I don't think we need to rehash yet again the whole same sex marriage topic yet again. Obviously. But I have a specific question, and I'm having a hard time getting it answered from other sources.
Does anyone care to predict the effects legalizing SSM will have on Canada? And can you offer a time frame? What's going to happen to Canada now?
The standard prediction: fewer heterosexual marriages, more out of wedlock children. Resulting form a devaluation of marriage.
Does anyone have any other predictions to add? In the interests of being able to say "I told you so."
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
My prediction as to what will happen to Canada because of SSM: Nothing much.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Same. Life will go on as usual. And, if by some fluke I meet a girl that wants to marry me, perhaps we'll go to Canada and do it. But, sadly this will not happen.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I have to agree with the others.
It's not going to change much - it will have no effects on heterosexuals.
Marriage hasn't been "sacred" for a while, SSM isn't changing that (though I do believe SSM can involve "sacred" marriages.)
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
Aw, Syn, don't give up! Every pot has a lid to match somewhere!
SSM=more wedding receptions. Pros: I love parties! Cons: more competition for the same reception halls. *shrug*
Note to Syn: I have a bunch of watches that are either broken, or need batteries and straps. Want them? Email me (sewsquare@yahoo.com)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No effect. Like heterosexual people take their cues from gay people as to the value of marriage. Come on. Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
So, you're saying my urge to suddenly have unprotected sex with every women I see isn't because gay people can get married?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Nothing has happened and Gay Marriage has been possible for a year (or more?) now in most of the country. Did the world end when women got the vote? Is it going to end when Gay couples can legally marry? Pfft!
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Lots of people will get married. Some of them will be SSM. Many of the couples will end up getting a divorce. There will still be plenty of kids. It will be cold. Montreal will be a nice place to visit for people living on the east coast.
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
Even more opportunities for young males to go to receptions and work their latest Wedding Crashers efforts
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: So, you're saying my urge to suddenly have unprotected sex with every women I see isn't because gay people can get married?
*shifty look*
Maybe.
Maybe not.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
I think it's a precursor of what's to come in the U.S. There will be a bigger division between civil marriage and religious marriage until marriage will eventually be a unique doctrine rather than much of a social institution.
I look at the widening break like "religious" Christmas and "commercial" Christmas, where both families have a christmas tree but often the symbolism, meaning (and some of the traditions) are very, very different.
I figure if it's easier (and cheaper) to divorce than get out early from my cell phone contract, the wheel's already gone a bit flat...
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
You're all such a bunch of godless heathens. I thought there were opponents of SSM here?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Maybe the opponents are just more tired of talking about it?
--Enigmatic (godless taoist)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Syn, I find it tough to believe that some girl hasn't scooped you up already. Have a little more confidence =)
Pix
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I live in a country where same sex marriage is illegal. I have been married to the same man for over 18 years. If gay marriage becomes legal, will it effect my marriage? Of course not. If it had been legal 20 years ago, would that have effected our plans to marry? Of course not.
Most people are straight, and most people want to marry and have children. Allowing the minority of gay people to have equal rights and equal protection under the law ought not to effect straight people in the least.
In fact, I find it offensive some people are assuming that the grounds and basis for my marriage are so shaky that they can not withstand everyone else afforded the same opportunity.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
And, by the way, I am NOT G'dless. I am devout, committed to my G'd and my faith.
Why are you supposing that the faithful would feel challenged by affording all citizens equal rights?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
One of the two doctors I work with got married to her same sex partner up in Canada a couple weeks ago. They took their parents and their kids along. Said they had a great time. They redid their wills and financial stuff in preparation for it since they are Americans and therefore the marriage isn't exactly valid here. I think that it was done as a sort of official "coming out" declaration. I have my doubts about their abilities to remain monogamous long term so I'm curious to see how things go now that they are married.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: I have my doubts about their abilities to remain monogamous long term so I'm curious to see how things go now that they are married.
Sadly, the same is said about many intergender couples.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If gay marriage becomes legal, will it effect my marriage? Of course not.
The people who claim that civil SSM will hurt marriage do NOT claim that it will cause any particular divorce. It's a response to a straw man to refute it this way.
Even though I favor civil SSM, I do have worries.
quote:Does anyone care to predict the effects legalizing SSM will have on Canada?
My worry is not that anyone will get divorced because of SSM. Rather, I fear a continuation and expansion of efforts like this to limit freedom of speech and religion.
I also worry that acts similar to those taken by the IRS against Bob Jones University will be extended to institutions that make services such as counseling, mediation, or marriage strengthening available to married couples as those institutions define them. For many groups, this will exclude same sex couples.
Let's not forget that Sweden sentenced a minister to jail for preaching against homosexuals.
I don't think these fears warrant exclusion of same-sex couples fromt he purely civil benefits of civil marriage. But they do need to be guarded against.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
While I certainly agree that everyone should be able to have their say, there is a kind of irony in that the person asking the state to step in and curtail others is offended when others ask the state to step in and curtail his behavior/pov.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Syn, I find it tough to believe that some girl hasn't scooped you up already. Have a little more confidence =)
Pix
Or a boy for that matter. Perhaps it is a combination of shyness and unattractiveness... It would be nice to meet someone though.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Let's not forget that Sweden sentenced a minister to jail for preaching against homosexuals.
Wow! That actually happened?! That's absolutely insane.
-Katarain
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um. Can I just point out that the 'preaching against homosexuals' in question was not of the form 'homosexuals are being rather naughty', but rather 'homosexuals are worse than animals, God says so, and if we don't do anything about it he will destroy Sweden'. That's pretty close to inciting to murder. Anyway, Europe is a bit less tolerant of that kind of Scheisse; we've heard it before about Jews.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
North America hasn't always exactly been that kind to the Jews, either...actually, at one point it was something of a social and political fad to hate the Jews.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: And, by the way, I am NOT G'dless. I am devout, committed to my G'd and my faith.
Why are you supposing that the faithful would feel challenged by affording all citizens equal rights?
Sorry, I was just being cheeky.
quote:Um. Can I just point out that the 'preaching against homosexuals' in question was not of the form 'homosexuals are being rather naughty', but rather 'homosexuals are worse than animals, God says so, and if we don't do anything about it he will destroy Sweden'. That's pretty close to inciting to murder.
Do you have a source for this? Every story I can find on the subject says he was just saying homosexuality is a sin.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: where both families have a christmas tree but often the symbolism, meaning (and some of the traditions) are very, very different.
Is not the Christmas Tree a symbol of everlasting life and rebirth in all households?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:According to the global news service Ecumenical News International (ENI), Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am my own source, having actually read the original speech. I seem to be translating this every few months; let me see if I can find it again.
Link to the Swedish, also has a link to a complete English translation. I'll pick out the best bits for you (my translation) :
quote:So it has been, [referring to marriage laws until now] as God has said we should live. By this legalising partnerships between man and man, and between woman and woman, we will create catastrophes without equal. We can already see these consequences, we see it in the spread of AIDS. Now not everyone who is AIDS-infected is a homosexual, but it has started because of this once.
(...)
And therefore it is not a private matter, or a right, to live differently from what the Bible prescribes.
(...)
The Bible teaches us of these abnormalities. And sexual abnormality is a deep, cancerous tumour on the body of society. The Lord knows that sexually twisted people will even rape animals.
(...)
Beacuse of these sins the land will vomit out its people. The political answer in our land to this is what Paul says. They know what God has said, that all who live thus deserve death, yet it is just what they do, yes, even worse. They think it is good, when others do this. So we see the political answer in our land, they applaud, they think it good, they can do this, it does not matter. But our country stands before a disaster if great magnitude, our land stands before it, you may be sure of that. God has said 'the land shall vomit out its people'.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's great that your translation, KoM and fugu13's are the same except for the "in"/"on" thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, actually they're not, I don't use the word 'horrendous', which indeed I don't see anywhere in the Swedish. But really, there are only so mnay ways of translating that sentence; there aren't many synonyms for 'cenacerous tumour', for some reason.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Wow. The least anyone can say is that the sermon definately walks the line.
quote:I think it could happen in our country, because we have adopted such laws. Our country has not the least concern about what God has spoken. Our country is facing a disaster. Who is to say that we cannot have an earthquake where hundreds of thousands of people could die in an instant? Who is to say that we cannot have any monsoon rains that drown thousands of people in our country? Who is to say that other catastrophes cannot reach Scandinavia?
I think it's splitting hairs to say this isn't incitement, rather than persuasion or expression.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Is not the Christmas Tree a symbol of everlasting life and rebirth in all households?
Right. It is NOT in all households. Certainly not in mine. Most non-Christians see the Christmas tree as being symbolic of...Christmas.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
And of course the Christmas tree is not actually a symbol of the birth of Christ, but was happily co-opted.
*eyeballs hair carefully and slits right down the middle -- longways*
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: The least anyone can say is that the sermon definately walks the line.
I'd say equating homosexuality with bestiality crosses the line, sprints away from it and refuses to come back over.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
(Link below has some cussing and sexual innuendo.)
What actually happened in Canada when same-sex marriage became legal. If by "actually" I mean "in this comic strip" but not even really then since it's a character's sarcastic hyperbole.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
What I found interesting was a lot of the provincial - federal tension caused by this. While SSM had been accepted in most of Canada before the law was passed, not every province was happy with it.
I'm pretty sure that King Ralph was never seriously opposed to SSM in Canada (even when he threatened to abolish all civil marriages) - I think he was just making noise to please some of the more ultra conservatives. He had every intent on dropping the issue after he made a few speeches about Ottawa ignoring the wishes of the west.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I think the problem is somewhat what Hitler I think said about it "corrupting the German Youth", essentially the fear is that if you see two people of your sex kissing you might like it, though oddly enough two people of the opposite sex kissing is a fascinating experiance... Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
quote:I'd say equating homosexuality with bestiality crosses the line, sprints away from it and refuses to come back over.
Then hurls bricks at the people on the other side of the line while petulantly taunting "nah nah nah nah nah".
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: My worry is not that anyone will get divorced because of SSM. Rather, I fear a continuation and expansion of efforts like this [linked to article about censure of preacher] to limit freedom of speech and religion.
Dag, those are genuine concerns and they should be concerns for everyone across the political spectrum. However, they should not be tied specifically to the SSM debate. Even if SSM leads to a thousand cases like this, it has little bearing on whether allowing SSM itself is the correct thing to do.
Limits to freedom of speech and freedom of religion are enacted and challenged, upheld and overturned on a fairly regular basis in our country as our justices explore the meanings of these freedoms in our ever-changing society. These should be handled (as they largely are) on a case by case basis. Additionally, if we fear such problems in Canada might be repeated here, the answer is to work to insure the freedom of speech, not to perpetuate the injustice so the speakers can pretend their views are still popular.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
To address the orginal post:
I bet things in Canada won't change much at all. The furor will die down over time. One thing that probably will happen, though, is that Canadians will probably grow even more tolerant of the idea that homosexuals are a legitimate segment of their society.
quote: The standard prediction: fewer heterosexual marriages, more out of wedlock children. Resulting form a devaluation of marriage.
Or re-phrased: Straight couples will look at marriage and think, "Gee, what's the point? Even gays can get married now so there must not be any real reason to have our relationship legally recognized." Anyone who makes this arguement must certainly have a low opinion of the average straight person. Still, the proper way to combat stupid thinking is to attack the stupidity, not to create a world where people will never be exposed to life outside their narrow worldview.
Theaca:
quote: They redid their wills and financial stuff in preparation for it since they are Americans and therefore the marriage isn't exactly valid here.
Or is it? Is the marriage "not exactly valid here" because they are Americans or because they are homosexual Americans? If they were a straight American couple and they got married in Canada, would they have to get married again in the US in order to cover their bases? If not, then it should be the same for gay couples.
This looks like the kind of case that could challenge all the petty "defense of marriage" laws that have been cropping up. If I were vested enough in the issue to actually go to Canada to get married to Chris, you can bet I would demand the same legal recognition for our marriage that a straight couple would get when we got back home. It seems to me all that's lacking for Theaca's friends is the commitment to carry the challenge to the Supreme Court. (That's an observation, not a criticism. I don't think I have that kind of commitment (measured by determination, time and money) right now.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, I think equating homosexuality to bestiality might be on the right side of the freedom-of-speech line, although it does violate Swedish law, not to mention good taste and ethics. It's a disgusting piece of demagoguery, but it shouldn't be illegal. (Which is why I think the Swedes have gone a bit far in the actual law, if not in this particular case.) But the phrase 'all who live thus deserve death', that crosses the line. That's inciting to murder, even if you didn't think your audience would take it seriously.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While I certainly agree that everyone should be able to have their say, there is a kind of irony in that the person asking the state to step in and curtail others is offended when others ask the state to step in and curtail his behavior/pov.
Actually, I'm the one offended here and I'm adamantly against the state stepping in and curtailing others.
quote:Dag, those are genuine concerns and they should be concerns for everyone across the political spectrum. However, they should not be tied specifically to the SSM debate. Even if SSM leads to a thousand cases like this, it has little bearing on whether allowing SSM itself is the correct thing to do.
Well, yeah, I said as much in my post, "I don't think these fears warrant exclusion of same-sex couples fromt he purely civil benefits of civil marriage. But they do need to be guarded against." The question was, "Does anyone care to predict the effects legalizing SSM will have on Canada?" I predict legalization will lead to more efforts such as these. I can't predict their success, because I'm unfamiliar w/ Canadian rights law. But I the Sweden example gives me great cause to be concerned.
quote:Limits to freedom of speech and freedom of religion are enacted and challenged, upheld and overturned on a fairly regular basis in our country as our justices explore the meanings of these freedoms in our ever-changing society. These should be handled (as they largely are) on a case by case basis. Additionally, if we fear such problems in Canada might be repeated here, the answer is to work to insure the freedom of speech, not to perpetuate the injustice so the speakers can pretend their views are still popular.
Again, I agree.
To all those who think the Swedish minister deserves jail, I must say I'm appalled at you. Especially the one who has advocated putting religious people in camps.
Dagonee
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Still, the proper way to combat stupid thinking is to attack the stupidity, not to create a world where people will never be exposed to life outside their narrow worldview.
KarlEd, I love you, I love you, I love you. Beyond measure. If only you were straight, and I were not so very happy with David, and you were not so very happy with Chris, [and if you found me sorta cute and interesting, of course ] ... we coulda been contendahs.
quote:If they were a straight American couple and they got married in Canada, would they have to get married again in the US in order to cover their bases?
*raises hand
Nope. Marry in Canada as a straight person, and it's good for the US, too. Dave and I married in our apartment in Winnipeg, Manitoba. No hassles whatsoever when we presented the marriage certificate down here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Just in case it wasn't clear, I'm not for jailing the swedish guy, just clarifying what he actually said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It was clear.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Good.
postcount++
(hey, I hardly ever post in the fluff threads, I gotta get posts in somehow )
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm not for jailing him either. I'm for everyone enjoying the same rights to express opinion that our constitution currently guarantees Americans.
Dag, I didn't mean to imply you thought otherwise than what you expressed. The whole "watch Canada" idea, though, seems to imply "because the same thing will happen here", which isn't necessarily the case, especially when dealing with issues that directly fall under Constitutional Law. Again, no implying you think differently, just explaining why I felt the need to post what I did. It was more using your post as a springboard than as something needing a counterpoint.
CT - right back at ya. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not for jailing him either.
That was clear, too.
The possibility of infringement of religious freedom, association, and speech argument is the one I've seen most coherently advanced. Where it fails, of course, is 1) by failing to recognize that current civil marriage law already causes those kinds of infringement going the other way, and 2) assuming that such infringments can't be fought as they arise.
The only solution I see that meets concersn going both ways is the one I've advocated before - the clear demarcation of the civil institution as merely a collection of legal rights, default rules, and duties from any other concept of marriage.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
What will SSM do to Canada?
Well, at the beginning I think there will be a lot of people wanting to exercise this right just to do so and quite a few of those marriages will end. Their will be a temporary 'peak' in divorce rates
After the novality has worn off, the divorce rates will be the same, people will marry who really want to marry and life will go on happily.
Canada's freedom of speach laws aren't the same as the States. I'm not sure what would happen if someone stated 'gays are the worst people and should all die' (or such). I seem to remember a story when I was a child (really young) about some minister stating that all gays should be stoned to death. I believe that guy was arrested for uttering a threat and hate making *shrugs*. But I could be completely wrong In my small religious world, the priest (Roman Catholic) that I know well thinks religious marriage and civil marriage are two very different beasts. He doesn't think homosexuality is right (and thinks it's a sin) but he also thinks equal rights is very important. He doesn't like the 'marriage' label, but thinks civil unions is the governments business and not his.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Right. It is NOT in all households. Certainly not in mine. Most non-Christians see the Christmas tree as being symbolic of...Christmas.
The Christmas tree is symbolic of Christmas. But what is Christmas but a festival celebrating life? In those households that choose to have a Christmas tree, whether they actually know it or not the Christmas tree is representing life. As someone pointed out the use of evergreen decoration at Christmas dates back a very long time.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I don't see why marriage rates should fall off because gay people start marrying. I can see divorce rates rising--you see, when more people can get married, that means in the long run more people are getting divorces too.
I would not jail the minister. It seems we've reached consensus on that. However, when he hits the "Mississippi Burning" level and starts handing out buckets of stones, you have to do something about that.
Really, my objection is how against letting people see our relationships as normal and therefore more tolerable a lot of anti-SSMers seem to be.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Dag wrote:
quote: The only solution I see that meets concersn going both ways is the one I've advocated before - the clear demarcation of the civil institution as merely a collection of legal rights, default rules, and duties from any other concept of marriage.
I don't quite understand why this isn't a more obvious solution for both sides of the issue. In every non-civil aspect of "marriage" we've already "won" the battle. As I've posted before, there are a growing number of Christian churches which welcome homosexuals into their ranks and will perform marriage ceremonies for them.
It's odd that anti-SSM Christians aren't more vociferously attacking these renegade Christian churches. I mean, if anyone is weakening the concept of "marriage" as a God-ordained union to be shared only by one man and one woman, it's these renegades, no? To me that shows that battling the concept in the courts for religious reasons isn't about "defending" anything. Its about getting the government's endorsement of your narrow religious views. In this way it's very similar to the fight to get "Intelligent Design" taught as science.
I find it immensely ironic that if I wanted my relationship with Chris to become a Holy Union of some sort, I could have that. Yet I'm barred from the civil recognition and its accompanying rights/responsibilities. What purpose does this serve? What is the good to society in this?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
] ... we coulda been contendahs. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)