Canada's first same-sex couple to legally wed

[pritchke]

True, but I assume the judge may have decided they were being denied certain rights as a couple because they were of the same sex. One of the problems with equality and freedom rules is that they are pretty general so not everyone will interpret them the same. I guess that is one of the reasons to have judges to rule on issues like this. I don't think the government will appeal this case to the supreme court in this case. They may redefine the law somewhat to recognize gay unions as equivalent to marriages under the law to somewhat appease those opposed, and allow gays to have the same rights has married couples.

[ 06-11-2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[realbinky]

Originally posted by Luvian: I'd say that if you had to fight 20 years to finally get maried, chances are that you won't divorce any time soon.

Don't be too sure. There is a gay couple in Connecticut that got married in VT last year or so, after years of waiting for some state to allow it. NOW they want a divorce and can't get one. CT says they aren't legally married, VT says you can't get a divorce there unless you've been a resident for years. Serves em right. These 2, not all gays. But I am Catholic by birth, my parents' religion is homophobic, a little rubbed off on me.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by 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?

First of all, I'm not sure how your genetics works out - i'm not a biologist, but I do know a few things.

There are no such people as YY-chromosome males. Lack of an X-chromosome kills you. Howerver, there are XYY males. They are not exactly common, but not exactly rare either. About 1 in 1000 males will have an extra Y chromosome. XYY's tend to be physically strong, mentally slightly below-average, and also it was thought that it was linked to criminality. Recent studies have recanted this somewhat.

You also get XXX females, XXY males, XXXXX females (!) and many other combinations.

More info here [img]smile.gif[/img]

http://www.icomm.ca/geneinfo/pentax.htm

http://www.icomm.ca/geneinfo/klinefel.htm

http://www.icomm.ca/geneinfo/xyy.htm

http://www.icomm.ca/geneinfo/xx.html < XX males

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: We are simply experiencing growing pains as we redefine what "family" means. It is a trend that cannot be stopped.

Actually, I believe that you can to a certain extent.
For example, Japan was close to the west and the peasants were all disarmed and this kept the society stable and unchanging for hundreds of years, at the cost of social mobility and the change and innovation that this brings.

If you want to stop societal change, you need to stop the changing materiel conditions.

I think Amish people do it, I saw a video on them in philosophy.
Also, Because they all intermarry, They have strange genetics I think.

But you couldn't stop it in the wider sense of The western world today I think.
The handmaids tale will never happen! (probably, but don't quote me on that)

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: 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. [/QUOTE]I hope my comment didn't sound like I'm against gay marriage or think hetero unions are better than gay unions. Not at all. I think gay marriage should absolutely be allowed, for all the reasons Timber stated.

I totally agree with what you're saying. But I think the argument (and the statistics - data do not know where they come from after all - someone chose the groups, did the analysis, and interpreted the results ) is flawed - you're comparing couples who are free to marry whoever they want whenever they want with couples who have to fight and lobby and overcome adversity who of course will be more committed from the effort - a more realistic comparison would be all the gay couples who would have got married had they been allowed - and there would be just as many poor choices, just as many whims, and eventually just as many marriages ending badly because, like you say, gay people aren't any better at maintaining long relationships than straight people. So the statistics don't really mean anything. I see in this thread that Animal for instance appears to be advocating gay marriage because they will be less likely to divorce - and that's a spurious reason because if there is open slather on gay marriage it will be no different to straight marriage.

I also disagree with Animal's contention that gay marriages would last longer because they are the same sex so they can understand each other better - I can't speak for anyone but myself, but 'not understanding men' hasn't been the reason for relationships that I have had not working. Gay people are just as able to find someone else, grow apart, have too different ideas, don't agree about religion, have differnt life goals, cheat on each other, fight about money, have communication problems, have different sex drives etc etc etc.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I heard this discussed on The View yesterday,

You watch The View???!!!

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: I heard this discussed on The View yesterday,

You watch The View???!!! [/QUOTE]I'm "in touch" with my feminine side. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: I hope my comment didn't sound like I'm against gay marriage or think hetero unions are better than gay unions. Not at all. I think gay marriage should absolutely be allowed, for all the reasons Timber stated. I totally agree with what you're saying. But I think the argument (and the statistics - data do not know where they come from after all - someone chose the groups, did the analysis, and interpreted the results ) is flawed - you're comparing couples who are free to marry whoever they want whenever they want with couples who have to fight and lobby and overcome adversity who of course will be more committed from the effort - a more realistic comparison would be all the gay couples who would have got married had they been allowed - and there would be just as many poor choices, just as many whims, and eventually just as many marriages ending badly because, like you say, gay people aren't any better at maintaining long relationships than straight people. So the statistics don't really mean anything. I see in this thread that Animal for instance appears to be advocating gay marriage because they will be less likely to divorce - and that's a spurious reason because if there is open slather on gay marriage it will be no different to straight marriage. I also disagree with Animal's contention that gay marriages would last longer because they are the same sex so they can understand each other better - I can't speak for anyone but myself, but 'not understanding men' hasn't been the reason for relationships that I have had not working. Gay people are just as able to find someone else, grow apart, have too different ideas, don't agree about religion, have differnt life goals, cheat on each other, fight about money, have communication problems, have different sex drives etc etc etc.

That was my point Aelia - its not about because they're in a same sex relationship that makes it last longer, its the fact that same sex relationships are conducted in completely different circumstances to heterosexual ones. The statistics still mean something though, they just don't quite mean whats often inferred from them. They highlight that equality (and, dare I say it, liberation even) are one hell of a long way off still. What they don't mean is that gay people are somehow better at keeping a relationship together. The statistic still means something as long as its interpreted correctly.

[Timber Loftis]

If we are going to start comparing same sex relationships with conventional ones, there are a lot of things to point out. The first one I'll note is that it has been my experience (note: I lived with two gay men for a few years and have litterally tons of gay friends) that homosexuals tend to be a bit more promiscuous. "Tea Rooms" don't exist in the straight world, y'know.

Now, whether or not this extends or decreases the duration of same sex marriages is hard to discern, because I have not noticed many gay folks who rush to get married like heteros sometimes do. I will note that I know of several homosexual/bisexual relationships that have lasted for years and years.