Canada's first same-sex couple to legally wed

[DJG]

I'm not too sure about my opinion on this same-sex wedding thing.

But it doesn't really concern me too greatly, I'm a heterosexual male. I suppose if that's what they want to do, they can do it! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Kakero: I wonder how are those same sex married couple going to produce offsprings? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Adoption, which also is a very heated debate. I know lesbian couples are fighting for their right to have a child through arteficial insemination. A very interesting debate in which I don't know which side to support.

[DJG]

I was thinking about how gay/lesbian couples could have children. I thought that if they could somehow do it, chromosomes would be an issue. For instance, if a lesbian couple has a child, it can only be a girl. There are no Y chromosomes to make a boy. However, if two gays had a child, it could be male, female or it could end up with two Y chromosomes, which has never happened before. I wonder how a child with YY chromosomes could turn out. A super male?

Anyway, don't ask me how gay/lesbian couples can have children with each other. Maybe through implanting genetic data into a sperm/egg?

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: There's nothing intrinsic to being heterosexual or homosexual that makes one union any more likely to last than any other.

Admittedly not, but the current circumstances that gay relationships happen in (and lets not be naive - the circumstances they will probably happen in for a good few years to come yet) mean that any relationship that reaches the stage of marriage has already withstood a significant test of time and adverse surroundings. As Willow said; this has statistical evidence to support it. Not because being gay makes you more prone to longer relationships but ecause of the way gay relationships are treated at present.

No need to get a bee in the bonnet about this contention, its not attacking gays or putting them apart from straight people. The only difference I can see is that the theory observes that they are treated differently by society as a whole. Sadly thats pretty irrefutable.

[Indemaijinj]

As far as I know lesbian couple who wants to have children and actually carry them themselves usually get a close friend of theirs to donate the sperm and then they inseminate themselves with a big syringe.

Little fuss, cheap, no ambigous morality and it will be easy to tell their children who their biological father was.


As for the morality of bringing up children in a gay home I cannot find the big problem. After all many children have been brought up successfully by single parents. What, I think, matters is that there IS a parent.

[Ronn_Bman]

Isn't Vermont the only US state that recognizes a gay union?

I heard this discussed on The View yesterday, and the lawyer was discussing the strict rules in Vermont in order to qualify for gay marriage, the fact that other states don't recognize these weddings, and the problems that have already been encountered regarding divorce. It was pretty interesting stuff.

[pritchke]

I don't think closed minded people really want to consider that gay marriage may just be fair. It shouldn't be called marriage because that is a religious institution and they have no obligation to accept same sex union but like someone else said that just comes down to semantics. The government however is not a religious institution so must offer the same deals to people regardless of what the Vatican or good ol' Ralph says.

Of course its probably a lot about getting their hands on their spouses booty and why shouldn't they. I'm sure they pay as much into their CPP as any other religiously abiding canadian has and they have just as much right to have a say over their spouse's affairs as we do. If you take the time to talk to some gay/lesbian men and women you will quickly find that aside from the outspoken political minority they couldn't care less about being recognised but they would like to have the same rights with their loved ones as heterosexual couples have and that comes through legislation and official unions.

To those that complain of the courts taking precedence over parliament well so what? Why shouldn't they? Do YOU want to live in a country where the government has complete say over its people and the people have no recourse to appeal? I certainly don't. If the governments are that unhappy with the courts' decisions they can use the not withstanding clause. And the majority of Canadians? Many polls have shown majority support for legalised gay union.

Regardless of what your opinions are on the subject we luckily live in a country that has laws that we all must live by and must be enforced fairly. If you don't like it. Move to Alberta (Just Kidding ).

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Isn't Vermont the only US state that recognizes a gay union?

Hawaii too. The issues Hawaii had gave us a big heads up when we were working on the Civil Union Bill.

I don't care if you call it "marriage" or not, just so long as we allow gays to have equal rights to benefits, such as "next of kin" hospital rights, inheritance rights, joint tax returns, and shared medical benefits plans. We are simply experiencing growing pains as we redefine what "family" means. It is a trend that cannot be stopped.

And, is for the legislatures, I would say. I don't know how recent Canada's Charter is, or what it says, but courts APPLY law, legislatures CHANGE law.

[pritchke]

The charter besides the language stuff it seems pretty basic:
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/c....html#libertes


I think this may be the section the judge used in determining the case.

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.

[Timber Loftis]

Thanks, pritchke. As with our own equality rules, I note that list does not include protection based on sexuality. "Sex" means "gender" unless I'm mistaken.