Supreme Court decision

[LaterBloomer]

Johann, Canadians hate? Nah, don't think it's possible. They're like Minnesota Nice, squared. Some guy rear-ended me in Canada about 15 years ago. He kept dropping the "F bomb" and he STILL sounded nice. ("I just got my blankety-blank license back." "Are you okay?" "My blankety-blank insurance is gonna go through the roof." "No one's hurt are they?")

[Johann]

Johann, Canadians hate? Nah, don't think it's possible.

Oh yes it is, at least sometimes.

From a novel, "Digging up the Mountains," by Neil Bissoondath: "Canadians racialist as hell." Well, not all of us, at least.

Here are short articles on some of the better-known Canadian hate-proceedings that come to mind.

Ernst Zündel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Keegstra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
David Ahenakew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think by and large, Canada has learned way more than a lot of countries in this regard - but we're certainly not perfect.

J

[sanantone]

Maybe you can. I can't. And I'm OK with that. Yes, Canada does have hate-speech laws. Explanations thereof here. Hate speech laws in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In Dawn Stefanowicz's article, this legislation and the Human Rights Commission were presented as oppressive bogeymen, to put fear into all non-toers of the party line. I don't agree with this view one bit.

In my experience, Americans tend to think of our hate-speech provisions as weird and overly repressive. I'm used to them, I guess. But even I will admit they don't always work.

J.

That's another flaw in the author's logic. She's assuming that the U.S. and Canada treat free speech the same. The U.S. already has a documented history of allowing offensive speech for several decades. The types of speech that aren't protected are those deemed obscene (Miller Test), child pornography (virtual child pornography is okay as long as it's made clear that it's fake), commercial speech, libel/slander, fighting words, threats, and incitement (e.g. yelling there's a fire when there isn't).

[Johann]

That's another flaw in the author's logic. She's assuming that the U.S. and Canada treat free speech the same.

Yet another flaw? Say it ain't so! But there it is.... As usual, good point, Sanantone.

J.

[LaterBloomer]

Johann, The great thing about the US is you can be as stupid as you wanna be - and as I'm sure some of you have discerned from many of my posts!

[Johann]

Johann, The great thing about the US is you can be as stupid as you wanna be...

Our Canadian Government only sets limits on stupidity to ensure there will never be a shortage of it. So far, it's worked.

J

[Prloko]

That is pretty funny.



This article was so bad, it made my head hurt. I don't know how the courts work in Canada, but the Supreme Court in the U.S. has allowed all kinds of speech. You can walk through a predominately Jewish neighborhood and chant Nazi rhetoric, you can burn crosses, and you can burn the flag. If Civil Rights and EEOC laws haven't made it illegal for private citizens to say racial slurs and post racist ideology online, then legalizing same-sex marriage is not going to outlaw speech against same-sex marriage and homosexuality. It's not legal to harass people whether you're using slurs or not, but that has long been determined to not be protected speech.

One cannot look to children who grew up in homes without fathers and make assumptions about how children in homes with same-sex parents will turn out. The children who end up in jail partially because they grew up in a single-parent home usually grew up in poverty and possibly with a mother who provided inadequate parenting. You have to consider the reasons why the mother ended up being a single parent in the first place.

I really don't understand this person's who argument about biological parents. If someone donated their eggs or sperm and gave up their rights to the child, then what else is there to it? Why would the child want a claim to a parent who didn't want to claim the child to begin with? Even without same-sex marriage, gay people will still be able to pay for eggs, sperm, and surrogate mothers. Clay Aiken and Ricky Martin did it. Single, straight people also do it.

That article links to a Federalist article that talks about the increase of people choosing not to get married. Well, that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. As women became more independent, they felt less of a need to get married. There are also a lot of young men who don't see the value in marriage. Again, that has nothing to do with the existence of same-sex marriage.

Edit: I want to add something about adoption. There are many children in the U.S. who will age out of the foster care system. In other words, they will never be adopted. Research has shown that children are usually better off being left in abusive homes than being put in the foster care system. That is how bad it is. That is why child protective service agencies are often hesitant to remove a child from his or her home unless his or her life or health is in danger. With that knowledge, I doubt children would be better off in foster care than being placed with a same-sex couple.

A well thought out and critical argument deserving of the title "doctor"

[Prloko]

Want to put this out to think about. The big picture gets missed. The court battles are not over gay marriage in the long run; repeat, long run! The long run goal is getting the Christian churches to hand over everything related to marriage; everything. When the government gets full control over marriage, a bureaucrat gets to decide who,what,when,where,why,how, etc, because, what are to two main things associated with marriage? Money and land! Elite bureaucrats, billionaire tech company owners, oil tycoons etc, will marry themselves and their cronies into massive wealth, like never seen before. They will all prevent competition by bring back the old feudal system. The poor/middle class will not be able to marry into wealth only out of it. Gay marriage is purely emotion based to get people stirred up so that it is an easy victory in the courts to further and painlessly gain more control. Take money and land out of the equation and then the government would not care about marriage at all.

??

Marriage has been around way before Christianity. You're right, marriage is and always will be a business transaction. So why shouldn't a gay couple be betrothed to each other? Why should they be stripped of the benefits of filing a joint return, of inheritance, and joint custody?

[sanantone]

A well thought out and critical argument deserving of the title "doctor"

Thank you.

[soliloquy]

Getting back to gay marriage - it's been legal for quite a while where I live - Ontario, Canada. In fact, our Provincial Premier, Kathleen Wynne, married her partner, Jane Rounthwaite in 2005 - Fairlawn Ave. United Church, Toronto.

I was never against it, but 'way back I wondered why gays & lesbians really needed the right. My daughter-in-law provided one good explanation: Gay couples had already been able to adopt children for some time, here. However, if the couple is not married and one gay adoptive parent dies, the other loses custody of the adopted child(ren). In that case, the child(ren) automatically become(s) wards of the State. Not a good situation.

Legality of gay marriage ends that problem, 100%. I can think of other reasons "for," but none against. I'm for it. Helps many and in no way hurts me.

J.

I found this article to be quite interesting.

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights | Public Discourse