians. Without resorting to ad hominem displays, I suggest that Joel's entire comment is based upon an obvious logical error: the implicit claim that homosexuality MUST embody a dangerous lifestyle, or is in fact, intrinsically dangerous. As an intended victim of the KKK, I'll remain silent on Joel's farcical,(oops) introduction of that organization into this discussion, and resist my weakness for ad hominem displays.

What annoys me most about the religious leaders who have waded into this debate is this: - Charter rights and freedoms are great when they support what religious leaders want to preach (including freedom of speech that supports the dissemination of hate). - Charter rights should be suspended (through the use of the notwithstanding clause) when they don't support what religious leaders want to preach. It's been more difficult for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to feel included and welcomed by their respective religious institutions and faiths, lately.

Are you sure, Norman. Red herrings are animals, eh.

"The same-sex marriage debate is extremely informative. If we look closely at the arguments presented on this thread it’s possible to see a connection to issues, present and historical, that draw heated debate and argument from all sides." wrote KWD.

A very good piece that about nails it. Best of the lot, in my view.

Truman too, has it about right if my recollections and knowledge have it about right re AIDS in this country. Some considerable time ago now, I believe it was CBC TV, the major source for much of my "news", did a programme on the orihin of AIDS in this country, as near as it could be deduced at the time. Again, if my memory serves, it was a male Quebecois homosexual flight attendant for, I believe Air Canada ( or then mayhaps still TCA), who was clearly something of a sexual "chain smoker", who left a blazed trail of conquests and AIDS around the world, but especially in this country and the US, who is thought to have been the bringer and initial spreader AIDS on this side of the ocean, certainly in Canada. (Amongst which community it has remained "largely" confined, spreading "mainly" to junkies.) Now whether this story has stood the test of time, and this fellow is still accepted to have been the bringer of this plague here or not, I do not know.

In any case, while I personally consider the main issue of concern this thread to be one of the more minor and frivilous political issues out there, sorry, it has been interesting to see how some minds and predilections work, on all sides of the debate. :-) (Though I can understand how the queer community might certainly differ.)

My attitude to "same sex" marriage?

I'm certainly not about to become a champion of this marginal cause, to my mind, but what the hell's the harm? "They" want to marry, let'em marry and settle the silly fuss, fer chrissake. (And that from a man my daughter says, is the most married heterosexual man she knows.

Some things are important and some are not. This is a tempest in a teapot, of more usefulness to those with an interest in setting folks against one another. If heterosexual marriage can't survive this "Carry On Laughing" episode, best to just let it go anyway. (And ohhh, I suspect it is going to survive all the bitterness and rancor of this crew, just fine. :-)

Oops! There goes the oven alarm. My bread is done.

The Catholic church continues to practice and encourage the oppression of women so of course they're going to encourage the oppression of homosexuals. It's what they seem to do best and enjoy doing it.

Yes - it is about Homosex. Hopefully Neocons will realize that sexuality is diverse enough in its "normal" manifestations that Homosex shouldn't be something to worry about. Homosex does have social implications, (just imagine a transgendered team entered in a curling bonspiel). But so does divorce and multiple partners. As for marriage -- it's many things too. Sometimes it's just a "Hey neighbours -- I'm shagging the love of my life -- come have a beer and some roast beef". Neocons have trouble with any change.

Truman: Good post -- you've given us evidence suggesting that, all circumstances being equal, there is nothing intrinsic in same-sex sex that would cause Hep C or HIV to spread any faster than they would via opposite-sex sex. By the way, health issues are not the main element in my thinking about same-sex marriage, which I've been thinking about a lot recently. In fact, I don't think I'd recently thought about health issues at all until I read Chris' post, and -- guess what -- it resonated with me, especially since nobody had rebutted his points. I'm a good illustration of why you need to address critics' ideas with evidence and argument, as you just did. Still, I need to answer a few points. First of all, I did not introduce the KKK into the discussion: M did, in a direct question to me, to which I responded. Secondly, I did not claim a priori that homosexuality involves promiscuity; note that in both of my posts I referred to the STEREOTYPICAL gay lifestyle. As far as I know the 1980s (and more recent) stereotype of homosexuals is that they usually have many sexual partners over time. I did not mean to claim that this stereotype accurately describes the majority of homosexuals, because I certainly do not have evidence that that is the case. And I am sure that it is fully possible for a homosexual to be monogamous and that many are. Still, neither can I assume that the stereotype is wholly incorrect, since, again, I don't have evidence on the topic. I believe I have read in mainstream newspapers (could be wrong on this) that some advocates of same-sex marriage have indicated that in same-sex marriages there might be a somewhat different understanding of the sexual monogamy ideal. That suggested to me that liasing with a number of partners over time (or sometimes even within the same time frame) was still part of the ethos of much of the gay community. I would be happy to be corrected on that. So far you've demonstrated that there is no intrinsic link between a homosexual orientation and promiscuous behaviour and that some homosexuals are not promiscuous, both of which I agree with. I think you've also implied that through safe-sex practices a person can have many partners over time without any undue risk of contracting disease, which may well be correct as well. If on the other hand there is any accuracy in Kempling's figures and IF any of this prevalence of disease is due to a continuing multiple-partner ethos within a large majority of the gay community, then by specifically promoting without qualification the goodness of homosexual sex in, say, school curriculum (I think that might have been Kempling's original beef), government would in effect be promoting a multiple-partner lifestyle that would not be beneficial either to society as a whole or to homosexuals in particular. Now, that's a ridiculous numbers of if's, and I am NOT claiming that they are true. For all I know, promiscuity may be very rare in the gay community. Also, as Truman points out, to promote same-sex marriage would be to promote monogamy, which would lessen the supposed health risks. On that point I must concede for the purposes of the present argument, and more monogamy in either the homosexual or heterosexual communities would be a good thing. But in any case, perhaps a member of the homosexual community or another knowledgeable poster could clue me in on the typical present-day thinking and practices within that community regarding monogamy, number of partners, etc. I'd appreciate that.

virtually everyone tut-tuts at one thing or another, that's why the CCRF is there is ensure certain ones don't invade an individual's right to be

M, thanks for your response; my comment on "the impossibility" of believing homosexuality is morally wrong and yet not hating homosexuals. Apologies if you've heard all this a nauseating number of times. I agree with you that it is not morally wrong to have a homosexual orientation -- to have desires that one did not ask for. But to be upfront, I am one of those who believe that homosexual intercourse is morally wrong. I know that will make you roll your eyes, and no less than a Supreme Court justice has agreed with you that "hate the sin, love the sinner" is an impossible and dangerous idea. But I have a hard time believing that you actually believe that. Do you hate murderers as much as you hate murder, thieves as much as you hate theft, particularly if the offender in question was your own child? I think I was 8 or 9 when my Mom told me, emotionally and unsolicited, that she would always love me whether I turned out good, bad, or indifferent. I don't know whether she has forgotten that occasion or remembered it every day through gritted teeth, but she has certainly always lived up to it. And since I've been guilty of plenty of anti-social behaviour in my life, I hope she's not the only one who cares for me despite what my actions deserve. Furthermore, I think that the majority of the people who consider homosexual intercourse to be morally wrong do so on the basis of religious beliefs. That being the case, you have to understand the religious context for this idea that actions which are near and dear to a person's identity could be immoral. I can actually speak only as an evangelical Christian, and there only on my own understanding of the tenets of that faith, but those tenets include that idea that a great many types of actions are immoral, and that all people have an inborn urge to do a number of those things. It's called original sin. It may be an archaic idea, but many of us still hold to it. So when we say that someone is doing something immoral, something that they were born with and that is near and dear to who they feel themselves to be, this does not translate as "I hate you" but rather as "Welcome to the club." Believe me, the person whose sin (including sexual sin) I think about the most is the person who looks at me out of the mirror. This does not make me depressed; rather, I have hope because of all the people who have respected and accepted me despite their disapproval of some of my actions. I would imagine that we all, whether religious or not, have experienced a lot of that.

In answer to Greg the Home- no. And no, and no. You clearly have been hanging out with/buying some twisted stereotype of a "straight" girl. Do you honestly watch soap operas?? If so, you probably fit better into that stereotype than most straight girls do.

I have never had my nails done, had a facial, waxed my legs etc. I do give to the SPCA actually, every month :) I have never "dreamed" of a wedding and let's be serious- who buys the "white" dress bs?? HUH!! I would be laughed out of the church (that would be for my mum's benefit- the church) Heck, I would laugh myself out of the church.

I agree with many of your observations though, and I've wondered since I was about 6 what all the frills and wedding mags are about- and under "women's interest" on the mag shelves- ARGH!!!!! What planet is this?! But see, these stereotypes are at the root of misunderstanding. Above posts have gone off about how homosexual males and their promiscuous ways have brought AIDS to our society. But not all gay men ARE promiscuous; how many of these people have gay friends? The stereotype DOES involve promiscuity- and if I weren't a straight female I too would think we are all a bunch of self-indulgent princesses dreaming about weddings if I got most of my info from pop culture. But I'm me and I know better- and now you do too :)

Oh Geez, just read Joel's post above- I was kidding, Joel, I would wear the white dress- really....

Again, thanks to the many people who have taken the time to comment on my article and contribute to the discussion. I'll try to respond to a few of the comments, and I'm available at

if you'd like a direct e-mail response. * 1) For me, the most important voices in the same sex marriage debate currently are straight marrieds, thousands of whom (some on this site) have said words to the effect, "The prospect of same sex marriage doesn't at all threaten my marriage or me, undermine the family, devalue a traditional institution, or damage society. I'm all for it. Come on in, the water's fine." Such voices are important because they again and again show that the argument against same sex marriage is very weak and the debate mostly phoney. * 2) Again, it's important not to make blanket condemnations of "religion" or "the church" in this discussion. The Roman Catholic Church and other denominations are stridently against same sex marriage, same sex sex, same sex everything. But the United Church of Canada and the Metropolitan Community Church support gay relationships and consecrate them. The Anglican Church in Canada, thanks especially to the courage of Vancouver-area church officials, have initiated an important debate about same sex. This week, in the Globe, I read a position paper by an Islamic group in support of same sex marriage and Canadian constitutional values, so it's even false to treat Islamic believers as an undifferentiated mass. Perhaps most important, there are thousands of Catholics who disagree with their church's position on all of this. Those dissenting Catholics ought to write vigorous letters to church officials protesting the church's position or to signal their opposition in whatever other ways are appropriate. * 3) The claims that homosex causes harm (through Aids) is false and contributor Joel's efforts, however sincere, to keep this thread afloat, are misguided. Both Michael's and Truman Green's responses to him have been helpful and accurate. * Aids is a terrible disease that mostly afflicts heterosexuals (in Africa) and we should be providing medicine (as the Chretien government, and UN representative Stephen Lewis proposed) to relieve the suffering. * Most homos in North America who became infected with the Aids virus and spread it (in the 1960s and 70s), did so before anyone knew there was an Aids virus. Once people knew there was a deadly virus, people changed their sexual practices as well as their blood-donating practices and the infection rate went down drastically. Joel, there are now several histories of this 20-year-old story available, and you ought to read some of them rather than wearing yourself out reinventing the wheel of argument. I know a little bit about this, because I played a minor role in the education and care campaign by being a member of the board of directors of AIDS Vancouver for a few years during the height of the health crisis in the mid- and late 1980s. Beware of people who twist a grain of half-truth, whether from the Krever Commission or other documents, if they have an axe to grind. * Where people willfully spread the Aids virus with intent to harm, we have specific amendments to the Canadian assault laws to deal with that issue. Typically, people charged with that crime have been heterosexuals who have willfully infected women. * 4) KWD faults me for logical errors, and then goes off on a long tangent about the nature of the "state." It's possible for philosophy teachers to make errors in logic, even though we allegedly have some expertise in the subject. But this isn't really the place for a debate on the state. I was trying, in a very unfancy way, to explain why in Canada, and countries like ours, we provide benefits (on taxes and other things) to people who marry. The largest part of our motivation concerns children (whom we regard as a general benefit to the society as a whole), but we don't restrict benefits to couples who have children, but extend them to all couples, because we believe, rightly or wrongly, that couples provide benefits of stability and civility to the society as large. It's a pretty simple idea, and a reasonable one, I think. Those of us who are not the marrying kind, like me, oughtn't to object to such benefits. Presumably gay marrieds do and will contribute in the same way to such social integration and, of course, many gay people have children, and/or raise children. To Joel, who asks if merely old friends can get married and access marriage benefits if the same sex marriage law goes through, I suppose so, but it isn't really playing the game fairly. I've shared a house with a housemate for over 35 years, someone I dearly love (we're probably among the most stable people in the neighbourhood), but the relationship is a friendship, not one that would lead to marriage and if we decided to get married for merely tax purposes it would be a kind of cheating. Surely, Joel, you understand the idea of marriage sufficiently (even in these changing times) to recognize the differences between various relationships. * Someone describing themself as "Goat" faults me for failing to distinguish between freedom, rights, and constitutional rights, and further feels impelled to sneer that I "apparently" teach philosophy at Cap College. I don't "apparently" teach, I do in fact teach philosophy at Cap College, and I've been teaching there for over 20 years. Goat, put your sneers in the fridge, where they'll keep. * On constitutional rights: We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We also have statutory law, such as the Criminal Code. Both are designed to protect individuals and groups, and to draw the lines of freedom. It says, in effect, that the state or society can't interfere with your actions unless you cause direct, measurable harm to others. Homosex doesn't cause such harm. If you don't cause harm, you are otherwise free to act and access benefits. Insofar as the society provides benefits and services, it says people have an equal right to them. This is not complicated or intellectually tricky. * I'm fully aware that this issue is not simply a matter of formal law. Several people have pointed out that the debate has large socio-political dimensions and, beyond that, involves feelings, attitudes, and values. I agree with those people. It's one of the reasons that I wrote an article saying the same sex marriage debate is phoney and that the real issue is opposition to homosex. * My special thanks to Michael, Truman Green, Paul Abbott, Andrei, Ron Y, Fi, Chris H., David for your contributions to the discussion.

To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia: 'As we have several times emphasized, not even marriage is a true sacrament, but only marriages between Christians. One becomes and remains a Christian in the sense recognized here through valid baptism. Hence only one who has been validly baptized can contract a marriage which is a sacrament.' The Catholic Church does not recognize the sacramental validity of marriages that occur between non-baptized persons such as Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs, yet it makes common cause with many of these faith communities in its battle against same-sex marriage. Evidently the members of these religions are quite willing to overlook the little fact that their own unions are not recognized as authentic marriages by the papal magisterium. Heterosexuals in Canada no longer have exclusive ownership of the word 'marriage' and many of them are enraged by this. It is an offence against the sumptuary laws of patriarchal heterosexism that people who would once have been thrown into prison or committed to asylums now have the affront to demand marriage and will not settle for anything less than full equality under the law. How dare they: it's time to put them back in their place. But unless Canada embraces theocratic fascism as its preferred form of governance, it's a little late for that -- much to the chagrin of all religious enthusiasts everywhere. Of course, the United Church and some other Christian and Jewish denominations are notable exceptions to this: in addition to same-sex civil marriage, same-sex religious marriage is now a possibility. The implications for ecumenical dialogue are, fortunately, tragic.

"thanks to the many people who have taken the time to comment on my article and contribute to the discussion."

Stan, you flatter yourself. This topic and thread ain't yours to be giving participation marks. Mind you, you get a gold star for pulling the cork and pouring the first glass.

Joel, what is the source and substance of that moral high ground you stand on? I try to think of my own moral high ground examples to see if there's any relation to yours... alas, no insight. Anyway, thank christ you aren't citing verse and chapter here. I'll give you that.

I've come to learn that anti-homosexual attitudes can be traced to this society's patriarchal roots, in particular, the roots of the christianity itself. By patriarchy I mean pro-male yet equally anti-female, including all characteristics perceived as female. Subsequently, should any male ever display a perceived female (or feminine) trait then this was (and still is) akin to being that dreaded half of humanity. How many insults are rooted in this belief? I mean, there are female-hating insults thrown around on the lawns of Prince George as I speak! (Just kidding, Hedi.) I grew up in the thick of this homophobic (& racist, & anti-difference) society... all the typical machismo bullshit and the corresponding hatred of women and all things labelled feminine. However, though circumstance and much luck I was able to step back and view that behaviour in others and see myself, and I truly saw how ugly that dogma was, but more importantly how it came to infest my own thinking and behaviours. In fact, I still battle to weed out those characteristics, which isn't easy given my own past and this society's.

I wish I could simply dismiss the christians (or any other group of zealots) and say 'you're entitled to your opinions, just keep them to yourself' but I know better than to think it's that easy. Christianity (regardless of sect) holds itself as imperial and structures itself to be invasive. And this issue is one more example of that. So buck up fearless secular leaders, 'cause you know what lies ahead in these times we live.

I’ve been giving some thought Joel about this debate. I originally said that the reason that I’m not offering a rebuttal to the numbers regarding HIV or Hep C is because I don’t want to do the research. I’m not academically lazy; I just don’t have the time within the little 15 minute breaks I have to check the latest goings on via the tyee. But there is another reason why I’m not going to confirm (or disconfirm) the numbers and that is because I think that they are irrelevant given the context within which they are utilized. Proper empirical research involves finding fact, or proof, or whatever you want to call it, to support a hypothesis. In addition to that, the research sources (be it primary or secondary) must have a solid theoretical link to the main research question. Because of what we now know about HIV and STDs in general, drawing a connection between the prevalence of such diseases in order to “prove” the deviance of homosex is incredibly weak. What also irks me a little is that when the theory was called into question, you placed the onus on others to answer the statistics cited by kempling. Until a strong theoretical link can be drawn, disproving the stats is totally irrelevant to this debate. In my opinion it boils down to using a weak theoretical argument to hide an even weaker theological belief. Which brings me to my next point: you’ve finally admitted to living your life based on your evangelical beliefs. Contrary to what KJ says, I think that I’d rather you quote scripture instead of asking people to refute questionable statistics that are not at the crux of the debate. I’m sure I don’t need to go further, but where in the bible does it explicitly condemn homosexuality? I have yet to read or hear of a verse that does. What about other explicit rules that are written in scripture such as how women are to be subservient to men, etc. I guess Joel what it boils down to is how can Christians claim to be followers of a lord that teaches about loving thy neighbour yet goes the extra mile to ensure that people of differing lifestyles (that are not harming anyone else, or society in general) are not held in the same regard. I was nineteen when I left the church for very similar reasons – almost the same amount of time has past and I still don’t have an answer.

Michael you ask, "but where in the bible does it explicitly comdemn homosexuality?" Perhaps: Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." The bible also says: 1st. Corinthians 14:34-35 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Furthermore: 1st Timothy, 11 and 12: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." You might wish to google, "bible-homosexuality" for a huge discussion of this quotation, but I think it is not really possible to dispute the fact that the bible, at least in Leviticus, DOES actually condemn homosexuality. In light of what it says about the role of women on this planet, however, can we really take anything it says very seriously?

I'm talking explicitly Truman. Perhaps i'm stretching the literal interpretation of things but "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination". Of course it’s an abomination. How can one lie with a man as you would a woman, it's anatomically impossible? ;) I have googled the topic and that’s why I’m confident when I ask people such as Joel and Kempling to show where the bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. Even if the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is mentioned, that too can be analyzed because of how it was translated. Interesting that this verse is from leviticus - does that particular book also say that it's ok to sell our daughters into slavery?

(Below is what I sent to the neo-Con party through their website - note the definition of religious rights at bottom - a concept I didn't see any media mention when the firebreathers stated their claims.) Well, I entertained the idea that you may have been on to something with the same-sex issue, however it is apparent that the louder the religious groups cry, the stronger I feel we need to support the same-sex marriage bill before the parliament. It is plain as day why we need this legislation. It is clear the opponents wish to impose their view on everyone - they are, as always bullies. The bill does not force them to adhere in their ceremonies. And YES equality rights MUST trump religious rights - what next, women forcedout of work and into the kitchen because it interferes with "religious" rights . NO - Religious rights are the right to worship, not the right of any religious sect to impose their views on everyone else. The neo-Conservative Party of Canada has made a major miscalculation.

(Below is what I sent to the neo-Con party through their website - note the definition of religious rights at bottom - a concept I didn't see any media mention when the firebreathers stated their claims.) Well, I entertained the idea that you may have been on to something with the same-sex issue, however it is apparent that the louder the religious groups cry, the stronger I feel we need to support the same-sex marriage bill before the parliament. It is plain as day why we need this legislation. It is clear the opponents wish to impose their view on everyone - they are, as always bullies. The bill does not force them to adhere in their ceremonies. And YES equality rights MUST trump religious rights - what next, women forcedout of work and into the kitchen because it interferes with "religious" rights . NO - Religious rights are the right to worship, not the right of any religious sect to impose their views on everyone else. The neo-Conservative Party of Canada has made a major miscalculation.

Michael, I hope you got my point: Who cares what it says in these goofy holy books?

got it Truman - how does one show tongue in cheek on these web boards eh?

how does one show tongue in cheek on these web boards eh? maybe like this :p cheers

1)For what it is worth I agree that Persky is correct when he expresses his opinion that many of the "anti-gay marriage" crowd are really just "anti-gay sex". Just as many of the people who want to make abortion a crime are more concerned about pre marital (heterosexual) sex than about abortion itself. But it's just his opinion, which he is entitled to hold, and even share. But I fail to see how he can claim he is "right" and those who disagree are "wrong", and I fail even more to see how it can justify all the name calling language from both side used to support their opinions. 2) I may have missed it, but I did try to read all the posts, and I do not recall seeing anyone say that that one reason those who are uneasy about legalizing gay "marriage" has to do with the role of the family in society, including child bearing and child rearing. It is an undeniable fact that only heterosexual couplings can produce children. That is a fact that should at least cause one to pause before heading off in whaterver polemic direction you want to go in. And I do not accept that there is nothing to consider simply by arguments that some children can be born out of wedlock who are brought up just as well, or better, than those who were born of a "lawful" marriage. Or that a same sex couple could be better parents than many heterosexual married couples. But that does not detract from my first point, that only a heterosexual union can produce a child who shares the genes of its father and mother. And it is at that point, and that point only, that I have my concerns about rushing into changes that are revolutionary in nature. It is when the homosexual married couples choose to exercise their "rights" to have children, something that science now makes possible, that there may be reason to at least slow down. Apart from that, from a legal point of view, what marriage bestows on couples are obligations, more than benefits, so, if that is what you want to do, homo or hetero sexual, it is no skin off my nose. (Once the actuaries get around to figuring out the impact on pension legislation.

wstander, that's a good one! People are probably getting tired of seeing my name pop up, so I'm going to pass after this--honest. But, Stan, I'd be fairly hypocritical and malfeasant (not a word, but it should be) if I didn't mention this... but...uh...you might want to give your "benefit to society" argument a bit more thought, eh. It kind of puts you in league with all kinds of fascists, mengelians, neo and social darwinians and agents provacateur. (No names mentioned, but ryhmes with Mormom Hector) Yes,I understand that that's ad hominem, but I've read hundreds of thousands of his words over the years and I think I've earned it. The entire, long sad struggle for civil and human rights has been about the right to be DIFFERENT, not useful, or "a benefit to society," as you have written.

I think it's about time for me to shup up on this thread, but I'm a glutton for punishment. *KJ: Actually, I grew up an hour away from Prince George, and have had people suggest that I was a homosexual. Actually, due to a variety of things about me, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of people there have thought (or worried) that I was gay. I am certainly not the stereotypical male, and quite satisfied not to be, so I am certainly not suggesting that "ooh, those gay people, they're so weird, almost like ... like GIRLS" yada, yada, yada. As a number of contributors have suggested, my views about the morality of homosexual sex are largely derived from theological considerations. If I actually stand on any "moral high ground," it would have a source only if there actually is a God who interacts with humans and a substance only if that God has revealed reality to humans through the Bible. Otherwise I'm out to lunch, or on to something only by fluke. Of course, I assume that the majority in this country don't share such an outlook, and I assume that our polity does not operate on theological logic. That's why I argue questions of law and policy on other grounds, such as harms/benefits (dicey, as Truman points out). If we want to come to political consensus but we see reality in fundamentally different ways, we'll have to create policies that we can agree on for differing reasons. Or we'll have to convince our opponents to convert to our way of thinking, something that imperial Christian proselytizers apparently try to do more often than philosophy professors (and I would love to be one of the latter too). *Michael: If you actually want references, in addition to passages Truman has pointed out, a couple more are Romans 1:26-27 and I Corinthians 6:9. I am aware that some interpreters make (possibly persuasive) cases that these and other Biblical passages do not prohibit homosexual sex, but only improper homosexual sex. I cannot speak on that issue, since I have read very little on this interpretive debate and do not know the main cases made by the two sides. Neither do I know Greek or Hebrew, and I am aware of the ease of making connotative errors in translation, and also of the possibility of deliberate distortion in the process of translation into English. If you're really interested in the matter, you'll want to get into some academic library sources, not just run a google search. In any case, I tend to be skeptical of interpretations that explain why a passage that apparently prohibits something doesn't really mean it. The question is, how could the loving Lord we claim to serve have frequently warned his hearers about eternal judgement, and seemingly suggested that a lot of people [of all kinds] are going to be punished in hell? That's an awfully tough question. It makes me think that if He is God and if he is loving, that love is not of a type that prevents him from making requirements that run against human drives, dispositions, and goals. That has just as sobering implications for me as for homosexuals or heterosexuals. By the way, based on precedent, I suspect that if he were here today he would have some harsh words for people like me and would spend time in gay bars. *Stan and Michael: The whole Hep C and AIDS thing is honestly not my main interest or concern regarding homosexuality. I was certainly not discussing the health question in order to "'prove' the deviance of homosex," Michael. As Stan noted, I was discussing whether homosex was harmful -- specifically, I was pointing out that nobody had refuted Kempling's numbers. You have now pointed out a number of reasons to doubt Kempling's line of argument, including the fact that he was throwing out numbers without specifying the theoretical structure of the question, premises, numerical data, and conclusion. You didn't point any of that out until I goaded you into it. You're right that I didn't think through the theoretical structure of the research problem. I guess I failed the first midterm of Quantitative Social Research 202. Stan, thanks for answering (mostly) my question about the current practices in the homosexual community re: dealing with health risks. No one has told me what the current thinking and habits are re: number of partners over time, but I take it that isn't relevant to safe-sex practices. As you pointed out, there are books on this that I haven't read. Stan, I certainly don't think that non-sexually partnered co-habitants should be declared married. I don't known if I "understand the idea of marriage sufficiently," but I certainly do make an effort to "recognize the difference between various relationships." That (not AIDS or Hep C) is the reason why I think the arguments for same-sex marriage are specious. Even bypassing the essential issues that you and Wstander raised regarding children and family, I think there's a real difference between man-man or woman-woman relationships and man-woman relationships. That is of course a really traditional view that would get me laughed or shouted off many stages, so we won't go into my arguments against same-sex marriage unless someone specifically wants to. Anyway, this debate's been good fun -- with lots to think about.

joel, I think the answer to your dilemma is... well, you probably wouldn't like it and... I've never done it before.

KJ: ??

Yeah, I thought so.

i'll stop here too. thanks joel for the debate. Cheers!

The Anglican Diocese of the Arctic may ask its clergy to endorse a statement that, in part, denounces same-sex unions. Andrew Atagotaaluk is the Bishop of the Arctic. This spring's regional synod will decide whether to adopt a document called the Montreal Declaration as a statement of belief. Part of that document says heterosexual relationships are the only ones deemed "good and holy." It also says same-sex unions are "contrary to God's design." - CBC News Feb 3 2005

[re: same-sex marriage & abortion & "internecine" politics] "We have noticed a disturbing trend and at our riding level and we've noticed it from other ridings that this intrusion by the [Conservative Party of Canada] national office to attempt to manipulate and operate and have the ridings operate more or less by remote control by Ottawa is an obsession." - Globe & Mail, Feb 04, 2005

by the way... what's so wrong about "sex with a goat"? I mean, is there something particularly odious about me having horns?

“It is an undeniable fact that only heterosexual couplings can produce children.” I hate to break the news to you wstander, but children are produced, with increasing regularity, without sexual contact. “Brave New World” arrived some time back. As far as marriage and its relationship to child bearing/rearing are concerned, in the history of our species marriage is a relatively recent occurrence, child bearing/rearing has been around considerably longer.

I'm outa here. I've been neglecting my goats.

Truman (and others) suggest that by endorsing marriage, HIV transmission would be reduced as long term couples would not be as promiscous. A study in a 2003 issue of AIDS journal found the opposite in Holland. New HIV infections were higher in long term couples, because they were taking less protective precautions, and were still engaging in 6-10 "extra-marital" sexual liaisons per year. A Vancouver study showed that gay men live 8-20 fewer years than heterosexual men. A study done in the US midwest of the obituaries of 18 gay publications (compared with regular newspaper obits), found that the average age of death for non AIDS gay men was 42; with AIDS, 38. Typical sources of death were alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence. For married heterosexual men it was age 73. If Persky or anyone else has ANY evidence that homosex is not harmful, let him provide it. I think it is a great tragedy and loss to our country that gay men die so young.

Having promised to cease and desist from this discussion I appear here incognito. (Unless the reader owns a French-English dictionary, or is indeed French, or even Quebecois, or, perhaps, a refugee from French immersion classes) Coyote, you have written: "...my daughter says I'm (sic) the most-married heterosexual man she knows..." You also offer luke-warm encouragement to gays who wish to be married, suggesting that the whole issue is a "minor, frivolous and marginal" cause. Well, I may be the "least" married heterosexual man around but I would recommend the words of a certain self-proclaimed trailer park philosopher (though hardly a philosophy TEACHER, like our lead writer) "The greatest sign of enlightenment is not that we fight for our own rights, but rather, for the rights of others." Okey, I admit, I made that up myself. Pretty good, eh.

I'm green with envy.

I do not believe in gay marrrage. I am too conservative (socially) for it. But, each to his or her own if thats what they want. I just hope they do not fight an election about it. The S harper attitude reminds me of the Chris Cooper character in american beauty. Seriously, campy gays are sure to be attracted to the Alliance or whatever they call it now. After all, they sure made their mark on the Catholic church.

Chris- what on EARTH are you on about now? Maybe those gay men in the midwest were sent to Iraq?? Sorry, your "studies" sound ludicrous.

I'm sure if I googled enough I'd come up with some facts (to counter yours) to "prove" being gay is not harmful... I'll get back to you.

Damn, that was good, Mr.(or Ms, Mrs) So True Man. Truly in the best spirit of, "he eats, shoots and leaves."

The Dutch study Chris Kempling refers to is entitled, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnership to the Incidence of HIV infection of Homosexual Men in Amsterdam, 1029-1038, AIDS, 17(7) May, 2003, by Xiridou, Maria, et al. Kempling's reference to this study is a classic example of the dishonest use of scientific research. Such misrepresentation has been one of my interests (mostly pharmaceutical) and I can report that seldom has a research document been more misused than the Xiridou study. (by christian groups and even including the Boy Scouts) The pertinent excerpts from the study can be found on line by going to Eurandom, Maria Xiridou and clicking on ABSTRACT CMB SEMINAR. I will explain, if anyone requests, how Kempling has misused the study, but perhaps it would be a good idea for anyone who's interested to read it and decide for themselves. (http://www.eurandom.tue.nl/abstracts seminar/cmb.htm)

Why I am not a Christian

damn kempling, i was hoping to stay off this thread but here we go again. "I think it is a great tragedy and loss to our country that gay men die so young." Since when did you start caring about the lives of gay men Chris? I think it is a great tragedy when people use scientific enquiry to draw very weak causal relationships. perhaps you could respond without the quantified corelations but with some actual sound theory chris. Why Chris, why is homosexual behaviour causing all of this grief in the gay community?

There is too much written above to allow for response to every aspect of this debate. I agree with Stan that this debate is about Homosex. Those who believe sex is only for a man and a woman in a monogamous relationship to build "marriage" as it can only be, are afraid of the unknown. Because the idea of butt fucking and cunt-banging is unknown to them (or so they tell themselves when they go to bed at night) and thinking about sex as anything other than the act of baby making or "love making" (like it's soft and fluffy) makes them feel funny in their tummies, and goes against what their parents taught them or what they believe their God wants from humans, fighting homosexual marriage is a last grab at justifying their "funny feeling in their tummies" as confirmation of their beliefs. The naive logic that it feels wrong to them so it must be wrong. I can tell Kempling that homosexuality does not cause harm because I am not harmed, nor am I harming another. Not only am I a fully functioning member of society, but I am able to carry on my prefered sexually activities in a safe and respectful manner. I was actually being harmed when I was living a life of guilt, shame and uncertainty, oppressed by the learned definition of what normal sexual relations constitute. I freed myself of that harm by acting on my urges, and am now a happier, healthier citizen. Shame on Kempling for attempting to convince the public (and himself) of homosexual activity as dangerous by the manipulation of statistics. I am perhaps a subscriber of the "original sin" idea expressed above because I do not deny the idea of enjoying sex for its recreational value, for moments of dominance, moments of submission, and fabulous moments of "funny feelings in my tummy." I believe all humans have the urges of sexual exploration as a biological reality, and have the right to explore and practise their definitions of norm as longs as it is not directly harming another. My behaviour is not deviant, it is a form of pleasure, my sexual acts are acts of fulfillment that have allowed me to know myself and re-evaluate through my live what is important to me. I am not baptised, and do not affiliate myself with any religious group. I don't follow any religious institution's definitions of right and wrong, I follow the constitutional definition of wrong being anything that harms another, and that I do not do. I provide pleasure to those I share my time with in private, and spend my days educating myself, working in customer service and volunteering with children. (Oh god, that's right I am in disguise right now teaching children to love themselves and their fellow man) The state does represent us because, though we do not want to pretend a body of people can actually represent all the views and values of millions of people from vast backgrounds, we do live in a democracy, and there for are capable of create bodies of officials that are diverse enough to be aware of different views, needs, and beliefs, and demand of our government the norm of public involvement in maintaining and adapting our laws as the society sees fit. People make norms, people make laws to uphold these norms, and people change laws as what is the norm changes. I only hope the same sex marriage debate can be recognized as one of many debates that is indicating a need for a shift in social paradigm. A shift officially occurs when institutions within the society change. Hopefully, the change in the institution of marriage can occur in a fashion that further pushes our society forward, the ACCEPTANCE of "others" to marry and live as equals in daily life, so our tax dollars, political energy, and public concern can be focused on more important things, like the health and stability of our species with the planet it is so shamefully exploiting. Then I could marry both my male and female partners, the three of us can bear 2 children, and still enjoy all the "perks" of a "normal married couple." Until then, other people can continue to think what they want, and I will continue to believe that marriage is something that is not right for me cause I have what I shouldn't. ha.

thanks again Stan. See ya guys on the street. You'll recognize me cause I look like everybody else, but I am way happier!

Thanks JC. Perhaps Bertrand Russell’s rejection of Christianity explains why he’s much easier to follow than Father Teilhard de Chardin, who was a Jesuit from the same era. Although much acetylcholine has flowed under and across humanity’s synaptic bridge since Bertrand Russell exposed God and Christianity, it is obvious that, contrary to de Chardin’s belief that the noosphere is in a state of constant evolutionary progress, we haven’t really moved forward. On many fronts the beliefs of many segments of society pretty much remain diametrically opposed. Russell claims the belief in God is not an intellectual argument; we are taught to believe (in God or???) from early infancy. And further, that Fear is the prime motivator. On the first claim he’s bang on; we are taught from infancy or possibly earlier. On the second, however, he avoids acknowledging that the prime motivator, fear, must have a cause. No matter how you twist the logic, fear doesn’t magically appear. We don’t fear the mysterious or defeat or death any more than we fear flying, snakes, elevators or guns. What we actually fear is the pain (warranted or otherwise) that we have somehow (through experience or conditioning) come to associate with the unknown or elevators or whatever. Does anyone agree that acknowledging that fact would go along way to understanding where many folks, including Kempling or JC or Michael or Fi or T V.V.G (no offence intended to any), are coming from, or am I alone on this??

Science may “help us get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations”, but first we need to understand the links between pain and fear, and how that linkage pretty much dictates our daily living. A noticeable change in society may indicate a shift in the social paradigm but it doesn’t necessarily equate to better understanding.

Sorry about the absence of paragraph breaks in my previous post. They were lost in the shadow ... Somewhere between the idea And the reality Between the motion And the act.

So the Conservative Party's position is exactly the same as the Liberals except they want to use a different word? And this has become the most divisive issue of the year? Have we all gone insane? Do we not understand that words are not reality but merely signs? Since when does the central government's official terminology decide what words will mean in common usage (which will vary from region to region)? Human rights, my ass. This is just an excuse to bicker.

"Powerful U.S. religious groups are sending money and support to allies in Canada to fight same-sex marriage." - National Post, Feb 07, 2005

The thing that religious groups have over secular folks is that they are, by and large, an organizing machine, staffed by zealots, whereas the secular camps are fractured with no central meeting spot, no active communication tree, and no real purpose to come together, nevermind plan anything together. So it be tough sledding on this and other matters of public concern.

Everyone has a right to their thoughts, opinions but, if not held accountable, not necessarily to their actions - which speak louder then words. Svend Robinson, ex MP,actions on this matter should be held accountable for the less then four percent of the population who desire everything but give little in return. Our country was founded on the basis of english law and common sense. Marriage was between a man and a woman - for the purpose of procreation being the bottom line. The entire matter is ludicrous at best and I, for one, resent the caterwalling and financial demands made on our pension and justice system.

Everyone has a right to their thoughts, opinions but, if not held accountable, not necessarily to their actions - which speak louder then words. Svend Robinson, ex MP,actions on this matter should be held accountable for the less then four percent of the population who desire everything but give little in return. Our country was founded on the basis of english law and common sense. Marriage was between a man and a woman - for the purpose of procreation being the bottom line. The entire matter is ludicrous at best and I, for one, resent the caterwalling and financial demands made on our pension and justice system.

Everyone has a right to their thoughts, opinions but, if not held accountable, not necessarily to their actions - which speak louder then words. Svend Robinson, ex MP,actions on this matter should be held accountable for the less then four percent of the population who desire everything but give little in return. Our country was founded on the basis of english law and common sense. Marriage was between a man and a woman - for the purpose of procreation being the bottom line. The entire matter is ludicrous at best and I, for one, resent the caterwalling and financial demands made on our pension and justice system.

Boy, I'm reading a lot about gays, not much about lesbians. Seems to me that the men who deny the rights of gays to marry are more concerned with the private life of gay men than women. Are they perhaps a little pissed that in the gay male culture there's likely more sex? More sex for some men, less sex for others; is that the real issue here? If not, why is there no outcry against frottage or cunillingus? No one is blaming lesbians for AIDS; if you hate gays, why only male gays? Why not me? Or do you hate what I do, but discount who I am (female)? Boy, seems the sexism and the homophobia are inexorably linked. Funny how many of you men want to watch or participate in sex with two women, but will fight like mad dogs to deny the equal power of two men together. Get a grip, get a life, stop blaming the downfall of society on us. And it seems that although you minimize our numbers in order to deny us our rights, you maximize our numbers in order to present us as a threat. Make up your minds, folk. We're either big, scary and powerful or we're just another bunch of folk with cultural needs to be met. You decide.

As a straight white male of a certain age, let me be the first to say that the defenders of traditional marriage don't go nearly far enough. You think making marriage off-limits to same-sex couples makes you traditional? Let me tell you about real traditional marriage. First, let's bring back doweries. If I'm going to head down the 'til-death-do-us-part highway, I want a little incentive. Some land, ideally near Whistler or on the Gulf Islands, would be nice. If pressed, I'd settle for a herd of cows. Okay, a side of beef, but that's as low as I go. Second, what's all this mealy-mouthed stuff about "procreation being the bottom line"? Procreation is all well and good, but the bottom line is, let's be honest, male heirs. Girl children are charming, no doubt, but if you have to pay to get rid of 'em (see above) they can be a bit taxing. I have other ideas about traditional marriage, but they can wait for another day. In the meantime, until Stephen Harper and his pals get serious and start taking a real stand on issues such as coverture and primogeniture, I'm parking my vote elsewhere. And speaking of votes, who came up with this ridiculous idea of giving the vote to people who don't own land? Next thing you know, they'll be letting women vote.

Marcia: I think you're saying that the purpose of marriage was to develop legal structures around procreation. There's something to that; in a pre-welfare society where inheritances could determine success or starvation, it would be extremely important to document one's heirs. But two counterarguments arise. 1: As with any other human invention, legal structures are subject to innovation and re-interpretation. For example, the re-interpretation of blacks as human (instead of property) gave the American constitution more, not less value. 2: Gays are as capable as straights of having children, biologically or through adoption. Therefore, their unions can't automatically be considered "non procreative."

I swear I'm an intelligent person. I have basic reasoning skills, and I generally understand what people are talking about. I've had my intelligence tested and I scored well above the average, especially in the language and reading comprehension parts.

I know how to make a line break.

Why then do I find it absolutely impossible to understand what the issue is here? I promise I'm being sincere when I say that I honestly cannot fathom the opposition to same sex marriage. I have yet to see a single argument against it that makes any kind of sense. So I'm inclined to agree with Stan Persky when he says that it's about something else--possibly this "homosex" thing (strange term). But, as he points out, there aren't any good arguments against homosex either. (I'm not totally convinced that that's it, but at least he's trying to figure what's going on.)

Some people seem to think that this has something to do with children. For the life of me I can't figure out what. Whatever the relationship between marriage and child raising, I fail to see what gay marriage has to do with it.

This whole debate has never made any sense to me, and I seriously doubt that it ever will.

Good one, confused! Your assessment of your own intelligence is very likely not unjustified. (I know, I could have just said, "is justified," but it seemed more learned somehow) I think there may be an incorrect assumption afloat here: that Persky's theory is not testable. I think the survey question would go something like this: "If you could be assured that homosexual couples would cease and desist from all sexual behaviour, would you give your approval to same sex marriage?" Any comments on how this survery would work out? I'm also interested in the winner in the "dubious sincerity" category. Nominations are: No. 1 "...but I for one am pleased that he's pulling his constituency (referring to S. Harper) along with him and, that so far, we've by and large been able to avoid sick rhetoric such as the bestiality analogy." Nomination #2 by Chris Kempling: "I think it is a great tragedy and loss to our country that gay men die so young." And nomination #3 by our own lead writer, Stan Persky: "Personally I'm not the marrying kind, so this doesn't concern me all that much."

Nominee No.1 is Norman Spector.

KJ- I would look at it slightly differently. Secularists are simply living their lives, minding their own business, communicating when the need arises, but not hell-bent on organizing simply for the "real purpose" of "planning" on how to tell others how to live their lives. Control- that is what it is all about. See The Advocate's comments... ditto on all that, womyn!

Precisely, Fi, that's why they've had their asses kicked down south, and will up here, too; unless...

...as opposed to lovingly caressed

or naughtily spanked, or... oh, I won't go there.

keep going.... I dare ya

...pleasurably penetrated!! satisfied!?

A botanist manages to cross a Pear with a Mango...a strange but rather delicious new fruit is born. Now the problem starts when the botanist thinks.."I will call this an Apple" What the botanist is forgetting is that the name "Apple" is already taken. There is no denying that this new fruit may well be delicious and quite wonderfull, but calling it "Apple" is just plain queer. Call it "Apple3.1" if you like, or "Apple05", but "Apple" is apple. Gay and Lesbian people should have all the same rights as the rest, but when you change the meanings of fundamental words alluding to reality, reality starts to curve. Is that what we want?

are you kidding, my mind is already so bent out of shape. How could it not be? I mean, every waking set of eyes can see the nuance of it all.... the fabric of life and its naturally frayed character. The "curve" comes full cirlce once in a lifetime, then you see the meaning of it all .. especially how insignifant you are in the scheme of things, yet a ripple in the pond nonetheless... the "curve"! i'm already so bent out of shape, and that's just from living!

happie journies