CNN Link here, but you can find the story lots of places. I heard it this morning on NPR.
Coincidentally, I came in to work this morning and someone had placed a Canadian penny on my desk. Since I'm the first in to work today, I doubt the two events are related. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
At last! Now for sure the U.S. will follow the example of another country's logical and morally right decision, as it has done in the past after recognizing the inequality and bigotry of its own actions!
oh wait...
(Sorry, I don't mean to kill the mood)
One step closer! Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
And now we can finally find out if the anti-ssmers hysterical rantings about the end of the family are true. I look forward to a lot of "I-told-you-sos."
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
hahaha yeah it was so funny hearing the conservatives leave parliament, and then a bunch of church groups held vigils or something outside parliament. one of them was like, i hope god doesn't remove his protection from this country lol
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
If anything ever deserved that particular emoticon...
This is great news.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
*loves Canada*
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So...
To those who said "Let's see what happens in Canada first", how long do we have to wait? (This was a popular position in our homosexual marriage debate, but not advanced by everyone opposed to gay marriage)
And what kind of statistics would prove that Canada made the right choice, or not? I think that the "protection of marriage" crowd will look for any statistic that could seem to work in their favor in cling to it. I can see it becoming a big part of the debate in the future. "I am against gay marriage because it leads to destruction of family. Canada's divorce rate in Vancouver has gone up by three percent!" That sort of thing .
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
I have a feeling, in the "heat of the moment" there will be more homosexual marriages that will end in divorce than average in the next few years.
So I hope, bearing in mind that people will be eager to exercise their new found right, people won't judge for awhile.
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
11 states voted against ssm this past year. sounds like people are happy.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Hooray! This made me so happy last night.
(I doubt that anything will noticably change in the fabric of Canadian society, and everyone will go: "Oh look, it really doesn't affect us at all!"
"Well duh!")
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, but Canada's weird. I doubt you all would have a major national seizure at the sight of a bare breast, which just goes to show how strange your attitudes towards sex already are. It's entirely possible that were America to take the same steps, a bare breast (or even two) would cease to cause us enormous psychic trauma as well, which would just tear our society apart.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Or at the very least give us less to feel superior about over the water cooler. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...which just goes to show how strange your attitudes towards sex already are.
Aren't all societal viewpoints of sexuality entirely subjective? I mean, it's nice to think of American views of sexuality (as if there was one single view) as stupid, puritanical, and foolish...but that regard is based entirely by comparison to another totally subjective view of human sexuality.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, no they're not. That's one of the great lies people tell aobut values. There tends to be a large intersection between subjective values and their effects on (relatively) objective reality.
Taking things psychologically, we can go beyond direct effects and demonstrate more general effects, such as an unnecessary fixation on some aspect of existence and attendent anxiety disorders. We can further show thewarping of reality that goes along with these things as well as the stunting of human potential.
One caveat is that, to a certain extent, all of these comparisons are themselves subjective. However, at a certain point, the rubber meets the road and you can actually get a sense of the outcomes and effects of "subjective" beliefs.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not only are they to an extent subjective, but how long have sociology and psychology been both effective sciences (and I believe they both are), and applied to these questions, Mr. Squicky?
Also, how well do those two sciences work together on these questions? Psychology can to some extent predict the behavior and response of an individual, but you're asserting a much larger claim, aren't you?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...around a hundred years or so. And yes, the field of social psychology does in fact deal with mass groups of people and not the individual.
Which is pretty much besides the point that the claim that sexual attitudes are entirely subjective without the possibility of objective measurement is incorrect. Even if this measurement doesn't exist or, as I think is the case, lacks a deal of specificity except in extreme cases, this does not preclude the possibility of accurate assesment, which was your initial claim.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Taking things psychologically, we can go beyond direct effects and demonstrate more general effects, such as an unnecessary fixation on some aspect of existence and attendent anxiety disorders. We can further show thewarping of reality that goes along with these things as well as the stunting of human potential.
Because all psychologists/ research studies come to the same conclusions about what is healthy and unhealthy sexual behavior. And all sociologists agree about the larger consequences of such behavior. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure what your sarcastic remark has to do with what I said. Could you perhaps elaborate?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Which is pretty much besides the point that the claim that sexual attitudes are entirely subjective without the possibility of objective measurement is incorrect. Even if this measurement doesn't exist or, as I think is the case, lacks a deal of specificity except in extreme cases, this does not preclude the possibility of accurate assesment
I doubt the possibility of coming up with an accurate assessment that everybody would agree is accurate. There is no scientific way to prove that one view of sex (or way of life) is empirically better than another. There are only opinions.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:There is no scientific way to prove that one view of sex (or way of life) is empirically better than another. There are only opinions.
That can't extend to incest or rape, can it?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think it's still an opinion, just a widely shared one, that incest and rape are wrong. For those who don't value women's rights or family sanctity, I doubt they would have a problem with incest or rape. However, most of do have those values and I'm glad of that.
But for the sake of argument, we could change it to "There is no scientific way to prove that one view of consentual, adult sex is empirically better than another."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Fundamentally that's correct, but only at a couple of removes. It's like saying that "There is no scientific way to prove that one way of eating is empirically better than another." What defines healthy is ultimately a matter of opinion. You could think that dieing of hyper-obesity in your 20s is the "right" thing to do. However, we have established standards for physical health and have likewise established similar, though looser, less defined, standards for psychological health.
If you're willing to say that things like "the ability to accurately perceive reality" or "the ability to achieve one's goals" or "not developing physical or quasi-physical ailments because of one's mental state" are not constituents of being psychologically healthy, then you could say that it's all just subjective. If not, however, than there are obviously scientific ways to prove that one view of sex (or of many other psychological phenomena) is emprically better than another.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
As I said in that other thread, this is the very first time in my entire life that I have ever been genuinely and completely ashamed of being Canadian.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Because you see it as paving the way for religious persecution? Much as I wish I could say that that would never happen, I don't think I can count on my fellows to try and use SSM as a stick to poke at religion over the next few years. I don't, however, think much will come of said pokings other than media coverage.
If, however, you think it's destroying the fabric of our society, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.
I'm pleased with the ruling.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
yeah, i find it kind of wierd that alot of religous groups are gettin upset cuz they think that they can be sued now for not performing SSMs. It clearly states in the law that no religious institution will be forced to marry anyone they dont want to
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I don't doubt that people will try to sue churches over this. There are a lot of people out there who are carrying a lot of hurt or who are plainly spiteful. I do, however, trust those who uphold the laws to ensure that the spirit (edit: and letter) behind the law is kept and not abused.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:As I said in that other thread, this is the very first time in my entire life that I have ever been genuinely and completely ashamed of being Canadian.
And that is liking icing on the cake for me.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
its funny, in the 40's, women weren't allowed to vote, and there were many politicians and people who feverishly spoke out against granting them this right. Many of the people who opposed women voting were passionate and presented seemingly rational reasons why they shouldn't, but how are these people remembered today? not very nicely, and that is exaclty how all the people who spoke out against SSM are going to be portrayed in the future, when our kids will say to us: "i can't believe you didnt have SSM everywhere in the world when you were younger!"
i cant wait for stephen harper to be villified.. maybe they'll call him harper the xenocide Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Don't blow things out of proportion, Angiomorphism. Harper is not mass-murdering an entire species out of existance, is he?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
it was a joke man, hence the smiley...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
They way your post is set out implies that you were more serious than joking- or doing one of those little jokey jabs that aren't too pleasant at the recieving end.
And I'm not a man.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Grrrr! Someone's fired up.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote: I do, however, trust those who uphold the laws to ensure that the spirit (edit: and letter) behind the law is kept and not abused.
Yes, until some judge decides that such exceptional protections are unconstitutional and strikes them down.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: They way your post is set out implies that you were more serious than joking- or doing one of those little jokey jabs that aren't too pleasant at the recieving end.
And I'm not a man.
the way my post is set up implies that i do not like harper particularly, and thought it would be comical to compare his villification to Ender's, seeing as how this is an OSC forum, woman
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
See diggin, you're getting all set for a slippery slope. But I don't see how this is the first slip.
But if it does actually happen, then I'll be fully understanding of your moaning, ok?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I believe, more and more, Canada is on the right track and the United States is losing its way. Why do our leaders (oh, yeah, and our followers, too) think that equal rights, equal protection under the law, access to healthcare for all citizens, and, (what else?) the metric system are dangerous concepts?
Sheesh! Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:Yes, until some judge decides that such exceptional protections are unconstitutional and strikes them down.
While I can appreciate your fear, dh, I think it's unfounded. What part of the constitution leads you to think that exceptional protections of religious institutions will be struck down with regard to same sex marriage?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
The conversation has moved on, but I still want to respond to an earlier tanget. Sorry to rederail your thread KarlEd.
quote: If you're willing to say that things like "the ability to accurately perceive reality" or "the ability to achieve one's goals" or "not developing physical or quasi-physical ailments because of one's mental state" are not constituents of being psychologically healthy, then you could say that it's all just subjective. If not, however, than there are obviously scientific ways to prove that one view of sex (or of many other psychological phenomena) is emprically better than another.
I'll concede to your constituents of psychological health. And for individuals and specific points of time, you could prove that one view of sex was empirically better than another. However, I do not think you can prove the same for a general population.
For example, Person A believes that abstinence until marraige is the only morally accurate way to behave. Person A encounters 2 situations. Situation 1: They attempt to be celibate for a year. The person has to problem with this because of their developed self-discipline. Situation 2: They sleep around over a course of a year. This would create psychological trauma as you described. For person A, a more conservative view of sex is necessary for psychological health.
Person B believes that sex is a very casual thing to be shared with anybody and everybody. In Situation 1, They encounter psychological trauma as you described. In Situation 2, they have no problem. For Person B, a more liberal view of sex is necessary for psychological health.
I think that psychological health is all about living in accordance with your values, regardless of what those values are. Thus it is dependent on the person and subjective.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If not, however, than there are obviously scientific ways to prove that one view of sex (or of many other psychological phenomena) is emprically better than another.
My point is not that you're wrong, but that psychology and sociology have not been both reliable enough and lengthy enough to determine these things in the way you're describing. Would you characterize the psychology and sociology of one-hundred years ago as effective and well-learned, Mr. Squicky?
Where are the long-term studies following people and generations of varying sexualities, genders, income levels, race, politics, etc., to support your claims that there are ultimately 'better' views of human sexuality than others?
We know a lot. We don't know as much as you're implying-or at least as much as it seems to me you're implying. That's my point.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Amanacer
quote:I think that psychological health is all about living in accordance with your values, regardless of what those values are. Thus it is dependent on the person and subjective.
Let's not forget sociopaths, however, who are perfectly convinced of their values and experience no discomfort while engaging in seriously warped acts.
I think there's better line for society to build into its laws (and it's thinking in terms of mental health). Consenting adults do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. The government tries VERY hard to create a level field -- not officially promoting or penalizing the private acts of consenting adults.
It seems that Canada has now taken this principle to the next logical level by not denying homosexuals certain legal rights that accrue to those who are married. They chose to do it by allowing actual marriage (as opposed to setting up some sort of pair-bonding corporation for legal purposes).
I applaud them. I think they are doing the only logical and consistent thing a government can do when faced with obvious discrimination and inequality in laws. You fix the CURRENT problem because it affects actual living people who are suffering under it, and, if that fix causes problems, you address them as they arise.
The call in the US to "wait and see" perpetuates a situation that most acknowledge is unfair and/or inequal. Some want that inequality to remain, but they do acknowledge it. IMHO, once there is general agreement that there is inequality under the law, THAT's the time you fix it. Not start a debate over whether some level of inequality is good for the country or not. It is not the nature of law to tolerate inequality for long. It makes interpretation messy. It pits us against ourselves because we all want things to at least feel like they are fair and equal.
There MIGHT be social and legal problems that arise from allowing homosexuals to marry. But, there already ARE social and legal problems that arise form NOT letting homosexuals marry. And those problems are real, and hurt current citizens of the state.
So...I think a good government is one that errs on the side of equality.
And I applaud the Canadians for getting the right answer.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well said, Bob. Thanks.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:But I don't see how this is the first slip.
I agree with you 100%. This is not the first slip. The first slip came more than 40 years ago.
Some people seem to think that the institution of gay marriage is an exceptional, isolated catastrophe in and of itself. It isn't. It's one more phase in the rapid deconstruction of marriage and the family that has been going on since the sixties; the loosening of divorce laws that eventually led to no-fault divorce, the gradual erasing of any real difference between formal marriage and common-law marriage. It's no wonder marriage is no longer a big deal.
Bob, given our judicial history of interpreting the Charter extremely loosely, do you really think it that inconceivable, even improbable, that some judge not too far down the road will find that "equality" rights trump freedom of religion, or at least of open expression of that religion? It's not going to happen tomorrow, public opinion hasn't been molded sufficiently in that direction yet. But it's already well on its way. As soon as someone thinks they can get away with it without too much of a public outcry, there will be legal challenges.
In fact, there already are. The bishop of Calgary is currently being investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for distributing litterature that was exactly in line with the teachings of his church, namely that homosexuality is a sin and encourageing people to oppose the bill. The Knights of Columbus (a catholic's men group, it's important to note) in B.C. are presently being sued for refusing to let a lesbian couple marry in their building.
These legal challenges are most likely going to fail, but given how fast things have moved over the past 40 years, do you really think that will be the case in 5 or 10 years? There will be bigger, more organized legal challenges, and sooner or later they will win. You can take that to the bank.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The fight for SSM is neither the result of, nor an indication of the decline of the sanctity of straight marriages.
I'll grant you that no-fault divorce and the like have done a lot towards weakening the family, but to lay blame for failed straight marriages on the attempts by gay couples to strengthen their own families is utterly ridiculous. No one on this forum has ever to my knowledge been able to demonstrate one way in which SSM weakens, denigrates, or otherwise harms so-called "traditional marriage". Unless you can provide some rational explanation for your claim that SSM is another in a series of matrimonial catastrophes your claim can't be taken at face value.
I can't speak for Canada, but in the US I believe there is very little to fear in the way of churches being forced to marry homosexuals. Fearing that simply because homosexuals are gaining civil rights it will lead to the curtailing of religous rights guaranteed by our Constitution is an incredible leap of logic and, in my opinion, completely unjustified.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote: Some people seem to think that the institution of gay marriage is an exceptional, isolated catastrophe in and of itself. It isn't. It's one more phase in the rapid deconstruction of marriage and the family that has been going on since the sixties; the loosening of divorce laws that eventually led to no-fault divorce, the gradual erasing of any real difference between formal marriage and common-law marriage. It's no wonder marriage is no longer a big deal.
This is the standard Conservative/Christian line about how society has been falling apart since the 60s, but it is entirely too simplistic.
The real reason families are less stable: women are now capable of being independant. The economic and social forces that kept women dependant on their men have been disolving since the First World War. They can now choose.
That being said, I see no reason to believe that society is becoming somehow "worse." Remember, extraordinary crimes against humanity were standard fair in centuries and generations leading up to ours. "Solid families" didn't stop any of those.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
The Christian fear that they will be forced to perform gay marriages comes from a specific belief. On a fundamental level, Christians and non-Christians are different, and conflict between the two groups is inevitable.
This is especially true for fundamentalists and evangelicals. I have intelligent, articulate evangelical friends, and everyone of them believes that organized persecution is just around the next corner. As if us non-Christians just sit around all day planning to destroy the church, like Palpatine and the Jedi.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
(edited to remove ",too" since it's not yet legal in Canada, only close)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Wow! That's one I didn't even know was on the horizon! And in a predominantly Catholic country, too!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:A survey released in May by pollster Instituto Opina said 62 percent of Spaniards support the government's action on this issue, and 30 percent oppose it.
I don't see these kind of numbers in the US for at least another 10-15 years. Pretty surprising for them to come out of Spain.
But it will happen in America. You just have to look at the public's views on homosexuality 5 years ago, then 10, then 20, then 40. Its truly amazing how far we have come in a generation and a half. Kids growing up are FAR more likely to know an openly homosexual person (or several), and have many media outlets showing them that its not something to be afraid of. Plus, when my generation (who entered teen years with Pedro Zemora on MTV, and the "coming out" of so many media stars and characters) will have children, and we will teach them that its nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to be afraid of either. Which I think is exactly why the conservatives get so angry about this. I think they know they are destined to lose this part in the war of "values" in this country. The movements to put ammendments on the state and federal constitutions demonstrates this. They know the laws against homosexual marriage will get overturned eventually, but that ammendments are much harder to get rid of. They may be in the majority now, but it won't be that way forever. I doubt it will be that way in 20 years.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Did you see this article? It might not be so far in the future as you think.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:the way my post is set up implies that i do not like harper particularly, and thought it would be comical to compare his villification to Ender's, seeing as how this is an OSC forum, woman
Okay . I'm just trying to keep things pleasant between the "for" and "against" groups. I wasn't trying to be snippy.
Posted by 1lobo1 (Member # 7762) on :
Good for Canada and Spain.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Let's not forget sociopaths, however, who are perfectly convinced of their values and experience no discomfort while engaging in seriously warped acts.
Sociopaths seem to have less of a problem with being themselves and more of a problem with fitting into society as a whole. That doesn't contradict Mr. Squicky's defintion of psychological health.
I think I'm going too far in defending my position. Clearly sociopaths have problems. However, I contend that when it comes to sexual behavior, living in accordance with your beliefs is necessary to psychological health. Which pretty much means I disagree with Squicky's opinion that Canada's views of sexuality are empirically better than America's, in case that wasn't already clear. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But again, we can measure psychopathology to a certain extent. It can be demonstrated with a certain degree of confidence that viewing and reacting to sexual stimuli/threats in certain ways (in accordance with tthe whole big field of studying the healthiness/unhealthiness of responses to stresses and threats) leads to more unhealthy and even psychopathological effects.
The human being, like other aspects of reality, is not infinitely malleable. There are rules that govern what is going to occur when we do things. Just like it's not going to be healthy for you to gorge yourself on fast food on a regular basis, taking certain attiudes and actions in psychological areas, such as sex, is not going to be healthy. We've got a whole section of the DSM devoted to sexual disorders, specifically because these things can be shown to be bad for people.
We are not there yet in terms of a huge deal of specificity, even on the personal level let alone the wider social one that we're talking about here, but science is not, as some people seem to be suggesting, a binary phenomenom. Freud was right in many ways and this has been borne out by the last hundred of so years of research. Extreme anixiety and repression to sexual stimuli is not a heathy way to be. It leads to and springs from an unhealthy, warped psyche. I can't definitively prove that going nuts over seeing a brief flash of the human body is necessarily, in all cases, a less healthy response than not going nuts, but I can suggest it with a reasonably high degree of confidence.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:Bob, given our judicial history of interpreting the Charter extremely loosely, do you really think it that inconceivable, even improbable, that some judge not too far down the road will find that "equality" rights trump freedom of religion, or at least of open expression of that religion?
Of course it's not inconceivable. It's just highly improbably. There are a lot of special protections within the charter you’d have to change in order to legislating religion, not to mention the *complete* about face that the public would have to go through. Look, I know religious people feel like they're under attack and are being persecuted, but let's not forget that they are still the vast and undisputed majority in this country. And beyond that, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people who don't identify with a religion are still pretty big on religious freedoms. Heck, we even have religious courts that people are free to use.
quote:In fact, there already are. The bishop of Calgary is currently being investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for distributing litterature that was exactly in line with the teachings of his church, namely that homosexuality is a sin and encourageing people to oppose the bill.
The oft maligned and misunderstood laws in Canada on hate crime and hate literature do not even begin to apply here. Is he inciting genocide? No? Carry on. This is simply a situation where someone he doesn't understand the laws is making a stink for media attention (both the man making the charge and his supporters, and the religious people who feel persecuted by it).
quote:The Knights of Columbus (a catholic's men group, it's important to note) in B.C. are presently being sued for refusing to let a lesbian couple marry in their building.
This would probably have to be on the grounds that the Knights of Columbus are offering or providing public services within the protection of section 8a of the Human Rights Act. Of course, it isn't. It doesn't have a chance to win. It's not just religious organisations that are attacked under pretext of section 8a, look up Gould v. The Yukon Order of Pioneers (which also charged them of sexism under the Act). Tossed out. You can deny someone entry based on sexual orientation, gender, race, ethnicity, height, weight, eye colour, accent, whatever the hell you want.
Look, I know you already knew that these cases would be tossed out, but you have to understand that their primary function is to bring media attention to the situation in the hopes that the public will back them and pressure the government and courts into making sweeping changes to the constitution in order to legislate religion. I'm saying that I both doubt the Canadian public could be made to do this and that I doubt there could be enough pressure placed on the courts to decide "Religious freedom? Yeah, what *were* we thinking?"
quote:You can take that to the bank.
If it happens I'll owe you one grovel subject to 0.3% interest/year.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Oh, but it will be fun to watch Spain and Canada burn in hell. I mean, we're right next door to Canada. We have the best possible view. It will be fun to watch their societies crumble, their moral fiber rend and shred, their sense of justice and humanity wither and die in the white-hot sun of sin and impudence and blasphemy, Canada's no-longer-manly hockey teams spontaneously combust into a billion meaty bloody God-splattered bits, Spanish children drop their jamón sandwiches in terror and scream and shriek and turn into instant puddles of fiery confused goo.
Why all the vicious carnage? Why the reign of terror? Simple, silly: Canada and Spain have done the unthinkable, the unconscionable. They have legalized gay marriage, everywhere, in their respective countries. Oh my God, they are so going to burn.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)