Canada Gives Up On Marriage Inequality
Personally, I don't find the debate over marriage equality to be all that fascinating. Obviously, it's time for gay and lesbian couples to be allowed the same rights as other couples, I don't see any argument against that. A couple stays together for years, they invest their lives in one another, they should be able to visit each other in the hospital. They should be able to buy a house together. It's just the right thing to do. But whether you call it "marriage," I don't have a strong opinion about, and I don't think that's really the issue anyway. Of course gay people would be glad to be like everybody else in that regard, but as long as people want to make a big misty-eyed thing out of their narrow view of the institution of marriage, I don't think the word is worth fighting over. But that's just me, it's not really my fight.
Now, you know Canada has a conservative Prime Minister. Like conservatives here, he wanted to keep gay people from marrying each other. So Parliament voted on a measure to define traditional marriage as "between one man and one woman blah blah blah," and the measure lost.
This kills me. It's shocking. How do you think that Prime Minister reacted after the vote?
Can you imagine that happening here?
Like ... in Montgomery County in 2004, the school district put together a sex-ed curriculum, and a citizens committee evaluated it, made some changes, and passed it on to the school board, who approved it unanimously. Some members of that committee didn't like the curriculum, but they were consistently outvoted. So they organized a group and held meetings and issued press releases and called for the removal of the school board, and started a web site and a blog and a forum which everyone ignored. They sent out mass mailings and passed petitions around at churches. Finally, they filed a last-minute lawsuit that won them a temporary restraining order, based on confusion between materials that were in the curriculum and materials that had been used to develop the curriculum.
Because they were outvoted.
Then there was a settlement agreement, the curriculum was thrown out, and another curriculum was developed. Another citizens committee was formed, and the same thing happened. The nutty group wanted changes made, and the committee voted against them. The changes didn't make sense, and they didn't represent the views of the community, simple as that.
Now we understand the group's lawyer has been passing around a "draft minority report" about the new curriculum. They just can't accept that their ideas were not accepted by the school district, and they want people to read what they wanted.
Naturally, there are people who are more conservative and those who are more liberal, and the two groups need to be able to discuss and negotiate and compromise. Sometimes everybody can get what they want, but not always. And then grown-ups move on to something else.
Now, you know Canada has a conservative Prime Minister. Like conservatives here, he wanted to keep gay people from marrying each other. So Parliament voted on a measure to define traditional marriage as "between one man and one woman blah blah blah," and the measure lost.
This kills me. It's shocking. How do you think that Prime Minister reacted after the vote?
OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper has declared the contentious issue of same-sex marriage to be permanently closed.
After a Conservative motion calling on the government to restore the traditional definition of marriage was defeated yesterday by a resounding 175 to 123, Mr. Harper said he will not bring the matter back before Parliament.
"I don't see reopening this question in the future," he told reporters who asked whether same-sex marriage would return to the table if the Conservatives won a majority government.
Nor does he intend to introduce a "defence of religions" act to allow public officials, such as justices of the peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
"If there ever were a time in the future where fundamental freedoms were threatened, of course the government would respond to protect them," said the Prime Minister, who voted for the motion. "The government has no plans at this time." Same-sex marriage file closed for good, PM says
Can you imagine that happening here?
Like ... in Montgomery County in 2004, the school district put together a sex-ed curriculum, and a citizens committee evaluated it, made some changes, and passed it on to the school board, who approved it unanimously. Some members of that committee didn't like the curriculum, but they were consistently outvoted. So they organized a group and held meetings and issued press releases and called for the removal of the school board, and started a web site and a blog and a forum which everyone ignored. They sent out mass mailings and passed petitions around at churches. Finally, they filed a last-minute lawsuit that won them a temporary restraining order, based on confusion between materials that were in the curriculum and materials that had been used to develop the curriculum.
Because they were outvoted.
Then there was a settlement agreement, the curriculum was thrown out, and another curriculum was developed. Another citizens committee was formed, and the same thing happened. The nutty group wanted changes made, and the committee voted against them. The changes didn't make sense, and they didn't represent the views of the community, simple as that.
Now we understand the group's lawyer has been passing around a "draft minority report" about the new curriculum. They just can't accept that their ideas were not accepted by the school district, and they want people to read what they wanted.
Naturally, there are people who are more conservative and those who are more liberal, and the two groups need to be able to discuss and negotiate and compromise. Sometimes everybody can get what they want, but not always. And then grown-ups move on to something else.
posted by JimK at 2:02 PM
30 Comments:
"And then grown-ups move on to something else."
Like when they lose in a court of law.
Congrats to Randi and all the other Canucks, our sane neighbors to the north!
Aunt Bea
You know, I've given some passing thought to moving to Toronto. Anyone know what it's like there? I assume it's fairly LGBT friendly (after Virginia, what wouldn't be?).
rrjr
Thanks aunt bea! I'm so proud of my country and happy to have the freedom here so I can lend help to LGBT friends and supporters to the soutn.
Digger, I never spent much time in Toronto, so I can't tell you much about there, but Vancourver is incredibly warm and welcoming to LGBTs. I'm a born prairie girl but last time I was in Vancouver I had the most incredible feeling of being at home.
Seems to me the importance of what it's called is the complexity of creating any new thing as separate and distinct from marriage and yet equal to it.
Marriage is expressed in diverse ways around the globe, but at its core it is understood globally. Calling it something else invites doubt about its equality.
I try to imagine how things would have played out if a separate-but-equal class of marriage had been given to the Lovings of Virginia in 1967 and interracial couples since then... but I can't, because it wouldn't have been a reasonable or workable thing to do.
Ah if we do not learn from out past mistakes we are bound to repeat them (or in this case bound to keep seeing MCPS get sued) the ones upset like the Canadian prime minister look like sore losers now a days
"You know, I've given some passing thought to moving to Toronto."
There's an idea. Maybe all gays should move to Canada. Montreal's a ball.
Come on, guys. Come on, gays. It's your country!
I agree with Steve B. Couples who love each other should be able to be married regardless of their skin color or sexual orientation.
Not allowing some couples to marry is a violation of human dignity. Calling some unions something other than "marriage" and would imply that some unions are different than others. Marriage inequality is unfair and unAmerican. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, not just heterosexuals.
Aunt Bea
"Calling some unions something other than "marriage" and would imply that some unions are different than others."
Imagine that. Some unions are different than others. Who would have thought such a thing?
Maybe those who have seen that they are.
"Marriage inequality is unfair and unAmerican. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, not just heterosexuals."
No one is created as a homosexual. It's a lie.
There it is.
"No one is created as a homosexual. It's a lie."
Do you expect stating your belief is going to persuade rational people to believe too? Got some research to back up your claim?
"Do you expect stating your belief is going to persuade rational people to believe too? Got some research to back up your claim?"
Beatrice is the one that asserted homosexuals are created that way. Let's see his proof.
I think it's obvious what the human body was designed for and so so do rational people.
"Beatrice is the one that asserted homosexuals are created that way. Let's see his proof."
Excuse me???
Aunt Bea
Anonymous, ultimately it does not matter if people are created gay or straight or not. Everyone deserves the right to marry the one person they love most without the government dictating the gender of their marriage partner.
However, I have never met anyonne who has chosen their sexuality and I'm sure you haven't either. In other words, no one recalls a time when they had no attraction to either gender, they conciously weighed the two alternatives, made a choice to be attracted to one of them, and immediately developed erotic feelings for that gender. It just doesn't happen that way. That no one recalls choosing their sexuality is ample evidence that it is not chosen. The people who say being gay is a choice don't believe it themselves, they just feel they have to say that to justify their bigotry.
Randi
You're saying you've never met a gay who doesn't remember a time when they were attracted to someone of the opposite gender. Is that correct?
People who are attracted to both genders are bisexual.
But are there no examples, as Randi seems to say, of those who exclusively desired normal sexual activity and then changed to desiring exclusively abnormal sexual activity.
So are you saying Ted Haggard's been doing guys for longer than the 3 years he's admitted to?
Anonymous asked "You're saying you've never met a gay who doesn't remember a time when they were attracted to someone of the opposite gender. Is that correct?".
No, that would make a person bisexual as the other anonymous said. What I'm saying is I never met a gay OR a straight person who recalls choosing their sexuality. I've never met a single person that can describe a time when they had no attraction to either gender, they weighed the options, made a decision to be attracted to one or the other, and then immediately became attracted to that gender.
Actually, not a lot of choices are made that way. You're setting up a straw man to prove your erroneous point. You decide to go in a direction that you perceive as the best option for many reasons. For example, a guy who is not attractive to females may reason on some level that his chances are better going the other way. The feeling develops as it's indulged. Read the testimonies from People Can Change or Exodus International. They explain how it happens.
There are a million stories in the big city.
"No, that would make a person bisexual as the other anonymous said."
So you're defining the terms in relation to history not current desires then?
Anonymous, that's exactly how decisions are made. If there isn't a step by step process of being undecided, weighing options, making a choice, and taking action there is no decision involved.
Anonymous said "For example, a guy who is not attractive to females may reason on some level that his chances are better going the other way. The feeling develops as it's indulged.
"
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever head. For starters virtually all people will tell you they developed strong attractions to whichever gender prior to indulging that feeling. There's no evidence that anyone "develops feelings as they indulge" because it simply doesn't happen that way.
If a man is unattractive to women he's going to be unattractive to men. Only an idiot would think a man, attractive or not, has better odds with the small number of gay men than he has with the much much larger number of straight women. No male is going to start having stigmatized sex with men when he doesn't have an attraction to them in the first place.
Bisexuality means desires for each gender may come and go. We do not always experience concurrent desires for both sexes. Sometimes one day, week or month its this way, the next day, week, or month its that way. In my younger days I went through many cycles where I'd decide I was completely gay, only later to be surprised by opposite sex attractions and then to wonder why I had been lying to people and saying I was gay when I was clearly straight. No doubt this same sort of thing is going on in many of the testimonials you're reading. I've heard many of such testimonials, they're loaded with double-talk about change and self-delusions - they mean little without objective physiological testing to back them up.
"That's one of the dumbest things I've ever head. For starters virtually all people will tell you they developed strong attractions to whichever gender prior to indulging that feeling. There's no evidence that anyone "develops feelings as they indulge" because it simply doesn't happen that way."
Well, let me tell you about a guy I used to know. He was straight in high school. Had many girlfriends. Says he never thought he was anything else. After high school, he went to a music school and found virtually all the guys were gay. After alot of peer pressure, he tried it. Eventually, he started to be exclusively gay, meeting strangers in random situations after he got out of school. Now says he can't change.
Was he always gay? Did he make a choice?
Seems to me no and yes but you tend to believe what you want.
"If a man is unattractive to women he's going to be unattractive to men. Only an idiot would think a man, attractive or not, has better odds with the small number of gay men than he has with the much much larger number of straight women. No male is going to start having stigmatized sex with men when he doesn't have an attraction to them in the first place."
Actually, there is a subculture in our society that can be hooked into and some perceive it to be easier because promiscuity is readily accepted and so it's actually easier to find partners and with less commitment. The availability of casual sex is no doubt a draw for some guys who have basically given up on the inconvenience of the male-female relationship.
"Bisexuality means desires for each gender may come and go."
When desires go, that's a change. By your definition, it would be impossible to test if anyone has changed because you would just say they'll eventually go back. Is that what you mean when you speak of your "evidence"?
"We do not always experience concurrent desires for both sexes. Sometimes one day, week or month its this way, the next day, week, or month its that way. In my younger days I went through many cycles where I'd decide I was completely gay, only later to be surprised by opposite sex attractions and then to wonder why I had been lying to people and saying I was gay when I was clearly straight."
So you've had both feelings and have made a choice.
"No doubt this same sort of thing is going on in many of the testimonials you're reading. I've heard many of such testimonials, they're loaded with double-talk about change and self-delusions - they mean little without objective physiological testing to back them up."
Perhaps you've deluded yourself.
Anonymous, I don't believe your story about "this guy you used to know". You've made so many baseless anti-gay assertions and political posturing you just aren't credible. I don't believe any gay person would confide in a bigot like you that way. I don't believe any guy who has no attraction to men gives into pressure to have stigmatized sex he doesn't initially desire. Look at the thread above about another gay pastor falling out of the closet. He knew he was same sex attracted from a very young age. That's the typical story. The attractions appear first then the sex comes after. For most, if not all people the attraction comes before the sex, if there are any exceptions to the rule, they are just that exceptions.
Any straight guy will tell you they are not going to have sex with a man simply because they find it available. Simple availabilty doesn't make something undesirable become desirable. I hate lemonade and it doesn't matter how much is available I still won't want it. Straight men are disgusted by the thought of gay sex just as gay men are disgusted by the thought of straight sex. Don't confuse your own temptations to have sex with men with straight guys feeling the same way.
Most people are either exclusively gay or exclusively straight - they do not have the ability to choose partners. Bisexuals like me do not choose which gender we are going to feel attracted to, it just happens despite any efforts we may make to prevent that. It can be tiring being bisexual, never knowing what to expect, who we'll feel attracted to, which gender to pursue. In the past I've often wished I was either completely gay or completely straight and tried to remain whichever way I had been feeling, but it just doesn't work.
I can choose who I'm with but I cannot choose to restrict my desires to either gender. I do not choose my attractions any more than you do. And you know yourself you didn't choose your attractions. I can see that you feel you would like to be able to choose not to be same sex attracted, but you know in your heart you can't. Stop fighting your desires, you'll be much happier if you just accept them. Do what I've done and learn to go with the flow, just relax and accept what you feel as it occurs.
The existence of bisexuality does not mean it is impossible to test if anyone has truly changed from gay to straight. Penis volume measurement testing would have to be done repeatedly over a period of months prior and subsequent to "exgay" "therapy" to establish whether a person was solidly gay, straight or bisexual to begin with or afterwards. In my experience the back and forth cycling generally occurs over a period of days or weeks and a 6 month period of testing should be sufficient to make the necessary determinations prior to "therapy" although a followup period of 3 to 5 years may be necessary to determine if true lasting change has occurred.
"Penis volume measurement testing would have to be done repeatedly over a period of months prior and subsequent to "exgay" "therapy" to establish whether a person was solidly gay, straight or bisexual to begin with or afterwards. In my experience the back and forth cycling generally occurs over a period of days or weeks and a 6 month period of testing should be sufficient to make the necessary determinations prior to "therapy" although a followup period of 3 to 5 years may be necessary to determine if true lasting change has occurred."
Yeah, right. Very convenient.
Anonymous, its too bad for you if you don't like the reality of the situation. Regardless, its telling that those claiming to have changed haven't put the claim to even a single test of this type. They must have extremely little confidence in their "change" if they can't demonstrate even a single time opposite sex instead of same sex attractions.
When did this happen, Randi? When did all the ex-gays refuse to go through months and years of penis monitoring to satisfy your dubious theories? Any documentation?
Anonymous one can't prove a negative, only a positive. You can check with Michael Bailey at Northwestern university, he's big into plethysmography and has offered to test "exgay" claims. If you want to prove me wrong you only need to come up with one example where "exgays" have been tested a single time to test the veracity of their claims. That you'll be unable to is pretty solid evidence that none have been willing to do so. There's nothing dubious about the fact that virtually no one has been able to change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions. The efforts by Spitzer, Shidlo and Shroeder showed that.
In this thread:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2006/12/huge-crc-has-support-of-hundreds-of.html#comments
You claimed gays can perform heterosexually and become conditioned to enjoy it. "The more they do so, the more they're conditioned to. It's purely Pavlovian." you said.
While your demanding documentation, how about you provide documentation for that dubious claim.
Didn't Pavlov document his findings?
Pavlov didn't have anything to do with gay men having sex with women. You're the one making that baseless claim - where's your documentation seeing as your so keen on documentation?
Pavlov's classical conditioning theories involved stimulation and response. Gender preference is merely aesthetic. Why couldn't a response be conditioned for it?
Post a Comment
<< Home