Canadian lawmakers OK same-sex marriage nationwide

Same Sex Marriage Forum

TORONTO (AP) — Canada's House of Commons passed landmark legislation Tuesday to legalize gay marriage, granting same-sex couples legal rights equal to those in traditional unions between a man and a woman.
The bill passed as expected, despite opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders. The legislation drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberal Party government was also expected to easily pass the Senate and become federal law by the end of July.

The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two nations that allow gay marriage nationwide.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/....htm?csp=24&RM_

Well...its nice to see that other countries are allowing equality and dont allow religious groups and politicians to take equality away from homosexual people.

Homophobic people make me laugh...its not a disease. You can try and take away people's rights, but you cant change who they are no matter how many times they try or say its not right.

Its again one of those things...it may not fit some people, but whose business is it to tell others that they have to be just like everyone else in order to be equal or fit into society.

Im a woman who happens to like men...but far be it from me to tell another person that they dont have the right to decide whats best for them.

Homosexuals are people too...they pay taxes, they have jobs, they do everything we do...they have every right to be able to have what everyone else is afforded!

Good job Canada...maybe someday America can catch up and allow their citizens equal rights as well!

As soon as textbooks are looked upon with as much importance as other books, maybe one day.

-HECK!

Far be it for anyOne to get in the way of "progress" and the humanist manifesto sweeping the earth.

Marriage is inherently religious, so I think the fairest and most logical solution would be simply to seperate Church and State. The government shouldn't recognize any marriage, gay or straight.

hey.. that rhymed

BOOYAH

we could put a lot of lawyers out of work... and I say good riddance

Hey... I got lawyers in my family....

Come to think of it, none of them ever did a damn thing for me....

Screw them.

Spain has also passed a law allowing same sex marriages. It should not really matter whats sexual orienatation people are, if they are in love and waht to be married then so be it.

Peeps have nailed it... if there was no $$$ involved, there would be no school and especially no weddings. Not only must seperate church and state, but church, state and the almighty dizz-olar.

-HECK!

By ROB GILLIES, AP

http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/07/07/20050720064009990002

TORONTO (July 20) - Canada legalized gay marriage Wednesday, becoming the world's fourth nation to grant full legal rights to same-sex couples.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin signed the legislation making it law, hours after it was approved by the Senate late Tuesday night despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders.

The bill gives homosexual couples the same rights as those in traditional unions between a man and a woman, something already legal in eight of Canada's 10 provinces and in two of its three territories.

The legislation drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberal Party government easily passed the Senate, which essentially rubber stamps any bill already passed by the House of Commons, which passed it late last month.

The Netherlands, Belgium and Spain are the only other nations that allow gay marriage nationwide.

The law comes after years of court battles and debate that divided families, religious groups and even political allies. The Roman Catholic Church, the predominant Christian denomination in Canada, has vigorously opposed the legislation.

But Martin, a Roman Catholic, has said that despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage.

Alex Munter, national spokesman for Canadians for Equal Marriage, which has led the debate in favor of the law, was triumphant Wednesday: "It is a signal to the world that Canada is an open and inclusive society that believes in the notion of full citizenship for all."

Churches have expressed concern that their clergy would be compelled to perform same sex ceremonies. The legislation, however, states that the bill only covers civil unions, not religious ones, and no clergy would be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies unless they choose to do so.

Charles McVety, a spokesman for Defend Marriage Canada and president of Canada Christian College, said he was "very sad that the state has invaded the church, breached separation of church and state and redefined a religious word."

McVety vowed his group would work to vote out lawmakers who supported the legislation in the next general elections.

"A new Parliament is going to readdress this issue and common sense ultimately will prevail," McVety said.

In the United States, Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages; Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions.

Though hundreds of foreigners have come to Canada to seek civil ceremonies since gay marriages were first allowed in Ontario and British Columbia in 2003, not all countries or states recognize the unions.

The U.S. government does not recognize same-sex marriage, and most states refuse to acknowledge marriage certificates from gay and lesbian couples, regardless of where they wed.

I was afraid someone would put this thread in civil rights where it doesn't belong.

Yeah, who you decide to screw, as long as they are above the age of consent is a personal matter.....

but, when you want the society in which you live to accept this as marriage material between people of the same sex.....you don't have my permission as long as I am a law abiding, voting person.

You want to make who you screw an option at the table of public discourse, then there will be consequences....there will be people against marriage between the same sexes.

Having lived as an unabashed lesbian for over 15 years, (who the hell is counting the years), I can tell you without a doubt, yeah the pleasure of same sex sex is incredible, but the heartache, games, and self destruction are huge within the homosex community.
I don't wish that on anyone...

The reason we became homosex was because of relational, parental, and childhood problems. There is a hard number that 80% of homosexuals have been abused in one form or another during childhood. What comes with this is a huge amount of low self esteem, difficulty relating to opposite sex, and more importantly an attraction/repulsion of the same sex.
The homosexual community becomes a place of acceptance, a place to belong....and the problems and heartaches only continue.

I say it with the utmost compassion of having been there done that, having seen way too many friends, sexual partners, acquaintences ultimately destroyed by this lifestyle....walking dysfunction.....

I don't wish this "choice" on anyone.....and it does not get my vote.

Maybe it was dysfunction for you because it was a choice for you. Many homosexuals dont think of it as a choice...they just are, and knew it all their life..unlike you.

I know homosexuals that were never abused in their lifetime....I find it odd that out of all the ones I do know, that I only know the so called 20 percent in your statistic. (can you give me the source of that statistic? Im assuming its some Christian related statistic...but Ill give you the benefit of the doubt until I hear otherwise)

Im really interested in this comment though...

statistic:
www.syrogers.com

As for your other drivel, perhaps you didn't notice my distinction between screwing and wanting license to screw who you want and calling it marriage.

Screw who you want, but when you go before a public who largely (even in Missouri ) is against condoning their tax dollars to support your screw/marriage, there is gonna be some backlash.

And regarding your other drivel about all the homosexuals you know and this and that....

you have no clue what it's like to walk in our shoes, so
<edit by SWTT> Before you get all in a tizzy about that comment, hear this out. Being Black, Jewish heritage, etc is not a choice we have at birth. Same sex attraction is brought about by events and dysfunctional relationships in one's life. I can stick up for a Black, I can even stick up for a white woman with gender issues, but the fact of the matter remains, acting out same sex behaviour is NOT a civil right....it is a choice made due to unhealthy circumstances. Period.

Same sex marriage is not a civil right, dearheart, it's sanctioned libertinism and marks the soon collapse of this society as it has also marked the destruction of 50 other empires in history.

Have you seen the movie "Mercy" yet with Ellen Barkin?
It takes the dynamic of same sex attraction to the extreme, but it also explains the dynamic to the T.

Although I am not gay, my roommate is. He seems to have no difficulties whatsoever relating to members of the opposite sex. Most of his closest and most trusted friends are women. He also has a very loving relationship with his parents and siblings and has no childhood horror stories to report, other than the times girls tried to land dates with him as he made his way through school. He is gay and was born gay.

Gay marriage has been legal in a few Canadian Provinces for quite a while now. It is only recently that it has become legal in all provinces. A dear lesbian friend of my family's just recently, very suddenly, lost her spouse of 13 years. It is times like these, when government legalizing and recognizing same sex unions as loving relationships, that families and widows and widowers of same sex partners don't have to suffer the financial burden that accompanies the death of a spouse/long term partner. Like heterosexual marriages, gay and lesbian couples devote and commit themselves to a lifetime together. It is a country's civic duty to ensure that all law abiding citizens have equal benefits and entitlements, whether the lifestyle is frowned upon or not by specific religious groups. Since homosexuality isn't a crime in the eyes of the law, it only makes sense to me that all people engaging in legal acts should have full reign to utilize their rights and freedoms.

and we needn't single out homosexuals either; there are a-PLENTY of heterosexuals who live unhealthy, sexually obsessive, intolerably dramatic lifestyles too. And a lot of that also comes from various forms of childhood abuse. They just happen to look more "normal" in public so you don't hear about them as much.

Relating to the opposite sex and the ability to form a healthy intimate relationship with sexual expression are two different things.

And that is why dekka00, you are spot on.
Sexual and relational brokenness does not limit itself to the homosexual....but can you say that such unhealthy opposite sex relationships, abusive physically, or emotionaly, or sexually are good for the individuals involved, possible children, and society at large?

Some more statistics:
1 out of 4 girls and 1 out of 6 boys are sexually molested before the age of 12 in American culture. This does not mean that all victims of such abuse becomes homosexual, but they will experience shame, guilt and inferiority leading to unhealthy relations unless there is some sort of intervention.

Also, there are different classifications of homosexuals....not all homosexuals go through the same type of experience.
"Baker's Encyopedia of Psychology" in the chapter "Homosexuality: Classifications, Etiology and Treatment" lists 10 classifications of homosexuals.

I'll list 3:
1) Situational homosexual: Prison, military, boarding schools etc. offer the opportunity and the opportunity is taken advantage of.
2) Obligatory homosexual: Identity not nurtured and nourished. Many have experienced problems bonding with same sex parent.
3) Neurotic Regressive: Emotional damage is triggered into unhealthy survival coping patterns.

What about biology and nurturing?

There is evidence that fetuses who are either showered with or denied certain hormones during the early stages of development may exhibit a personality type with traits of the opposite sex.
Is this bad in itself? No, it's not.

A sensitive, empathic male may become one of the world's most talented writers, artists, or home decorators.
But, because of this marked sensitive difference, he may be labeled early on as a sissy, queer, or such the like from a very young age.
He may really not be exhibiting attractions toward males, but because of peer and adult treatment of his differences, he may choose to have same sex relationships.
Key word here: "choose."

Likewise, a competitive, strong, girl who loves to engage in conflict (sound familiar ) may excel in sports, or in other ways...she may be labeled a dyke early on, separated from her female peer group as different. She may begin to wonder, gee, they say these things about me, they must be true, maybe I should try it....
and then boom, acceptance, pleasure, and a sort of emotional dependancy and bond have become "love" in a same sex sexual relationship. When in all actuality, it was a safe way of searching out for something we all search for....and not based on healthy relationship whatsoever.

Sometimes poison is alot easier to swallow when you are starving.

out of curiosity...

did Baker's Encyclopedia have this or something like this:

Rebellious Homosexual-- person who chooses homosexuality for the same reason some people choose to dress in all black and get dozens of piercings: to DEFY THE MAN. In some cases, to be the center of attention.

Dekka00
I don't know, I don't have the book in front of me now, I could go to the library though....

here is more insight from a former homosexual/transvestite who is now a counselor and speaker helping others get out of the lifestyle:

What Would Be Other Factors in Encouraging the Development of Homosexuality?

Science has yet to prove an absolute biological cause of all 10 types of homosexuality, (See "Homosexuality : Classification, Etiology and Treatment' pages 519-525, Baker's Encyclopedia of Psychology, Pub. 1985). However, there is data underscoring the view that some types of homosexuality are the result of problems in psychological development. Even though homosexuals may have differing backgrounds, many also have similar trends and patterns in their histories. For example in Singapore, of my homosexually oriented clients in 1991, 83% of the men and almost 70% of the women reported being victims of sexual abuse or molest, before the age of 12. Additionally, well over 90% reported the sense of being neglected or unloved in childhood especially by the parent of the same sex. 40% reported physical abuse. Another common trend in my clients, is an unfortunate history of being ridiculed and labelled 'homosexual" during their pre-teen and teen years. Labelling has tremendous power to damage and alter self image. Abuse and neglect don't necessarily result in homosexuality -- but such experiences are universally typical of many who have sexual identity and orientation problems. I agree with many professionals who view stereotypical homosexuality as a symptom of arrested emotional and gender identity development. Why? It is clear from experts in developmental psychology, before children grow into healthy, heterosexual maturity, they pass through necessary "pre-heterosexual" phases or stages. After babyhood, but before adolescence, we must satisfactorily navigate through a same-sex identification and bonding stage, (approximately between ages of 4-14 years). Accomplishing this security/identity building phase enables progress toward opposite sex relating.

The same-sex phase is very observable, especially in boys, who, at the time, are not particularly romantically or sexually inclined toward girls, but are very concerned with and involved in same-sex relationships. Before boys grow up into men who "risk" their egos in pursuit of the opposite sex, they must first be identified with, accepted and affirmed as "one of the guys", by the rest of the guys. Sadly, so often this has not been the case among our clients.

Modern psychoanalytical research has well documented that when healthy parent-child bonding does not occur in early childhood, a deficit or "hunger" for love and security is created. It is especially damaging when the child and parent of the same sex do not effectively bond (for what ever reasons). The child's identity and security in sender role will not properly develop. This in turn will affect -- perhaps even sabotage -- future relating with peers of both the same and opposite sex. In such cases, the child is often unable to conform to, or be comfortable with expected gender-role performance. This sense of 'difference' further alienates the child from engaging in satisfying relationships which should serve to solidify security and identity.

The resulting hunger for love and security is painful and the need for identity completion makes the child very vulnerable. A child in this situation is driven or compelled to compensate in some way for what is `missing'. Typically, the child emotionally detaches from the same-sex parent (abandons hope) and focuses onto the next perceived source of emotional and identity-securing nourishment: same sex peers. This pre-homosexual condition emerges as exaggerated yearnings toward the same sex: a desire to be wanted, cherished and protected (legitimate needs that the parental bond should have satisfied). Yet due to insecurity and a sense of inadequacy, here to, effective same sex bonding does not occur. The child is attracted to and admires, yet is fearful and envious of the same sex. Consequently, a same-sex fixation develops, resulting in arrested development toward heterosexuality, Eventually the exaggerated and symptomatic emotional dependence on the same sex becomes "sexualized" with the onset of puberty, or earlier if the child has been prematurely sexualized due to molest or imprinted exposure to pornography. (This dependence or fixation is not to be confused with typical and temporary teen infatuation.) In this example, this type of psychologically driven homosexuality is a faulty attempt to satisfy legitimate, non-sexual security and identity needs. While this simplified and general view does not represent every homosexual, it is true (based on client histories) for a majority of 'stereotypical' homosexuals. Ultimately, homosexuality is not so much about "love" or "sex". It's about need.

Understanding this, it is obvious then, that rejecting homosexual persons is a tragic mistake. Indeed, love, understanding and affirmation is what they need. Yet accepting and loving the homosexual person does not mean that we, in mistaken compassion, declare homosexuality to be "normal".

Also:

Are Homosexuals "Born" or "Made"?

Some homosexuals comfort themselves with the thought that their feelings could be biologically programmed within, beyond choice or any personal responsibility. Gay activists claim that homosexuals are born gay, and that homosexuality should therefore be viewed as normal and natural. Yet, others with a homosexual orientation feel trapped by such logic, fearing they are hopeless victims of a genetic fate they want no part of. Certainiy, people don't choose to develop homosexual feelings. But that does not mean one is born pre-programmed to be forever homosexual. We are not bio-robots. And we cannot ignore environmental influences and our reactions to such influences. Even if some types of homosexuality occur as a 'product' of nature, does that make it desirable or normal? Nature produces a host of biologically influenced conditions, such as depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, diabetes ... but we don't consider these `normal'just because they occur 'naturally'. So why is homosexuality given a different status? It is also worth noting that there are now some in the academic realm suggesting that adult sexual attraction to children could also be the product of an inherent biological influence. If proven true, would this mean we approve of sex between adults and children?

There are those who also believe that if homosexuality has a biological 'origin', then religious prohibitions against homosexual acts should be disregarded as irrelevant in the light of modern scientific discovery. Advocates of this thinking don't understand however, that when a religion declares certain human behaviors to be wrong, such as homosexual acts, it doesn't matter if there is a biological origin or not. In fact, such scientific discovery would only confirm what ancient religious writings already state: our present human condition is flawed, both biologically and psychologically. Religious writings make clear that humanity consequently struggles with many inherent and harmful weaknesses. Yet, it is also clear that We are intended to overcome and master our natural tendencies and weaknesses. rather than justifying and indulging them.

In spite of the many theories and even recent but in conclusive genetic and brain-related research, there is still no scientifically accepted evidence proving that homosexuals are "born gay". However, if science one day confirms a genetic or other hormonal bio-influence encouraging homosexual development, not all those involved in homosexuality would have this influence within them. And as has been clearly stated by genetic researchers, those with such a possible influence, would not be obligated to be homosexual. For example, some scientists believe that there are people born with bio-influences toward alcoholism, drug addiction, criminal behavior and even divorce. But does that mean such persons are required to become, and therefore remain addicts and criminals? Biology may influence, but it doesn't automatically justify every possible resulting behavior. Neither does it eliminate personal responsibility, will, conscience or our ability to choose whether we will control or be controlled by our weaknesses. --Sy Rogers

I think it's hilarious people blame laws against homosexual marriage in this country on religious conservatives - as if some interest group is standing in the way of the homosexual agenda! The fact is the vast majority of the American public doesn't support homosexual unions being enfranchised by the government. That is precisely why the homosexual movement has focused on the courts to try to grant them what they want.
In canada's case, it was the legislature that made the law - reflecting support from the general public. If people want homosexual unions to be called marriages and made official by the government, they need to go through the legislature. Looking for activist judges to push through your agenda is only going to create bitterness against your cause within the American public.

I think psychology is a great discipline for trying to understand the unknown, but the most fascinating thing I find about psychology is that most of it is a guessing game.

The facts that are documented in psychological text books are only the run down of what someone else believed to be true, then later expanded on in theory and field studies, which still remains to be one or two people's documented guesses and observations, passed on for further expansion and encouraged to be the starting point for more educated guesses.

When assessing someone's psychological background, the mysteries of the "What if's and why's" only keep leading to further "what if's and why's." When one is convinced that they have figured out what psychological components contribute and attribute to a person's way of life, they have closed their mind to a broader and more scientific explanation.

Psychology, although very useful in many cases, ways and senses, can be misleading and an unfortunate way to diagnosis a 'problem' that in most cases needs no diagnosis nor to be considered something that needs to be cured.

There is also a psychological explanation for heterosexuals who are so adamantly opposed to homosexuality. Psychology is like religion: We believe whichever theory best suits our individual beliefs. There is no concrete scientific evidence that proves psychology to be fact.

For someone who has lived in the homosexual lifestyle, both a personal relationship with God and psychosocial dynamics play a part in helping someone who wants to get out of that lifestyle as well as those who struggle with same sex attractions and do not want to pursue those options.

If someone feels relatively content within the homosex community....because, I will be the first to admit, the church offers relatively few options or understanding....then they should stay....but, remember, not everyone agrees that homosex is a healthy choice be they homo, hetero, Christian, atheist or other.

And that is why I am not saying there should be an outlaw of homosex activity....I don't. I sowed my wild oats within the homosex community enough to know the pitfalls of such a lifestyle. I encourage anyone involved in homosex to get their fill of it any way they can....because they will either be so disgusted with themselves and get out.....or they will experience one of the only pleasures they will ever experience.

I was always the sort who lived life to the fullest....if I was going to be a sinner, I was going to sin to the hilt, because this is all you will have. And I encourage anyone that if they are not going to have a personal relationship with God, they should endulge themselves in every sinful aspect...because this is all you have.

As far as same sex marriage...again, my tax dollars go to the administration and court systems involved in marriage and divorce....I don't support the same sex marriage in any way....and there are other homosexuals still entrenched in the community who feel the same way for various reasons.

I do not think that anyone will be able to come to an intelligent conclusion about how and why the human mind works. There are just too many variables to consider. So I say "Live and let live."

So, there is no help for emotionally damaged people?
Just throw in the towel and see what happens?
Bullcrap.
Yeah there are quacks, I've endured two such quacks thanks to Daddy.

But I am 42 now, and I can pick and choose my own kind of help.
Otherwise, people like Mystic and my CSI next door neighbour lady will have to investigate and pick up the pieces when damaged people do damage.

In fact it was Mystic who told me to seek therapy, and you know what, I took her advice but not in a conventional setting.
There are 49 other people there who can distinguish if something gets out of hand....instead of a State Board of Psychology after the fact.

It's apples and oranges, SWTT.

If one method of therapy works for you, then you must go with it.

It's apples and oranges because everybody is a unique fruit.
No pun intended. Well, yeah the pun was intended.