Canada legalized gay marriage ten years ago — Here’s what to expect next, America

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. But the truth is, this fight was lost a while ago.

  • Liberal Progressive

    Pierre Trudeau said the government had no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

    Now is the time to legalize polygamy and accept it in the pension system.

    • Alain

      I agree in general that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, but what we have now are bedroom activities moved to the public square like it or not. Oh, nor should we forget that they have also been imposed on private businesses, again like it or not. So let us once and for all just remove the government/state from our lives and private affairs.

    • Jayme

      They seem to think that it is their business to tell people what to eat and not to eat (at least by taxing “sin” products). Restrictions on smoking already exist and an outright ban is not inconceivable. The argument being that since health care is paid by all, the government has the right to legislate “healthy” lifestyle choices.

      Our birthrate is declining. One of the justifications put forward for our outrageous immigration levels is this fact – a replacer population is needed. Encouraging (tacitly or directly) homosexuality encourages lower birthrates (this was the reason Putin put in his anti-gay laws – to improve their anemic birthrates). This replacer population costs a lot of money (many end up on welfare, they also contribute to violence – the muslim immigrants at least, and therefore increased security costs. So one could therefore argue similarly to the argument for taxing cigarettes, that it IS the government’s business to make legislation restricting gay marriage (and thereby slightly encouraging more births in the population).
      Similarly, polygamy is associated with increased levels of violence in societies that adopt it (a few powerful males have access to the majority of females which makes for a lot of very unhappy, young men, unable to find girlfriends or wives – which makes for increased violence.) So again, one could legitimately argue that it was in the government’s interest, in the interest of reducing policing costs, that it forbid polygamy.

    • mauser 98

      Gay Pride moved bedroom outside

      • Gary

        Wait until these guys face REAL gun fire and enemy troops that didn’t take ” Diversity ” training or Gender study classes.

        • mauser 98

          tell Barry Barack Hussein Dunham Soebarkah Bounel Soetoro Obama that

    • JoKeR
  • barryjr

    I’ve had enough crappy relationships in my time to not comment on others relationships. My only questions are what is wrong with wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone you want to be with and why do people think it is wrong to do that?

    • Alain

      No one was preventing that, and in fact civil unions game same sex couples exactly the same benefits as married or common law couples. So who is preventing any consenting adult from spending the rest of his or her life with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex?

      • barryjr

        However the anti gay marriage groups are doing exactly what they accuse the gays of and that is saying we are different and we deserve special status. To be even handed homosexual and heterosexual couples need to be allowed the same unions and rights. To say that only one group can be married and the others group can’t because they are different is hypocritical and not fair minded.
        Alain those that were against gay marriage are saying that it is wrong to be with the person you want to be with if they are the same sex. I know a few and a couple of family members that would perform an act of violence if they saw a same sex couple holding hands let alone trying to get married. The fact is that both gays and straights are bigoted, there are ignorant buffoons on both sides of the argument and the ignoramuses are the ones you hear about.

        • Alain

          Sorry but what you are advocating is forcing religious institutions to deny and defy their own religious doctrines, which is trampling on their rights in the name of your rights. Personally I honestly do not care what consenting adults do in their private lives, and as I stated above civil unions gave you every single benefit and recognition of married couples (man and woman) minus only the religious blessing. So how do you justify trampling on the religious freedom of others? There is no justification, and I say that without being particularly religious or even Christian of any sort. It is also impossible to force every person to condone, celebrate and promote same sex unions just as it is impossible to force everyone to like the same food. I honestly cannot understand why you or anyone would feel this necessary. I do not need everyone approval for my likes and dislikes or how I choose to live my life. By the way I am not trying to attack you or put you down either for your life choices, but I ask that you show the same consideration and tolerance for others who disagree with you.

          • barryjr

            Well your whole spiel was a waste of time you can ask my wife (who is a female and mother of my 4 children), your idiotic assumption and implication that I am gay proves that you like to leap to conclusions about things you have no facts to back you up on and attack those that disagree with you. Maybe in the future you would might want to have some facts before hitting the enter button after typing out your non factual diatribes. I cannot understand why any religion, which supposedly preaches tolerance and love for fellow humans would be so bigoted as to attack those that don’t conform to their views, and I can’t understand LBGT activists that are so quick to slander those with differing views. As to your line about about tolerance for differing views why are the opponents of same sex marriage trying to make everyone act according to their beliefs? I am not saying force religious institutions to change their beliefs but religions do not make the laws in Canada or the US and they have to remember that. Like I said in my previous post there are ignorant buffoons on BOTH sides of this debate.

          • Alain

            I see that rather to responding to the points I made you prefer to go into the personal attack mode which tells me all I need to know. There is no point in continuing.

          • barryjr

            I did respond to your points with counterpoints which obviously was pointless

          • Minicapt

            If you’re not going to produce evidence, and will continue to throw mud at ideas for which your comprehension is highly inadequate, you should join the Rabble crowd. Ignorance can be cultivated.

            Cheers

  • JP SloanePhD

    There are two ways to destroy a bolder: (1) blow it up with explosives
    or (2) a slow erosion by allowing a continuous drop, drop, drop of water on the
    bolder. Both will have the desired
    results—the destruction of the bolder—one is immediate the other slowly.

    What enemies of the state cannot accomplish immediately they
    accomplish through subversion. Change
    the thinking of a population through in filtering the schools pervert the
    status que through infiltrating courts and the political establishment—can it
    happen? It just did!

  • JP SloanePhD

    There are two ways to destroy a boulder: (1) blow it up with
    explosives or (2) a slow erosion by allowing a continuous drop, drop, drop of
    water on the boulder. Both will have the
    desired results—the destruction of the boulder—one is immediate the other slowly.

    What enemies of the state cannot accomplish immediately they
    accomplish through subversion. Change
    the thinking of a population through in filtering the schools pervert the
    status que through infiltrating courts and the political establishment—can it
    happen? It just did!