GAY Marriage is having a positive effect on HETERO marriage statistics in Canada

[Deedee]

For all those who think gay marriage is the worst possible disaster ever to hit the planet earth, statistics released in early January indicates that legitimizing gay marriage seems to have no negative effects on the straight population, and is in fact encouraging hetero couples to get hitched!   

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/sta170107.htm

[militarymuscle69]

For all those who think gay marriage is the worst possible disaster ever to hit the planet earth, statistics released in early January indicates that legitimizing gay marriage seems to have no negative effects on the straight population, and is in fact encouraging hetero couples to get hitched!   

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/sta170107.htm

There is nothing but bad to come out of long term gay marriage rights. Canada will be our example in the years to come of how it hurts a nation. The main problem with society today is the lack of a MAN and WOMAN in the home.

[Deedee]

There is nothing but bad to come out of long term gay marriage rights. Canada will be our example in the years to come of how it hurts a nation. The main problem with society today is the lack of a MAN and WOMAN in the home.

But gay people have nothing to do with straight people living together "in sin", or divorcing, or whatever else is at issue. So far, the statistics are showing that gay people marrying seems to be somehow, maybe subconsciously, telling straight people that marriage is a good institution and is encouraging them to take a chance.

[sandycoosworth]

There is nothing but bad to come out of long term gay marriage rights. Canada will be our example in the years to come of how it hurts a nation. The main problem with society today is the lack of a MAN and WOMAN in the home.

what a well thought out position

do you think a single mom would do better raising a child than 2 mothers?

[sandycoosworth]

For all those who think gay marriage is the worst possible disaster ever to hit the planet earth, statistics released in early January indicates that legitimizing gay marriage seems to have no negative effects on the straight population, and is in fact encouraging hetero couples to get hitched!  

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/sta170107.htm

from the article

""In Ontario," Statistics Canada says, "the number of marriages increased by 1,870, or 3.5%, from 2002, while in British Columbia, there were 734 more marriages (+3.5%) and in the Yukon 15 more (+10.5%). In all other provinces and territories there was a decline.""

the only province they expanded upon was british columbia, 3% growth from 2002-2003 in overall marriages, or 734 ..... but that included the additional 774 queerages ... meaning there was actually a drop of exactly 40 straight marraiges, or a decline ... furthermore, i would imagine the population in BC is growing so that decline just became bigger when controlled for overall population

the number in ontatio is also around 3%, andi  would imagine they experienced a decline in straight marriage as well (they didnt release all their data) ...

i dont think this decline has anything to do with the legalization of queerages, its part of a longer trend

it is interesting to note that over %50 of those bc queerages were from out of country ... canada is whoring out its queerage process

[militarymuscle69]

But gay people have nothing to do with straight people living together "in sin", or divorcing, or whatever else is at issue. So far, the statistics are showing that gay people marrying seems to be somehow, maybe subconsciously, telling straight people that marriage is a good institution and is encouraging them to take a chance.

I dont' agree with any of that either, and no I don't think a single mom would be any better they are both bad. But when a gay couple is raising a kid that tells the kid that being gay is ok..it isn't.

[Dos Equis]

For all those who think gay marriage is the worst possible disaster ever to hit the planet earth, statistics released in early January indicates that legitimizing gay marriage seems to have no negative effects on the straight population, and is in fact encouraging hetero couples to get hitched!   

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/sta170107.htm

I didn't see anything in the article that proves homosexual marriage encourages heterosexuals to get married.  I doubt a heterosexual couple makes a marriage decision based on whether Adam and Steve are tying the knot. 

[Deedee]

from the article

""In Ontario," Statistics Canada says, "the number of marriages increased by 1,870, or 3.5%, from 2002, while in British Columbia, there were 734 more marriages (+3.5%) and in the Yukon 15 more (+10.5%). In all other provinces and territories there was a decline.""

the only province they expanded upon was british columbia, 3% growth from 2002-2003 in overall marriages, or 734 ..... but that included the additional 774 queerages ... meaning there was actually a drop of exactly 40 straight marraiges, or a decline ... furthermore, i would imagine the population in BC is growing so that decline just became bigger when controlled for overall population

the number in ontatio is also around 3%, andi  would imagine they experienced a decline in straight marriage as well (they didnt release all their data) ...

i dont think this decline has anything to do with the legalization of queerages, its part of a longer trend

I know... it's not like the numbers prove anything overwhelming, but even if they're flat, it's evidence that accepting gay marriage hasn't destroyed the institution, it's still flourishing, as much as can be possible, considering the priorities of our current culture/society, and...looks like no one's been turned into a pillar of salt yet either.

it is interesting to note that over %50 of those bc queerages were from out of country ... canada is whoring out its queerage process

I noticed that too.    Makes sense.  If I fell in love with an American, all I'd have to do was marry him, and I'd have an instant green card. (Why didn't I think of that, instead of going the work route?  ) A gay Canadian man wouldn't have had that option.  But now, all kinds of gay people separated from their beloveds by borders, can settle in Canada and be together.

[Deedee]

I didn't see anything in the article that proves homosexual marriage encourages heterosexuals to get married.  I doubt a heterosexual couple makes a marriage decision based on whether Adam and Steve are tying the knot. 

That was the claim on this website. http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/ 

Either way, it ain't hurting anyone, it seems.  Although, in your country as in mine, the opposition mainly comes from older generations anyway.  Young people seem to care a lot less who marries who.

[militarymuscle69]

That was the claim on this website. http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/ 

Either way, it ain't hurting anyone, it seems.  Although, in your country as in mine, the opposition mainly comes from older generations anyway.  Young people seem to care a lot less who marries who.

Because unfortunately the MTV generation only worries about "me." They dont' consider how gay marriage will affect the country 3-4 generations from now

[Dos Equis]

That was the claim on this website. http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/ 

Either way, it ain't hurting anyone, it seems.  Although, in your country as in mine, the opposition mainly comes from older generations anyway.  Young people seem to care a lot less who marries who.

Deedee I don't think the opposition is limited to the older generation.  I haven't looked at voter demographics, but I'm pretty sure a sizeable number of "younger" voters go to the polls.  And when they are given an opportunity to vote on this issue, they overwhelmingly oppose it.  Whether homosexual marriage is harmful to society is debatable, but whether the public doesn't want this (at least in the U.S.) really isn't.  We rejected it in Hawaii by about a 70 percent margin and we are one of the most liberal states in the country.  

[Deedee]

Deedee I don't think the opposition is limited to the older generation.  I haven't looked at voter demographics, but I'm pretty sure a sizeable number of "younger" voters go to the polls.  And when they are given an opportunity to vote on this issue, they overwhelmingly oppose it.  Whether homosexual marriage is harmful to society is debatable, but whether the public doesn't want this (at least in the U.S.) really isn't.  We rejected it in Hawaii by about a 70 percent margin and we are one of the most liberal states in the country.  

No opposition isn't limited completely to the older generation. But statistically speaking, younger people care a lot less.  Apparently women too.  I've read this several times.

"For the first time ever, more likely voters in California support Gay Marriage than not. When asked, “Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to be legally married?”, 47% approved–including 27% of Republicans while 46% were opposed. Support for Gay Marriage came primarily from Women, White voters and younger voters."

That's from a blog - http://boifromtroy.com/?p=5846 so who knows where the info comes from...

...but this is from the UCLA School of Law  http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/issues/realdeal032904.html.  You can see how opposition increases among the older crowd.

Because unfortunately the MTV generation only worries about "me." They dont' consider how gay marriage will affect the country 3-4 generations from now.

But you have no idea how gay marriage will affect the country or whether it will at all.

[Dos Equis]

No opposition isn't limited completely to the older generation. But statistically speaking, younger people care a lot less.  Apparently women too.  I've read this several times.

"For the first time ever, more likely voters in California support Gay Marriage than not. When asked, “Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to be legally married?”, 47% approved–including 27% of Republicans while 46% were opposed. Support for Gay Marriage came primarily from Women, White voters and younger voters."

That's from a blog - http://boifromtroy.com/?p=5846 so who knows where the info comes from...

...but this is from the UCLA School of Law  http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/issues/realdeal032904.html.  You can see how opposition increases among the older crowd.

The UCLA article does show a difference in how the older and younger generations view this issue. 

Even though I am opposed to homosexual marriage, I do believe it is just a matter of time before it happens in this country. 

[Deedee]

The UCLA article does show a difference in how the older and younger generations view this issue. 

Even though I am opposed to homosexual marriage, I do believe it is just a matter of time before it happens in this country. 

I came upon those statistics awhile ago for work-related reasons.  Young people seem to be much more concerned with environmental/global warming and civil/human rights issues.  I guess these are going to be the big question mark areas in the future. Gay marriage issues pale in comparison.

[sandycoosworth]

I know... it's not like the numbers prove anything overwhelming, but even if they're flat, it's evidence that accepting gay marriage hasn't destroyed the institution, it's still flourishing, as much as can be possible, considering the priorities of our current culture/society, and...looks like no one's been turned into a pillar of salt yet either.

the numbers actually point towards marriage on the decline(the exact opposite of the intent of the article), there was a blip at the millennium and a blip because of all the new freaks who want queerages ... i mean they told you yukon went up by 10% right ... what they forgot to mention what that 10% equals 10 marriages ... the numbers in this study simply arent big enough for any meaningful conclusions, its essentially brainless propagenda from samesexmarriage

I noticed that too.    Makes sense.  If I fell in love with an American, all I'd have to do was marry him, and I'd have an instant green card. (Why didn't I think of that, instead of going the work route?  ) A gay Canadian man wouldn't have had that option.  But now, all kinds of gay people separated from their beloveds by borders, can settle in Canada and be together.

they are wonderful sensitive people, but fags spread diseases like wildfire ... and the type of women who want to get married dont exactly do it for me either ... however if the government is making a killing off of letting these people think they are normal thats a different story, but i really dont want to live in a country that acts as an international haven for fags to be frank with you ...

i think letting them have a union just as you would any 2 other people who live together for tax purposes is fair, but unless 51% of the public thinks 2 men or 2 women is the same and a man and a woman (which isnt the case) then the government is acting outside itself in declaring that union a marriage ... as i proposed before, let them have a their own union (namely queerages) and dont force through hollow legislation

[Dos Equis]

I came upon those statistics awhile ago for work-related reasons.  Young people seem to be much more concerned with environmental/global warming and civil/human rights issues.  I guess these are going to be the big question mark areas in the future. Gay marriage issues pale in comparison.

Those same young people will be old people.     Their views may change a little as they get older.  Still, we have seen a major shift in how we deal with certain issues, including how we address homosexuality.  Homosexual marriage may not be as important as the planet burning up (or freezing), but I believe this is one of many important issues, which explains why it comes up during the legislative process every session in Hawaii, and probably many other states.     

[Camel Jockey]

There is nothing but bad to come out of long term gay marriage rights..

Why can't you cite any sources to back up your arguements?

Homosexual marriage may not be as important as the planet burning up (or freezing), but I believe this is one of many important issues, which explains why it comes up during the legislative process every session in Hawaii, and probably many other states.     

It's important only because people are judging with their own ideals. Your ideals aren't always what's best for society. Look at it from a libertarian pov, does homosexual marriage negatively affect you in any way?

[Dos Equis]

Why can't you cite any sources to back up your arguements?

It's important only because people are judging with their own ideals. Your ideals aren't always what's best for society. Look at it from a libertarian pov, does homosexual marriage negatively affect you in any way?

Actually we are judging with our own ideals.  That's what the legislative process is for.  And I do believe that the legislative process (or some judges) will eventually permit homosexual marriage in this country.  Until then, I cannot really say how it negatively affects me, because it hasn't happened.  I am opposed to it because, among other reasons, I disagree with the lifestyle, do not believe we should legitimize this lifestyle choice, and believe we should preserve traditional marriage.  Most of the voting public agrees with me at this point.  But that will in all likelihood change.

And from a libertarian point of view, I really don't care what consenting adults do in their bedroom, and the government really has no role in the bedroom.  But we're talking about the government sanctioning certain behavior.  Big difference IMO.       

[Deedee]

the numbers actually point towards marriage on the decline(the exact opposite of the intent of the article), there was a blip at the millennium and a blip because of all the new freaks who want queerages ... i mean they told you yukon went up by 10% right ... what they forgot to mention what that 10% equals 10 marriages ... the numbers in this study simply arent big enough for any meaningful conclusions, its essentially brainless propagenda from samesexmarriage

Maybe I should have been more clear.  Even to someone as mathematically challenged as I, it was apparent that the numbers are pretty flat.  That's why I added, not one, but two grin emoticons to the thread.  But I should have said I was being playful.

It does however, to my mind at least, indicate that gay marriage is not impeding the institution in any way either.  It simply doesn't change anything for heterosexual people whatsoever.  That's my take on it.

they are wonderful sensitive people, but fags spread diseases like wildfire ... and the type of women who want to get married dont exactly do it for me either ... however if the government is making a killing off of letting these people think they are normal thats a different story, but i really dont want to live in a country that acts as an international haven for fags to be frank with you ...

i think letting them have a union just as you would any 2 other people who live together for tax purposes is fair, but unless 51% of the public thinks 2 men or 2 women is the same and a man and a woman (which isnt the case) then the government is acting outside itself in declaring that union a marriage ... as i proposed before, let them have a their own union (namely queerages) and dont force through hollow legislation

When you say the type of women who want to get married don't do it for you either... do you mean you find lesbians unattractive? Or do you mean heterosexual woman who are interested in marriage are a turn-off?

It's highly unlikely that Canada will turn into haven for homosexuals... if we look at the examples of other countries that have legalized gay marriage, such as the Netherlands.

As far as I know (although wasn't around at the time), the fight for gay marriage was won on constitutional grounds, so can that really be called hollow legislation?

[Camel Jockey]

Actually we are judging with our own ideals.  That's what the legislative process is for.  And I do believe that the legislative process (or some judges) will eventually permit homosexual marriage in this country.  Until then, I cannot really say how it negatively affects me, because it hasn't happened.  I am opposed to it because, among other reasons, I disagree with the lifestyle, do not believe we should legitimize this lifestyle choice, and believe we should preserve traditional marriage.  Most of the voting public agrees with me at this point.  But that will in all likelihood change.

And from a libertarian point of view, I really don't care what consenting adults do in their bedroom, and the government really has no role in the bedroom.  But we're talking about the government sanctioning certain behavior.  Big difference IMO.       

Very good post, although I don't agree with you.

[Dos Equis]

Very good post, although I don't agree with you.

Thank you sir.