Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

My brother is against same-sex marriage

MICAH TOUB

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 5:32 AM EDT 22/07/08

Do I still ask him to be the best man at mine? ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Dan H from Alta, Canada writes: 'It sounds like you really love your brother despite his being anachronistic and intolerant, which is very progressive and tolerant of you. '

    Ok, I know this post is going to be deleted quickly because I don't 'think correctly' according to most people that will post here, but I have a big problem with people like Micah Toub who decry anyone with different beliefs as being intolerant or hateful. Whats wrong with civil union = common law = marriage? Legally all groups can have the same rights and be treated respectfully. The brother clearly shares this viewpoint and perhaps we should commend him for thinking of all groups as equal, instead of the regressive viewpoint that the author has, thinking that marriage is the best option, and that a civil union or common law relationships are inferior!

    I realize that this post will spark a lot of passionate and perhaps angry rebuttals on here, and thats fair. But I just hope that people will realize that people with different viewpoints can still care. And you know what, that would be very progressive and tolerant of the author and other posters to understand that. Oh, and before you reply to this, at least check out this video of my guy explaining this point of view. Do you consider him hateful and intolerant? (please answer that question if you reply directly to this post, thanks!).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1MZ8
  2. James Snow from Canada writes: Same sex marriage is a touchy issue.

    Sure, it would be nice if everyone was more tolerant of such unions, but you're up against homophobia and organized religion, which dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Hey, do anything you want to do, but don't expect other people to go along with it, including your own brother.

    You make your bed and you sleep in it.

  3. James Snow from Canada writes: BTW, he ain't heavy ... he's your brother.
  4. Harbinger from Out West from Canada writes: Hope ya din't tell him that he has to kiss the bride.
  5. harry carnie from Northern, B.C., Canada writes: Your brother is entitled to his beliefs..whether you or I may agree or not.

    Do NOT ask him to be the best man.You should accept his opinion...he accepts you as being gay..as we all should..what more do you want?

    You want to drag him into being best man when you know how he feels about the concept of 'marriage'

    That is not 'loving your brother' that is 'rubbing his nose in it' because you disagree with his stand.
  6. Gary Grey from Toronto, Canada writes: I might sound like a homophobic. But I never understood why the gay movement insists on calling it a'marriage', because it's not like the conventional marriages between men and women wherein there is reproduction--etc.

    I'm not against some sort of union between male and female gays recognized by government, but I'm surely against adoption of kids to augment such union and make it look like a conventional one.
  7. 1938371 1938371 from Vancouver, Canada writes: I assume the brother is being invited to the wedding. I also assume he will attend. One consideration if he is in the same city is to deliver/give the invitation to the brother saying with the understanding you will be attending but wish not to be my best man, I will then ask 'Howard' so he is given a polite last chance. Sometimes we refuse for a lot of reasons to do certain things but then if given a second or last chance, feel the bigger picture is more important. It really depends on the relationship these two men have. It is not mentioned whether his brother's beliefs are based on strrong religious beliefs or beliefs related to homosexuals marrying in the traditional sense absent a religious connection or another issue related to same sex marriage, but it doesn't really matter why either. His opinion stands regardless. The fact that these two men have an awesome relationship is truely wonderful. Whether or not he ends up being his best man is insignificant compared to the relationship they already have.
  8. Sandra Gordon from Sweden writes: Dan I hear your issue but the problem is that a civil union does not equal a marriage under the law. That is the sticking point. If we had a system like in many European countries where EVERYONE goes to the town hall for the legal papers and those who wish to have their union blessed do that in the church/synagoge/mosque/etc .. then we are in business. As all unions would be civil unions and equal under the law. Those who want to get a church's blessing are free to do so but that does not give them special rights over those who don't want to do this. But there is a legal difference between the old civil union and 'marriage'. Things like right to visit your partner in the hospital, inheritance of property, pensions and insurance are not the same in these two cases. That is why the law had to change. Unfortunately the word 'marriage' has both a religious meaning and a legal meaning. While I respect those who choose to abide by the religious meaning I do not accept that your religious beliefs ditate the legal meaning of that word. Perhaps the best is to use a different word for the legal document, but that is a different arguement. Canada does have a good separation between church and state and this is important in a multi ethnic/religious country. We NEED to keep the idea that 'your relegion is not my government'. Laws are for the good of all!! Those who wish to impose further restrictions upon themselves because of their relgious beliefs are free to do so, but do not expect that those not of your religion will also do so!
  9. James C from Shenzhen, Canada writes: 'Well, tough situation. It sounds like you really love your brother despite his being anachronistic and intolerant, which is very progressive and tolerant of you.'
    _____

    i'm surprised the author didnt do more name calling in this 'article.' liberals/left wingers automatically invoke 'intolerance' if you dont agree with their viewpoint. its ridiculous.
  10. William Hanlon from London, Canada writes: I wouldn't want anyone at my wedding who didn't 'agree' with it. They'd just spoil it with their negativity. What gives anyone else the right to agree or not to agree with my marriage? Those posters above who take the side of the anti-gay-marriage brother would never have invited anyone to their own weddings who didn't 'agree' with it, for whatever reason.

    If you have a gay sibling and you don't want them to be treated equally under the law, then what kind of person does that make you? I would suggest, a very weak and selfish one.
  11. K S from Toronto, Canada writes: He should not ask his brother to be best man. Would any other male ask someone to be their best man if that person let it be known that they didn't believe they should marry?

    I'm sick of this marriage/civil union debate. We evolve, meanings change. 100 years ago if you looked up the term 'doctor' in the dictionary, it would have said 'a man who practises medicine'.

    If you disagree with 'marriage' between same sex couples because of religious beliefs, because it's not recognized 'in the eyes of god', or because procreation is not involved, then what about nonreligious hetero couples who get 'married' at city hall and choose not to have children? Why is there no uproar that their marriage be called a civil union? It's the same difference.

    Anyone who still has a problem with same sex marriage should have their butts kicked all the way into the 21st century.
  12. Charles Smith from United Kingdom writes: What a dumb article.
  13. Nickstar One from Canada writes: '...take advantage of gay marriage...people who claim that same-sex ceremonies....Heterosexuals gave up the right to claim ownership on marriage...'
    Perhaps the brother 'taking advantage' should first come to grips with the preferential term 'gay marriage' for some insight as to his brother's position.
    How is it that the terms 'same-sex', 'heterosexual', and 'lesbian' are magically transformed and morph into some kind of generic description called 'gay' marriage when it comes to homosexual marriage?
    Until the nuptial brother can truthfully and honestly(without politically correct equivocation) resolve this most obvious descriptive conundrum, he should acknowledge and respect his brother's position on this subject.
    Notwithstanding the SCC legal gymnastics regarding the 'reading in' of 'same-sex' marriage into the Charter, it is clear that this event did not confer a 'de facto' exclusive right for same-sex males to co-opt the word 'gay' in describing their unions.
    The common understanding is that the generic term 'gay' is used to describe all the various members in the HLBTQ grouping.
  14. O Canada from Canada writes: There is a difference between having a position on a subject - being judicious - and being judgemental. I have a position that abortion should not be allowed, however, when a friend came to me, considering this option, I hope I lived up to the idea of non-judgemental, loving, caring and concerned. His brother might have a position on this issue but it doesn't mean he can't see - SEE - that it's his brother and consider the situation out of love and caring.

    The problem today with these hot-button issues is that it is assumed that just because you may have a position on something that it makes you judgemental and that doesn't need to be the case. One is theoritical and the other is deeply personal and people are capable of moving from theory - judicious to personal - loving and caring.
  15. Andre Poirier from Canada writes: 'It sounds like you really love your brother despite his being anachronistic and intolerant, which is very progressive and tolerant of you. '

    I get a warm and fuzzy feeling inside here. I think I am coming out of the closet...

    I guess I have to work on my progressiveness and tolerance, I still don't believe in multi partnered marriages or orgies.
  16. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:
    What joy does beating your brother over the head with your lifestyle choice bring to you? See a shrink.
  17. James Thomas from Halifax, Canada writes: The government has no right to declare what is marriage and what isn't. Marriage is a religious joining of a man a women. The only person who can change that is the pope. It's like the government saying that everyone who swims in Lake Ontario is now baptized. Give them a civil union with all the benefits and drawbacks of marriage. Let them be miserable like the rest of us.

    Oh and since we are throwing religion out the window, I also think that a woman should be allowed to have as many husbands as she wants and vice versa. I see no problem if consenting adults want to marry, join, or whatever as many people as they want. This monogamy thing is a religious value also. Why should people be constrained to live their life to religious views that don to believe in?
  18. joshua morris from toronto, Canada writes: gary grey, most adoptable children who would have a far better life raised by two men, or two women than y the state, or lack thereof.
  19. Fed Up from Halifax, Canada writes: The brother may not agree with same-sex marriage, but that does not mean that he is not accepting and supportive of his brother's same sex relationship.
    If the writer wants his brother as best man, he should ask him. He should be prepared to accept no as the response, and have someone else in mind accordingly. At the end of the day, most of us are willing to put our judgments aside in the interest of seeing those of us we care about being happy.
    If the brother says no, it should not be taken personally--it is his feelings on the issue, not the individuals.
  20. Charlotte Creamer from Halifax, Canada writes: He's your brother, for heaven's sake -- invite him to your 'wedding'. But don't put the heavy on him by asking him to participate in it in such an integral way as being the Best Man. That's just being provocative, knowing, as you do, how he feels about your...ehemmm... forthcoming nuptials. Loving someone doesn't mean you have to agree with and support everything thing they do or believe in. Respect his right to have his own opinion on this matter, even if you don't agree with it. That's the real meaning of 'tolerance'.
  21. Home E. D'Clown from Canada writes: Why am I anachronistic and intolerant because I don't agree with gay marriage? Am I a legislator using my power to deny gays the right to marry? Do I preach hatred or act in a homophobic manner towards gays? No. I am simply a Christian who feels that God intended marriage to be for a man and a woman. I support gays' legal right to marry; I don't agree with the concept, but that's a personal opinion. Using a position of power to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals or acting in a homophobic fashion is anachronistic and intolerant. Disagreeing with the concept of gay marriage is my right as a Christian and Canadian citizen, and I resent any suggestion to the contrary.
  22. On Edge from Canada writes: Maybe the writer should just heave a sigh and move on. This tangle of loyalties and beliefs seems to be just another fact of gay life. Family members and friends will always be at least somewhat freaked or uncomfortable with your gayness, even if they try to keep a gloss of cheerful 'acceptance' or 'tolerance' about it. They may work hard to 'out' you to confirm their perceptions when you are just going about your business, they may use gay issues and rights to shame or bludgeon you into silence when you disagree on other topics (eg. 'well if gay rights are important then so is blah blah blah...') At least your brother is frank about his placing of his own prejudices and ignorance ahead of your fulfillment and efforts to make sense of your own life. I guess the bottom line for most gay guys is not to expect too much of straight people, even if they are family or close friends - ignorance, fear, manipulation, and condescension are usually not far below the surface. I'd say don't invite the brother, and save both of you some disconfort on your wedding day.
  23. Fish Lips from Toronto, Canada writes: marriage is not about reproduction; it is about legal entitlements.

    we do not get married expressly to reproduce... people do a great job of reproducing without needing marriage to help them with that.
  24. gordon foster from Canada writes: My brother asked me to be best man at his 'conventional' wedding, for which he turned his back on his baptized faith (Presbyterian) and confirmed faith (Anglican) to marry a Catholic in a Catholic church. Our father was refused communion and was offered a 'blessing' instead during the service as he was and still is Anglican. I'm not a regular church-goer myself but the reason I refused my brother's request to be the best man was not due to any personal qualms. I simply resided on the other side of the world and would be arriving jet-lagged just in time for the rehearsal dinner two days before the ceremony. I wouldn't have been able to plan the bachelor party, or stag. Now, considering the letter-writer's brother is not gay, how do you think he would approach his 'conventional' duties as best man? Gay weddings are neither 'conventional' nor 'traditional', and are horses of quite a different colour than gay marriages. Perhaps this distinction could be more clearly drawn.
  25. Kirwan Martin from Montreal, Canada writes: Back to the point - should you ask your brother to be your best man - which your columnist skated round as he 'favoured us with his views on same sex marriage.
    Fed Up from Halifax has it right, 'The brother may not agree with same-sex marriage, but that does not mean that he is not accepting and supportive of his brother's same sex relationship.
    If the writer wants his brother as best man, he should ask him.' He might, at the same time explain that, if his brother feels he can't act (or chooses not to be best man) he'll understand. But at least he was asked. Passing over him because the writer feels he might decline could well lead to disappointment another writer's family felt when they weren't invited. After all, 'At the end of the day, most of us are willing to put our judgments aside in the interest of seeing those of us we care about being happy.'
  26. David Gehring from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada writes: Simple... this is about you and your boyfriend, not your brother, choose someone else to be best man. By the way, I also agree with Home E., it is not anachronistic and intolerant to be against gay marriage, and Micah Toub clearly showed bias and thoughtlessness in his response to the question. Marriage is a ceremony developed by religions to formalize the bond between two people and it is religions that generally condemn homosexuality, so gay people embracing marriage means they are embracing a part of an ideology that condemns them, which is hypocritical or at least ignorant. It's the same way that if I was black, I wouldn't be arguing to have the right to burn crosses on my lawn... you don't embrace the practices of those who condemn you.
  27. Was Canadian from New York, United States writes: Gary Grey from Toronto, Canada writes: I might sound like a homophobic. But I never understood why the gay movement insists on calling it a'marriage', because it's not like the conventional marriages between men and women wherein there is reproduction--etc.

    You're right, you do sound homophobic, because that's what the marriage = children argument is usually a mask for. If I choose not to 'reproduce', should my man/woman union be disolved because I'm not complying with the reproduction side of your marriage = reproduction equation? What if it's not a choice and I simply can't have children, is that not a marriage? So what's really bothering you about gay marriage? Is the inability to biologically reproduce somehow unnatural, and marriage restricted to what is, or could be, 'natural'?
  28. jenny g from Ottawa, Canada writes: Jeez, with all these warm and fuzzy feelings about marriage, I really don't want to be a part of it. Give me a civil union between me and my boy and I'll be totally fine, thanks. It galls me to automatically be categorized in that religious 'marriage' section just because I'm a woman and he's a man.
  29. Vincent D from Canada writes: The argument that gay people should just take civil unions and forget about marriage is totally rediculous. Thats the equiviliant of saying... 'You can ride the bus, but you have to get to the back.'

    Anything less then equal treatment and status is not equal.
  30. Brad Pitt from United States writes: ------------------------------------------------
    Harbinger from Out West from Canada writes: Hope ya din't tell him that he has to kiss the bride.
    -----------------------------------------------
    Please ... tongue only
  31. whatevah D from Canada writes: Gary Grey from Toronto, Canada writes: I might sound like a homophobic. But I never understood why the gay movement insists on calling it a'marriage', because it's not like the conventional marriages between men and women wherein there is reproduction--etc.

    I'm not against some sort of union between male and female gays recognized by government, but I'm surely against adoption of kids to augment such union and make it look like a conventional one.

    So in your opinion, if a man and woman are 'married' and can't have children or choose not to, is that considered unconventional? And should they no longer be considered 'married'?
  32. Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: You love your brother. You want him to be your best man. He's against gay marriage. But, does he love and respect you?

    Talk to him. Tell him what you want, but also tell him you respect his feelings, and are giving him the choice due to your love and respect for him.

    He'll say yes, or he'll say no.... but you'll both be better off for having talked it out.

    And, ignore all the BS from the anti gay marriage A-holes.
  33. Dionsa Dork from Canada writes: I love the hypocracy coming from those that say 'if you don't believe that gays should be allowed to marry, then you are intolerant', while the very words coming out of their mouths speaks to their intolerance towards those that have different opinions/beliefs.
  34. steve smith from Toronto, Canada writes: James Thomas, please leave the Pope out of this.
  35. F/A josquin from Canada writes: heh home e (the) clown,

    If there was a god, statements like yours 'No. I am simply a Christian who feels that God intended marriage to be for a man and a woman. ' wouldn't wash with the whole 'we are all one in god's love' etc....

    If there was a god, how in hades would you 'know' his intentions?

    If there was a god, why would he/she be at all concerned by a few same sex couples buying a condo together.

    There is no god, and religion is just a great excuse for the intolerant to be more so, and the ignorant to remain thus.
  36. pour me another drink of from Iqaluit, Canada writes: I think Toub did a terrible job answering the question. Non-traditional marriages have quirks like normal marriages. It's like a Catholic marrying a Muslim some people and some family members would disapprove no matter what. Some would skip the ceremony... My grandfather wouldn't walk his own daughter down a Catholic aisle. He was asked... and he refused. So ask... if you brother says no... well there's no harm in asking. What is right what my grandfather did... well not really. Did it cause hard feelings... probably temporarily. And was it talked about... hell ya. And it still is... and I'll remember that for a long time. His brother or even deeply homophobic people warm to the idea of love. You can always catch more bees with honey... and kill people with kindness... and treat others with respect if that's what you want. With gay marriages... I think the couple has to decide what they want and then allow leeway for the unexpected to happen. It's not always clear-cut... and some feelings can get hurt. I know when I plan... my big day... I have to decide those important things... and whether to invite the extended family... comments like Clowns and others above... lead me to believe that my/our important day... is just that our important day. And it makes me want to join in a marriage in front of people that respect and acknowledge the love in the relationship.
  37. al goguen from Victoria, Canada writes: What's the big deal about a gay marriage? Why do you have to imitate the old folks when they got married and stayed happy or unhappy in relationship until they died. Or some of them after a few years could not stand to be together and have to go through a divorce and fight for this and that. Do like intelligent straight guys do these days. They live together for a while- some ten years, might also have kids and then they decide to do somehing -very few get married they have protection for each other in case something happens - You can adopt each other and have the same rights as married couple.
    Instead of fighting with your brother and family, simply have a party and show how you care for your lover and forget about showing off like those insecure young girls wanted to get married in order to have a wedding picture posted on every wall of their house in order to prove they love each other ...come on be different - love each other and stop thinking of imitating your parents . Enjoy life instead.
  38. Brian Martin from Canada writes: Ok, Dan I'll nibble. What's wrong with civil union=common law=marriage? How about, what's wrong with sitting at the back of the bus, having your own schools or for that matter, getting your husband of father to vote for you? Social change is always disruptive to some groups and it is always resisted by some. Those who resist will inveigh against all sorts of dire consequences to the social order if change occurs, but once the progressive vanguard embrace the change and years pass, we find that not much happens and even the most passionate detractors eventually accept the new status quo. The fact that the world hasn't fallen apart is rarely recognized by those that resist. Seriously, if you want to simply argue about the use of the particular word marriage, go read Star Bellied Sneetches by Doctor Seuss. It was written about civil rights, but is absolutely applicable to the gay marriage debate. I used to argue against SSM and believe that I was doing so from a secular perspective, but eventually I realized that all my arguments against it were just a re-packaging of the religious nonsense I was brought up with. With respect to Obama, do I think his view is hateful or intolerant? No. I think it is intensely political and reflective of someone who is trying to dance on the head of a pin to get himself elected. I also think it is reasonably pragmatic given the state of the SSM debate in the US. See my earlier point though about being in the vanguard of progressive change. If Obama can get the rights granted, he will eventually go the whole way and push for equality.
  39. On Edge from Canada writes: I would say that this situation is just another complication in life, of the type that gay men have to deal with regularly. My advice would be to not have very high expectations of straight people, even if you scratch the surface of the 'tolerant' or 'accepting' ones, you will likely find revulsion, fear, condescension, or utter ignorance. They may hound you to declare your orientation to confirm their suspicions, use gay issues and rights to silence or bludgeon you into agreement with them (eg. 'well, if gay rights are important so is blah blah blah...'), or trivialize your relationships or stereotype you into a Will and Grace episode real fast. If your brother is at least being honest about his insistence on keeping you and your kind in a box somewhere, be grateful, don't invite him to your wedding, and everyone will have a more enjoyable day. After all, don't most straight people wish the ''gay lifestyle' was kept 'out of their faces'?
  40. Sean L. from Stalingrad, Canada writes: 'Sandra Gordon from Sweden writes: As all unions would be civil unions and equal under the law.' You raise an interesting point. I agree that the laws should be changed so that marriage is not a state recognized institute - and replace is with the legal entity of a civil union. Those wishing to call their union a marriage could attend a religious facility and have the union 'blessed'. My reason for agreement with you has nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with our fundamental right to freedom of religion and thought, and the implication of these which we failed to embed in our half-baked Canadaian charter. That is the separation of church and state. Marriage is a religious construct, and hence embedding this terminology in the civil code infers a state recognition of a religious practice. This should be unconstitutional. It should be expunged along with all the other trappings of religion such as legislators saying prayers at the openings of legislative sessions. The proper separation of church and state would also as a byproduct, rmove the wind from the sails of the christian fundamentalist's who oppose gay marriage. It would be individual churches decisions as to whether they offer marriage 'blessings' As far as the state is concerned, they would be registering a civil contract between two persons - the rest is all religious trappings and not the concern of the state.
  41. F/A josquin from Canada writes:
    To Dionsa Dork, who writes ''if you don't believe that gays should be allowed to marry, then you are intolerant''

    Diona, the church capitalized on intolerance and institutionalized it.
  42. Silent Majority from Canada writes: Gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are the same legally in every sense of the word. The problem most people have is the use of the term marriage. To me it is as though gays purposely want to stir up emotion in heterosexuals by the use of the term marriage versus union. This is the part that I don't understand; gays are trying to gain acceptance/ tolerance by demanding tolerance from others. I am no psychologist but I think the methods used by the gay community to try and gain acceptance/ tolerance is exactly what most do not tolerate.
  43. Andre Poirier from Canada writes: 'And, ignore all the BS from the anti gay marriage A-holes. '

    This heterophobia should not be allowed, I am going to file a human rights case.

    'It sounds like you really love your brother despite his being anachronistic and intolerant, which is very progressive and tolerant of you. '

    This warm and fuzzy stuff is just great!
  44. Paul Murray from Calgary, Canada writes: The family, consisting of a man, woman, and children has, by thousands of years of learning, under much harsher conditions than those under which we now debate, been determined the best building block of society. That's outside any of this debate about rights and their recognition and is as close to an objective truth as can be and is not the fault of nor a fabrication of religion. The betrothed brother, and the author, should show some the tolerance with which they claim to be replete...
  45. François Papineau from Montreal, Canada writes: Home E. D'Clown : Which God? Since teh marriage have existed long before your god appeared on earth. Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans knew marriage a long time before Christians. And even some of them have accepted same-sex marriage....
  46. Was Canadian from New York, United States writes: Silent Majority from Canada writes: Gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are the same legally in every sense of the word. The problem most people have is the use of the term marriage. To me it is as though gays purposely want to stir up emotion in heterosexuals by the use of the term marriage versus union. This is the part that I don't understand; gays are trying to gain acceptance/ tolerance by demanding tolerance from others. I am no psychologist but I think the methods used by the gay community to try and gain acceptance/ tolerance is exactly what most do not tolerate.

    You could replace 'gay' with 'interracial' and it would be like putting yourself in a time machine back to the US in 1967, where interracial marriage wasn't legalized in all states until the 'activist judges' on the Supreme Court ruled that year. And as others have pointed out, differences matter. Whether it's a different entrance, water fountain or seat on the bus, the argument is that it's essentially the same. Of course, it wasn't and it isn't.
  47. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: >> Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes: What joy does beating your brother over the head with your lifestyle choice bring to you? See a shrink.

    Religion is a lifestyle choice, too; it's not genetic. So what about the lifestyle choices made by Catholics and Baptists? I assume you're suggesting that they should see shrinks as well owing to their lifestyle choices.

    >> Fish Lips from Toronto, Canada writes: marriage is not about reproduction; it is about legal entitlements. we do not get married expressly to reproduce... people do a great job of reproducing without needing marriage to help them with that.

    Agreed. And sadly all the wrong people seem to reproduce.

    >> >> F/A josquin from Canada writes: Diona, the church capitalized on intolerance and institutionalized it.

    Okay, so we had the gay-bashers come out first; now the religion bashers bash back with equally obtuse statements.
  48. Titus Andronicus from Canada writes: Home E. D'Clown from Canada writes: Why am I anachronistic and intolerant because I don't agree with gay marriage? ... I am simply a Christian who feels that God intended marriage to be for a man and a woman.

    ===============================

    Asked and answered.
  49. Titus Andronicus from Canada writes: Dionsa Dork from Canada writes: I love the hypocracy coming from those that say 'if you don't believe that gays should be allowed to marry, then you are intolerant', while the very words coming out of their mouths speaks to their intolerance towards those that have different opinions/beliefs.

    =====================================

    What are you talking about? Can you indicate an example?
  50. Down Town from Canada writes: I'd like to conduct a study and investigate whether homophobes have disproportionately thicker skulls, poorer hearing, and poorer eyesight. At this point, that seems to be the only thing that would explain why homophobes insist on flogging the dead horse that is gay marriage. On the other hand, maybe those in favour of gay marriage should consider putting their message in terms that homophobes understand. Maybe something a long the lines of 'Golly gee, Billy Bob, did ya hear 'bout Bobby an Joe gettin' hitched? I shure dun mind dat thing called 'gay marriage' since it dun affect mah shotgun weddin' to ol' Bertha!' would work better?
  51. Able Bodied Man from It's NOT 'VICTORIA' Island, Canada writes:
    If you are gay and your family does not approve, it is inappropriate for you to demand their loyalty. They may offer it, but you may not demand it.
  52. Able Bodied Man from It's NOT 'VICTORIA' Island, Canada writes:
    For many people the recognition of gay marriage is seen as an erosion of fundamental morals. It is time gays accepted that fact.

    Those who are gay ought to realize that the whole world is not running to be at your party. So if you want to be gay, go ahead, it's YOUR choice. Just don't expect everybody to support your position just because the Supremes said you were free to be gay.
  53. The Wight from Canada writes: Here's a thought for all the 'Why am I intolerant if I simply disagree with gay marriage crowd':

    It's called social stigma.

    Every time you open your yap in a forum like this to reiterate your opinion, you perpetuate it. Society doesn't care what your PERSONAL feelings are on the issue. It is concerned solely with your LEGAL feelings on the issue. If you honestly feel gays should have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual people, then you need go no further.

    In other words, keep your personal opinion, personal.
  54. Able Bodied Man from It's NOT 'VICTORIA' Island, Canada writes: '... His job is to support you as you take this extremely important step in your life....'
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    His job?!?!
  55. The Wight from Canada writes: Silent Majority:

    'Gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are the same legally in every sense of the word.'

    Why is precisely why it is so petty that heterosexual people have this hang-up on the word. If you can legally acknowledge that all Canadians have the same rights, then why the stubborn, childish insistence that those rights be called something else in the case of gay marriage? It's ridiculous.
  56. Sean L. from Stalingrad, Canada writes: Jim Sheppard - clearly the Globe is not interested in facilitating public debate with it's uneven and biased application of 'moderation'.

    I guess I should return to making inflamitory rude comments - the level of debate that is earned by such heavy handed censorship. I am still waiting for my other post to appear - a post which was fully compliant with your censorship policy - or perhaps you view Micah's intolerant language to be beyond reproach, and feel the complaint that the article is on the slippery edge of being a HRC section 13 complaint as being to dangerous to allow.
  57. Mr. Justice from Anytown, Canada writes: If gay folks should be entitled 'only' to a civil union, then so should straight folks. FAIR IS FAIR.

    In any case -- sit down, boys and girls: this is going to be a tough one -- ALL marriages are 'civil unions'. That's why the Marriage Commissioner or priest or minister or shaman or poobah or whatever else says (at the end of the ceremony) that funny legalistic language: ' . . . by the power vested in me by the Province of ________ . . . . '

    ALSO: Funny how some people who get upset about same-sex marriage have NO problem attending a wedding of two persons whose relationship began in . . . adultery. GO FIGURE.
  58. Brian Martin from Canada writes: Sean L. - I don't disagree with your reasoning regarding state interference in peoples lives, however your conclusion is deficient in that neither the state nor the church can govern the use of a word. Hence my allusion to the book star bellied sneetches. I got married in a church, although neither my wife nor I attended that or any church. It was simply a pretty place to get married. Regardless of what the state or a church considers the meaning of the word to be, I will always consider myself married as will most people. Gays simply want the same equality.

    I do definitely agree that the state should get the heck out of the marriage business though. If religious people want to consider that they are superior to others because they have a star on their belly... well, read the book.
  59. Sean L. from Stalingrad, Canada writes: 'Sandra Gordon from Sweden writes: As all unions would be civil unions and equal under the law.' You raise an interesting point. I agree that the laws should be changed so that marriage is not a state recognized institute - and replace is with the legal entity of a civil union. Those wishing to call their union a marriage could attend a religious facility and have the union 'blessed'. My reason for agreement with you has nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with our fundamental right to freedom of religion and thought, and the implication of these which we failed to embed in our half-baked Canadaian charter. That is the separation of church and state. Marriage is a religious construct, and hence embedding this terminology in the civil code infers a state recognition of a religious practice. This should be unconstitutional. It should be expunged along with all the other trappings of religion such as legislators saying prayers at the openings of legislative sessions. The proper separation of church and state would also as a byproduct, rmove the wind from the sails of the christian fundamentalist's who oppose gay marriage. It would be individual churches decisions as to whether they offer marriage 'blessings' As far as the state is concerned, they would be registering a civil contract between two persons - the rest is all religious trappings and not the concern of the state.
  60. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: The real question is, are there two 'best man' and do they walk with arms locked together when walking up the isle?
  61. Lee Turner from Canada writes: Everyone who is married, go do me a favour. Have a look at your marriage license, and tell me who issued it. Mine says Government of Ontario, it does not say that my marriage was in anyway vetted by any church, or organized religion, but, shock of all shocks, the words 'Marriage License' are right there plain as day! Here's another curiosity. My Marriage Certificate says Government of Ontario, too, it doesn't say the name of any Religion or Church on that document either, but the Government has the gall to use the word 'Marriage'! I thought only Churches and Religion could claim ownership of the word Marriage.

    Turns out, marriage is a public (state) and legal institution and not a religious one, after all.
  62. M K from Ottawa, Canada writes: I want to be a 'mother' ! What? I can't be a 'mother' because I'm a man? Then I demand the SCC grant me the right to be called a 'mother'! It makes about as much sense as same-sex partners being 'married'.
  63. C R from Canada writes: I just wonder why so many who preach tolerance have absolutely none of their own.

    'Be different and tolerent like me...only don't tolerate that guy for his opoinion because its not mine'

    Its the most hypocritical nonscence.

    Truly, if the brother doesn't agree with your marriage...good for him! Its his choice and he does not have to bow to your beliefs as you have clearly chosen not to bow to his.

    All of you so called tolerant people need to get a life and figure out what you are really saying. It seems to me that your message is not of tolerance, but rather of conformity to your personal standards. How does that make you any different than the people you are speaking against right now?
  64. D L from British Columbia, Canada writes: Look at what religion does to society. Since the dawn of religion it has been used to justify conflict. I want to have a heterosexual marriage when the time comes; however, it will have absolutely nothing to do with the church or religion or god or jesus. I am an athiest and my belief of marriage isn't religious, does that make it less? If so, explain?
  65. Kirwan Martin from Montreal, Canada writes:
    Don Adams has it right, 'You love your brother. You want him to be your best man. He's against gay marriage. But, does he love and respect you?
    Talk to him. Tell him what you want, but also tell him you respect his feelings, and are giving him the choice due to your love and respect for him.
    He'll say yes, or he'll say no.... but you'll both be better off for having talked it out.'
    The issue here is not primarily gay marriage, it's relationships within the family. Most posts are using this discussion to push their views on a topic which is only tangentially related.
  66. dick brown from missy, Canada writes: let me help out the 'homophobes'....they are right, why would the gay movement want anything to do with government recognized marriage contracts?....you're screwing yourself here folks (no pun) and making scummy lawyers rich in the end. Have a private ceremony, confess your undying love, etc....YOU DON'T NEED THE GOVERNEMNT TO RECOGNIZE YOUR LOVE! However, you WILL need a lawyer to split assets, pensions, life insurance as well as deal with custody issue if you adopt kids......welcome to the hell of marriage and the 50% divorce rate....a gay friend of mine just got stiffed for $50 grand because his 'partner' happen to live with him for 2 years, lying on the couch doing nothing!!! The $50 grand didn't include scumbag lawyer fees for court...of course.....I had no opinion on gay marriage 5 years ago...now....poor gays....welcome to hetero hell....cu...ching!!!!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top