Rosie O'Donnell would applaud.
 

Quebec adopts same-sex union and parental rights

Every politician present in the legislature voted to approve Bill 84 , which recognizes same-sex couples' rights to adopt, raise children, and to share a marriage-like status called a civil union.

"This is the first of its kind in the world," said a beaming Irene Demczuk, a gay-rights activist.

"There is no other jurisdiction in the world where equality was offered unanimously to same-sex couples and their children.

"Quebec has taken a historic step."

Same-sex adoptions are now legal in more than half of Canadian provinces, including Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Gay and lesbian couples were already allowed to adopt children in Quebec, but only one partner could have parental status.

Quebec is also the second province to grant marriage-style rights, after Nova Scotia.

Wow...Québec is actually good for something, eh? ;)

Non.

Vous êtes un outil. Jésus ne vous aime pas.

what the hell is wrong with people? i really don't see their problem, and never did, with gay couples adopting or getting married. can't those people be treated like normal human beings, with the same rights as heterosexuals?

i'd applaud too, but i'd also say that it's a little bit overdue...

NEWS FLASH: Rosie O'Donnell drowned yesterday. They found her last night, face down in Ricki Lake.


:) :) :) :) :) That shit still cracks me up.

Dude, WTF?

Dham, I get your point, but your homophobia detracts from it.

You homophobe. Homophobe homophobe homophobe. You are a homophobe.

We do have mature conversation round here don't we =)
Fantastic news, great to hear. I can't find the cartoon now but the text was
Which is more of a danger to your kids?
a: gays who adopt
b: the catholic church

Re: Rosie O'Donnell would applaud.
 

Wait... You mean to tell me Canada is a country? I thought it was like Porteau Rico (I know I didn't spell that right but I can barely spell my own name). When did we give them independence?

The War of 1812 is one of the forgotten wars of the United States. The war lasted for over two years, and while it ended much like it started; in stalemate; it was in fact a war that once and for all confirmed American Independence. The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada.

http://www.multied.com/1812/

'Bout friggin time.

...I guess...

On the other hand, I am baffled as to why government has any role in our personal relationships whatsoever. So in a way, this is going in the wrong direction.

But as an indicator of tolerance, it's a Good Thing. :)

Are you really baffled that the government has any role in marriage, divorce, and adoption?

Yep.

Interesting theory LordSludge.

Marriage and divorce: The reason people make a big deal about this is that there are many benefits to a marriage that is recognized by the government, i.e. taxes, rights during death/probate/etc. of the spouse, power of attorney, etc.

If you don't care about any of these things, there is no reason to get a government-recognized marriage. For people who do want these things, the government must regulate who gets married to prevent abuse. It can't be both ways.

Adoption: I'm sure you don't really think that anyone who expresses the desire to adopt a child should be able to. This is not an arrangement that is being made between two consenting adults; we are talking about the health, well-being, and safety of a child. There must be government regulations on the conditions under which adoption can occur.

People simply disagree on what those conditions should be.

Surely you recognize our "right to defensible borders", eh? :-)

By "our" you mean yours and mine? Of course.

These things could all be handled by a legal contract, agreed to each party (maybe more than two people, if that's what they want -- not my business). Sure, maybe there would be a standard boilerplate contract, call it "marriage" if you like, but for govt to impose the rules and restrictions of a relationship between two people is wrong, in my opinion, especially when you consider that many of those rules & restrictions are rooted in religion. Nasty business, imposing one's religion on another...

This is more of a side-argument, as I see it, but consider that we don't have laws on who is "qualified" to give birth... More to the point, I don't see why a govt-approved marriage should be any criteria for adoption. To be honest, though, I don't think most people are really qualified to have kids -- married or not, adopted or not -- but they get by. Guess it's a good thing they don't require my approval. heh

The government is not making rules on who can be in relationships, the government is making rules on who can enjoy government benefits of a supposed long-term relationship. Although the "long-term" part of the definition is definitely becoming blurred.

I'm not arguing for or against gay marriages or whatnot, just pointing out that your proposal that the government should make no rules whatsoever on marriage would never work.

that is an excellent point. i'd be terrified to be the child of many of the customers i see in my store. or to have to put up with them as a parent, if nothing else. and those are just the people who come to my store.

The problem here is that there is an assumption that government should be providing benefits based on marital status. If government kept its nose out from under the relationship tent, LordSludges private contract system would work just fine.

I left my wife and kids. Before I left she signed a contract by which I don't have to pay any support, so I'm pretty well set financially, but I miss having the kids around to help with chores. I'm looking to adopt a couple of strong boys. Money's no prob. Will pay more than market rates to adopt a young boy. Leave a message at the beep.

With the Govt. out of the way; bands of rogue lawyers take to the streets, forcing couples to sign inequitable pre-nups at gun point!!


No comment...

Then boy have I got a deal for you...