Two years, eighteen days, and some eleven hours later....

[backguy]

It passed. Some time ago I accepted the fact that not much could be done to stop it, but now it's official.

Hmm.

CBC
Radio-Canada
CTV
Global

And here is where it all started.

Comments

[walkingirony]

Je m'excuse vraiment, mais le marriage c'est entre une femme puis un homme. J'ai du mal a comprends comment ils peuvent appeller ca une marriage, car une marriage c'est avec une eglise, est dans l'eglise, un homme mari une femme.

Ils devraient appeller cette affaire " L'union d'epouse " pas marriage.

-- Done in french...sorry, use Babel Fish, Didn't want it in English.

-- Also, I'm all in for human rights, don't get me wrong, just translate the above.

[backguy]

J'en ai compri tout, alors je n'ai pas besoin de BabelFish. Je demeurais à Montréal pendant 7 années et demi. :)

Je suis en accord avec toi - un mariage pour une femme et un homme et est beni par l'église.

[shade_42]

Sorry dude, but I can`t agree that the marriage has to be blessed by the church (I presume you feel any religious institution would do?)

I`m not going to get into the SSM argument again, but the seperation of the church from marriage has been long established and is vitally important (for me at least). If you have a strong and valuable connection to God, I applaud that, however I will not dictate that everyone else must have a similar connection in order to live together in matrimony.

Take it completely apart from the legal implications for a moment (survivor`s pension, income tax, etc). Marriage, not civil union, but marriage, can have both religious and social implications. I do not believe you require the former to be entitled to the latter.

The faithfull should not have a monopoly on marriage.

My $0.02.

That being said, I can imagine today will be a difficult day for you. I don`t envy anyone whose beliefs are in the minority when shifts like this happen. I respect you conviction, even if I can`t agree with it.

Cheers,

[backguy]

Yes, I would say that any religious institution would do. I just use the word church since it's where my background lies (and it takes too long to type the various alternatives).

Personally, I can only see marriage being fully enjoyed when it's under God. However, if you're not among the faithful (as you call it), then that's not really possible, regardless of whether the couple is same-sex or opposite-sex. But whether or not the marriage is under God or not, most civilisations throughout history have seen marriage as being between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

I wouldn't have minded as much if civil unions were the norm for same-sex couples, for various reasons that I don't want to get into right now. I do think, though, that marriage is designed to be between a man and a woman and I feel that it's in Canada's best interest for it to stay that way.

My $0.02.

[walkingirony]

My god parents are Michel and Michelle. We call her Mich, and him michel. Always.

[victory_is_me]

My neighbours are Leopold and Leopolda! They go by Leo and Polda.

[quikchange]

I just came across a novel argument for why it made sense to legalize SSM. In that it's not surprising that Canada would be among the first countries in the world to do this.

[quikchange]

I think this article has a good statement near the end:
"Canadians, by and large don't care about perfection of virtue (issues of conscience), what they care about is efficiency (money, medicare, infrastructure)."

It's true - Canadians don't care about issues of conscience, and I think that it's sad that Canadians are so focused on money, infrastructre, etc.; these goals are very temporal and material. Society is about more than contracts or just letting everyone do what they want to do. There are things that are always right or wrong and not just a matter of individual rights.

The title of the article is interesting: Perfection vs. Efficiency. Would you rather have something done quickly or correctly?

[quikchange]

That would be a perfectly valid line of reasoning if we could all agree on what was correct. However, clearly we cannot.

What I have difficulty understanding is why so many people feel the need to enforce their values upon other people. I don't like eating tomatoes, for instance, but I would never dream of prohibiting others from enjoying them as long as they don't try to force them upon me. What makes it the government's responsibility to ensure that people conform to a particular set of morals?

One answer I've heard is that marriage is fundamental to society and that tampering with it would cause harm to society at large. The problem with that argument is that there isn't any evidence to indicate that permitting SSM would harm society. To maintain the status quo purely out of fear that something bad might happen makes no more sense than the now defunct argument that allowing inter-racial marriage would destroy the fabric of society. Am I missing something?

[backguy]

And I forgot to sign in....