Traditions Reexamined

Well, yes, these religious zealots do have the right to express their misgivings. But that`s where it should end. What truly makes a marriage sacred is how the partners, be in man-woman, woman-woman, or man-man determine it to be! I say any union between two loving, consenting adults, is indeed sacred, and someone else`s union in no way diminishes the union of others! Freedom and equality has to prevail here, if it is to prevail everywhere!

---
Dave Ruston

But where do we draw lines? Or do we?<p> If I call someone who is homosexual a "Flamin'Fudge Packer" I can be charged with a hate crime, because I discriminated against him based on sexual orientation. If he called me a "Breeder", could I charge him? Should I?<p> If I want the traditional meaning of the word 'Marriage' to mean the union of one opposite sex couple, and write a second equivalent definition giving equal rights to same sex couples and call it a "Civil Union", why do I get called a "religious zealot"?<p> I think one thing we should do throughout this whole process, is a little mutual respect. We both want the same thing - equal rights. We grammar zealots just don't want one word to change meaning is all. Short attentions spans. Can't memorize new meanings of words, like 'Phat'.<p> And the "but the meaning has already changed from the original meaning thousands of years ago.." arguement doesn't work. Words change their meanings all the time. Look at "Fag". It still means 'a bundle of sticks' or 'a stick of tobacco'. What's wrong with nailing the definition of a word down in law so it stays around a little longer?<P> <p>---<br>"History does nor repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

Personally - I feel that to satisfy both sides of the issue there needs to be some common ground. A quick way would be to enshrine marriage as a joining of a man and a woman. Let them have a monopoly on the word marriage.

A man and man or a woman and a woman should be called a civil union. Equal rights should apply under the law as directed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Overall both sides need to remember that this is still a democratic nation and as such - both sides are to be held to the decisions of the majority.

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

Did anyone else see the CBC report on the poll which indicates that there is a clear generational difference in the resistance to using the term "marriage" to define homosexual unions? The younger the group, the more likely Canadians were to think that expanding the definition of the word marriage to include homosexuals is OK. I saw the pollster discuss this on the National and he said that the poll results indicate that given some time, it may be inevitable that marriage will indeed include homosexuals in Canada, whether or not the legislation goes through now. <p> See: <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/04/samesexpoll030904">Poll shows Canadians split over same-sex marriage</a> <P> "Pollster Richard Jenkins says few public policy issues have so clearly divided Canadians along generational lines as same-sex marriage."

Sorry, Doc, didn`t mean to offend with the use of the term, \'religious zealot.\' But I don`t understand what the problem is if we recognize a same sex union as a marriage. Because it is like discrimination. Same sex couples will feel like their union is deemed by society as second class. A same sex union does not in any way diminish hetero unions. And yeah, if you call someone a fudge packer, well, yeah, that is offensive, for obvious reasons. Breeder? Well, i don`t know about that one. I don`t hear homosexuals travelling around in packs tormenting heterosexuals by calling them \'dirty rotten breeders.\'

---
Dave Ruston

Who cares? Let\'s just keep it up to bug theAmericans.........the main issue is raising children. Should gays have the same rights to compensation under the law, if one partner dies? Absolutely. Am I a heterosexual, with heterosexual parents? Yes. Would I want to have been raised by two adopted gay parents? Hell no. That\'s my preference, and I\'m stixking to it. Heterosexual kids deserve top be raised by heterosexual parents.......it\'s simply preferrable, so lose the politically-correct crap on the adoption issue, anyone who disagrees.

My general opinion is that the state has been using the term \"marriage\" for years. And the state only has authority over the financial aspects of that union, not the religious aspects of it. So when the state decides that a man & man relationship or woman & woman relationship is eligible for the same financial benefits, why should it have a different name?

Dr Caleb,
Your misinformed paragraph regarding hate crime legislation aside, I would like to clarify my point on the term marriage, I was referring to the concept that since some demand that the term ‘marriage’ is a Christian word originating in the bible the gay community has no right to it. My suggestion is that if this were to actually hold as an argument then the word would that religious organizations could hold a claim to would be the one uttered by Christ and in the original translation. The original translation is not English; therefore the English term cannot in a sense be ‘copyrighted’ by religious organizations. Your point that “Words change their meanings all the time” is exactly my point. The term marriage is evolving to be less discriminatory, in a sense it is returning to where it was at the birth of Western civilization.

I also urge those people who say, “I have no problem with equal rights just call it something else” to examine why it must be called something else? Truly, if you have no problem with equal rights then you should have no problem with people sharing a term; do you not want homosexuals to share the term because you feel it would be denigrated? If so you do not actually think homosexuals equal.

To those who would ask us to take a different, ‘special’ term only for us, and don’t understand why we would say no, consider if you were to walk into a school and be told that oh no, you have a special room, only for people like you, and were to walk in and find it only full of people with your sexual orientation, or sex, or perhaps racial group, would you not see the special room for what it is? The special room, is simply another form of discrimination.


---
To seek, to learn to explore,
Ahh yes the human compulsion. Q

<i>Your misinformed paragraph regarding hate crime legislation aside,</i><p> The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1984) <a href='http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const_en.html#egalite'>states:</a><br> <tt>15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.</tt><p> (2) Subsection<br><tt> (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.</tt><p> From <a href='http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0014.html'>An analasis of the Canadian Human Rights Act</a>: <b>The Canadian Human Rights Act forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation by federally-regulated employers, landlords and services. The law applies to the federal government, banks, broadcasters, the phone and telecommunications industry, railways, airlines, and shipping and inter-provincial transportation. Federal constitutional protections are provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Provincial human rights laws provide protection based on sexual orientation in all Canadian provinces except Alberta, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island.<p></b> So I stick by my statement that the terms 'Fudge Packer' and 'Breeder' are discrimination based on Sexual orientation, just as the word 'Nigger' would be discrimination based on 'race'. I quote the word 'race' because to me it is a non-sequitr. 'Homo Sapiens' is our race. "Homo erectus" would be another.<p> I agree with you that the term 'Marriage' is anglo-saxon, and that in the original Arameic text of the Torah would not have included the word 'Marriage'. Like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy, translations of the Bible have become distorted over time. Some time ago, I obtained a translation of it from the original Arameic and Hebrew directly into modern English. The difference would astound you!<p> But that aside, the meaning of the word 'marriage' has come to mean something specific, just as the word 'hunger' differs from the word 'thirst'. The state of matrimony is what is becoming less discriminatory, not the word 'marriage'. Why oh why, when I want to keep my values and beliefs intact, does someone play the 'discrimination' card?<p> I do feel that not recognizing same sex couples, and not giving them equal rights as opposite sex couples, such as property rights, is bad. But why must I share a word that has a specific definition? Are you willing to forego those added rights over the meaning of a word?<p> Using a different word to give you those same rights would still make you equal. It would not move you to a segregated corner of the room, it would let you sit with everyone else. If you feel that using the the same word as everyone else would let you sit in the same room as everyone else because you don't have to use a different word, I'm sorry, it won't. Some people are just too old, stubborn or short sighted to change. Calling this new state of matrimony by the same word as the old state of matrimony won't change peoples opinions on it, we will just resent the intrution on our belief system.<p> As we agree, the meanings of words change. Calling a same sex union 'marriage' over the long term will change the meaning of the word. Calling it a 'Civil Union' will also change the meaning of those words over the long term. In the short term however, it's you who loses and I don't want to see that.<p> <p>---<br>"History does nor repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

None taken, because I'm not. Strict "live and let live" policy. But I hate being grouped with people like the KKK <p> All I'm trying to say is society isn't going to change over night. Calling it 'Marriage' now will change the word 'Marriage' in 50 or 100 years. Calling it a 'Civil Union' will be acceptable now, but only time will remove the social stigma from a same sex marriage.<p> Some people will not fight for rights of other which they already enjoy themselves. Others are willing to give those rights to others right now, but differ on one word. It all boils down to: How long are people willing to fight for a word? Or equal rights? Which is more important?<p> <p>---<br>"History does nor repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

Society changes not by a given timeline, but by what is demanded by the oppressed! Words mean nothing until policies are put in place to protect the rights of all Canadians!!! Even if the majority want to tier same sex marriages, it does not mean that the majority is right! The majority of Germans supported the Nazi`s in Germany, but that does ot mean that they were right!!! It is long past due that we recognize the freedoms of all people in Canada, and around the world!!!

---
Dave Ruston

I still don\'t get the argument, people who are homosexual are saying they are different. They celebrate the differences in many ways, they have gay pride parades and show the entire world publicly, that they are different. So why do they want to homogenize the relationship by calling it \'marriage\', saying it will have the same value or legitimacy as the heterosexual marriage. It is different, we are told over and over again, how different it is. So let it be different, civil union, works for me, as the sacrament of marriage has been designed and upheld as a heterosexual union. I don\'t think there is anything wrong with different, and I don\'t see any negatives associated with it. Property rights, benefits etc.yes, but it is not the same union, with the expectation of reproduction etc. Just because people are chosing this lifestyle doesn\'t mean I have to sanctify it or give it my blessing, which is the way I see this drive, to tell heterosexuals it is the same. Eventually will we be expected to sanctify all relationships, all variations of sexual preference, be it multiple spouses, children, etc? I do think that there is much misunderstood about the reasons behind the choices, which are far to complex to go into here, but I don\'t think one type of relationship should be forcing another to accept it and embrase it. If people chose not to be in heterosexual relationships fine, chose another but don\'t try to make something into something it is not. Just my opinion. Oh and a side note, I never heard such expressions, derogatory names, as have been quoted above; I guess I\'m not in the scene that hears such comments, however I\'m not sure how productive it is to teach me these variations of slurs? Also with birth control being as popular as it is, how can heterosexuals be called, \'breeders\' the appropriate word would be fornicaters.

Well, I think the bottom line is this: we are all different in some way, but the same rights should apply to all people! If we don`t allow same sex couples the right to call their unions a marriage, then we are discriminating! FREEDOM FOR ALL!!!

---
Dave Ruston

Dr Caleb, <p> I think that you are missing the drive of my suggestion that your hate crime legislation argument is misinformed, but then how could you not since I didn’t bother to explain my comment, my bad. My suggestion that it missed the mark was due to the fact that your argument was based on name-calling and simply shouting words. If you were to walk past me on the street and call me a ‘faggot’ I would rightly think you were a ‘dickhead’ but there would be no charges placed. If you were to take a big stick and beat me with it while you called me a ‘faggot’ then charges would be placed. Why? Because you beat me with a big stick, not because you called me a faggot, the hate crime aspect speaks to motive. If you work with me and call me a ‘faggot’ and other derogatory words then your crime is not discrimination its harassment. I must say that I also don’t actually see anything with regard to hate crimes legislation in your quoted paragraphs, they simply affirm a citizens right to not be discriminated against for a number of very good reasons in our great land. <P> I have to admit to a muddied understand of what your position is, you make comments about ‘faggots’ and ‘fudgepackers’ in one line and then claim that you do want equal treatment for homosexuals in another. Then you move on to say that you don’t want to share your word because of <I> your beliefs </i> that because of <I> your beliefs </i> you shouldn’t have to share. Ergo it would seem that you don’t truly want equal access. It’s a contradictory position that you may not see the contradictions thereof due to the necessity to hold to <I> your beliefs </i> but it is still nonetheless. As for your comment that the difference would astound me, not really, it is because of my research into older translations that I have written this piece. “Christianity, Homosexuality, and Social Intolerance.” By Bogswell, is a particularly good look at the scriptures and the creeping changes in those works and Christian society over time. <P> This is all however to a certain extent beside the point of my piece. Which is simply to say that historically speaking marriage was the purview of the state and not the purview of any religion over the other, all had their rituals, but legally speaking it was the states responsibility. The claim of various religious organizations that the institution of marriage historically belongs to this religion or the other, one God or another, is false. It is up to the government to provide equality for all citizens, not up to the <I> beliefs </i> of religious organizations who seem to think that somewhere in the bible Jesus said “Thou shall oppress those that don’t share my beliefs.” <P> As for those who resent the intrusion into their belief systems; those whose religious beliefs demand that I be kept separate, that I be given a special term to keep me different, they had better get used to it, they, through their enforcement of their belief systems upon us ‘homosexuals’ have been intruding into our <I>very lives,</i> for a very long time, and we will stand for it no more. Western civilization was built on these principals of equality and freedom for its citizens and I will live to see it done. <P> <p>---<br>To seek, to learn to explore, <br /> Ahh yes the human compulsion. Q