looks like gay marriage is now legal

[finboy]

well it looks like klien can't use the not withstanding clause, and gay marriage is now legal. the government has also ruled that churches have the right to refuse to perform ceremonies for same sex couples.

do you think this is a fair compromise? (churches can refuse service)
what will happen with the liberal party (quite divided)?

discuss.

[blueripper6]

Church can pretty much do whatever it says in the bible or whatnot right? Im not a religious person so I dunno.

I dunno why anyone would care so much if theres gay marriage.. because seriously who cares:whocares: how does it effect u in any way..

[hockeybronx]

I will go on record to say I strongly disagree with same sex marriages. It seems as though first people were fighting to legalize same-sex marriages and now I heard a story of a couple fighting to legalize same-sex divorces. Are they trying to change the world positively or just stir up shit?

I am glad the churches have the right to refuse it. Speaking for my church personally since my sister married the pastors son, I know our pastor was ready to go to jail or face whatever it took, he was not going to budge his faith for the law.

I do know one man who is gay who vowed to have his marriage in our church, I think in that case he cares more about how people will react than the actual marriage.

[hockeybronx]

Originally posted by blueripper6
I dunno why anyone would care so much if theres gay marriage.. because seriously who cares:whocares: how does it effect u in any way..

I agree with you to a certain extent. However if it were to effect my church where my church would be facing legal action then it would involve me and that is when I disagree with it.

[finboy]

just to add...

apperantly the BQ and NDP will support the liberals on this one, but many of the liberal's do not agree

[blueripper6]

Hey Playa

Well now that its legal u wont be facing legal actions.. I know that people are serious about there religion, but they cant love a certain person because of it..

Feelings are feelings right? I dunno if a gay person would take his church and marry a woman instead of a man??

[403Gemini]

and what is the rep of the churches that refuse to do the same sex marriages? they're name gets dragged through the mud. its sorta putting each church on the spot and i think thats bullshit.

imo im against same sex marraiges. i have gay friends who openly admit they know other gays who just want the marriage for the marriage title so they get the same benefits which are better than common law. wow way to abuse the system :thumbsdow yet i know there are other gays out there who genuinley just want to get married to have a certificate to say they are married. *shrugs* tough decesion but personally im against it but oh well. its not my place nor my decession (and if my gay friend decided to get married i would attend his wedding and support him)

[jaysas_63]

well i don't think the majority of gay ppl actually care if they get married in a church hockeybronx.....

and i really don't get ppl that are agianst gay marriage...i was talkin to one of my friends about it (he was against it) and he was not able to raise any valid points, all he could say was that it would make his marrige "less special" which i don't understand.....neways there is no reason IMO why a couple of guys or gals couldn't go to there local government office, and get a marriage certificate

[403Gemini]

just quick question, sorta off topic

who hear believes gays should have the right to adopt a child?

[finboy]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
just quick question, sorta off topic

who hear believes gays should have the right to adopt a child?

if they have to go through the same process as hetero couples who want to adopt i wouldn't mind. one could argue that they would make unfit parents, but then again how many teenage couples make unfit parents and still have kids :dunno:

[jaysas_63]

lol......here i am again, ya well 403, i am kinda homophobic, and could never have a gay friend, just becuase of the awkwardness...but i still belive that gays should have all the rights we do, like they are no diff than us.......the only down side to being adopted by a gay family is that the child is unwillingly entering into a atmosphere that he/she may not want to be involved in, so i guess its kinda an ify subject, cause u can't really ask a 3month old if they would mind being raisied by gays lol

[Team_Mclaren]

I have nothing against gay people. But my religion strongly against it.

IMO: They have the right to do whatever they like to do as long as it doesnt effect me, but in this case it does. It is my belief that marriage is a term used from the church for the establishment of relationship between a male and a female and that ONLY! I can careless if they would make up a new term/paper/legal document for same sex marriage. But as far as legaling "same sex" marriage goes. Im all against it.:thumbsdow

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by Team_Mclaren
I have nothing against gay people. But my religion strongly against it.

IMO: They have the right to do whatever they like to do as long as it doesnt effect me, but in this case it does. It is my belief that marriage is a term used from the church for the establishment of relationship between a male and a female and that ONLY! I can careless if they would make up a new term/paper/legal document for same sex marriage. But as far as legaling "same sex" marriage goes. Im all against it.:thumbsdow

that is pretty much my stance exactally.

reason why i propposed my question about gays adopting is after marriage of course that WILL be the next big discussion.

should they get children? and as you stated jaysas, its sort of forcing the child into that situation. granted a 3 month old cant really say yay or nay, but do you remeber how cruel young children were? could you imagine being raised and hearing from other kids "my dad called your dads a couple of fags, im not allowed at your house" or anything like that. there is older traditional families (lets face it older people arent as leanient on the whole gay thing) that wouldnt let their child hang out in a atmosphere of homosexuals. i know its prejudice, but its life.

[jaysas_63]

Originally posted by 403Gemini


that is pretty much my stance exactally.

reason why i propposed my question about gays adopting is after marriage of course that WILL be the next big discussion.

should they get children? and as you stated jaysas, its sort of forcing the child into that situation. granted a 3 month old cant really say yay or nay, but do you remeber how cruel young children were? could you imagine being raised and hearing from other kids "my dad called your dads a couple of fags, im not allowed at your house" or anything like that. there is older traditional families (lets face it older people arent as leanient on the whole gay thing) that wouldnt let their child hang out in a atmosphere of homosexuals. i know its prejudice, but its life.

ya man i agree with u 100%....and it will be tough for a kid growin up in a gay houehold...hell i know when i was in gr 6 if some kid tryed flammin me and his dad was actually gay, i would have had a fuckin ball with that shit lol.....i guess it'll take a while before we come to accept gay ppl, and end the pregiduce

[Weapon_R]

The notwithstanding clause can still be used to override Supreme court decisions...

[finboy]

Originally posted by 403Gemini


that is pretty much my stance exactally.

reason why i propposed my question about gays adopting is after marriage of course that WILL be the next big discussion.

should they get children? and as you stated jaysas, its sort of forcing the child into that situation. granted a 3 month old cant really say yay or nay, but do you remeber how cruel young children were? could you imagine being raised and hearing from other kids "my dad called your dads a couple of fags, im not allowed at your house" or anything like that. there is older traditional families (lets face it older people arent as leanient on the whole gay thing) that wouldnt let their child hang out in a atmosphere of homosexuals. i know its prejudice, but its life.

same thing could have been said years ago when blacks were being allowed into public school. i'm sure some of them faced racism, but society adapts :dunno:

[fast95pony]

I have nothing against it.I just wish the media would stop showing butch chicks and gay guys hugging and kissing in EVERY shot.It's as if every time a camera light shines on them , they must overtly show that they're gay.

The Churches should be more worried about the high rate of divorce that makes that's making the instituition of marriage
a complete mockery.And they should start in Hollywood...:thumbsdow

[mo_virgin]

I read this news report... and i don't exactly understand why Alberta CAN'T use the notwithstanding clause. I had hope in Alberta to not reconize this bullshit... but after this news story...

[dust-off]

i also disagree strongly on this! my religion is totaly against it also. and pretty much every person i have spoke with on the subject. i cant stand to see gay ppl being together it makes me sick in a way. and that would suck for the child to grow up around, no body would want to be his/her friend cuz of the parents and if they would want to be the parents of the friend would say not to go hang out with this child.

[TKRIS]

I for one don't really give a $hit what your religious stand on it is. Last time I checked, we were a country based on rights and laws, NOT RELIGION. If you want to live in a country based on religion, I'm sure Saudi Arabia will take you. The fact is, you can be against it all you want. You can bitch about it if you want (free speech), but you've got no right to stop it. I'm so sick of hearing this "I don't think my church should be forced to recognize it because it goes against our teachings" bull$hit. Of course your church isn't going to be leagally bound to marry gays. Quit crying "wolf". Your church isn't (and wouldn't) marry me and my girlfriend due to my religious beliefs, so why the Fck would they be forced to marry gay people? That "Slippery Slope" argument is unfounded bull$hit.
As I said, hate it all you want, bitch about it all you want, but recognize the fact that it is Anti-Canadian of you to ban it. That's not the Canada I grew up in.

[TKRIS]

i also disagree strongly on this! my religion is totaly against it also. So that means your going to deny their rights based on your religious convictions? That doesn't seem right. and pretty much every person i have spoke with on the subject. i cant stand to see gay ppl being together it makes me sick in a way. That's your problem. Fat people make me sick, should we deny them food so that I don't feel 'iky'? That's not the way it works and that would suck for the child to grow up around, no body would want to be his/her friend You wouldn't, because your predjudiced, I would have.cuz of the parents and if they would want to be the parents of the friend would say not to go hang out with this child. The children of gay couples aren't going to be accepted into society right away, I know that. But the sooner it's exposed, the sooner we can all learn a little tolerance.

[dust-off]

maybe ur right but i dont really care. im still against it and i hope that canada quits being stupid. so u have growin up around gay ppl getting married? i bet u had alot of fun knowing they were checking ur ass out n haveing wild thoughts about u in bed:barf:

[EDM]

i dont give a shit about the issue. as far as im concerned i think its strange, but its an issue that does not affect me. so im neutral on the issue. it doesnt bother me that its legalized.

i think churches have the right to refuse ceremony, afterall having a gay marriage in a church doesn't exactly make much sense.

what will happen to the liberal party? i dont think anything. The Liberals are a pretty tolerant party towards all people compared to the conservatives.



one more thing for us straight people. think about how much more punani we can get from this if more people are gay :thumbsup:

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by dust-off
maybe ur right but i dont really care. im still against it and i hope that canada quits being stupid. Because YOU know what's best for the country don't you. Christ, you can't even formulate an intelligent sentence, so you'll have to forgive me if i don't put a lot of stock in your opinions.
so u have growin up around gay ppl getting married?No, I grew up in rural Saskatchewan.
i bet u had alot of fun knowing they were checking ur ass out n haveing wild thoughts about u in bed:barf: Generally, the best way to garner support for your side a debate is to be intelligent and/or informed. Rediculous elementary school jargon and sub-teenage grammatical skills do nothing to support your stance.

[fast95pony]

Originally posted by dust-off
maybe ur right but i dont really care. im still against it and i hope that canada quits being stupid. so u have growin up around gay ppl getting married? i bet u had alot of fun knowing they were checking ur ass out n haveing wild thoughts about u in bed:barf:


Gayest post evar !!:rolleyes:

[hjr]

Originally posted by TKRIS
I for one don't really give a $hit what your religious stand on it is. Last time I checked, we were a country based on rights and laws, NOT RELIGION. If you want to live in a country based on religion, I'm sure Saudi Arabia will take you. The fact is, you can be against it all you want. You can bitch about it if you want (free speech), but you've got no right to stop it. I'm so sick of hearing this "I don't think my church should be forced to recognize it because it goes against our teachings" bull$hit. Of course your church isn't going to be leagally bound to marry gays. Quit crying "wolf". Your church isn't (and wouldn't) marry me and my girlfriend due to my religious beliefs, so why the Fck would they be forced to marry gay people? That "Slippery Slope" argument is unfounded bull$hit.
As I said, hate it all you want, bitch about it all you want, but recognize the fact that it is Anti-Canadian of you to ban it. That's not the Canada I grew up in.



Originally posted by TKRIS
i also disagree strongly on this! my religion is totaly against it also. So that means your going to deny their rights based on your religious convictions? That doesn't seem right. and pretty much every person i have spoke with on the subject. i cant stand to see gay ppl being together it makes me sick in a way. That's your problem. Fat people make me sick, should we deny them food so that I don't feel 'iky'? That's not the way it works and that would suck for the child to grow up around, no body would want to be his/her friend You wouldn't, because your predjudiced, I would have.cuz of the parents and if they would want to be the parents of the friend would say not to go hang out with this child. The children of gay couples aren't going to be accepted into society right away, I know that. But the sooner it's exposed, the sooner we can all learn a little tolerance.



Originally posted by TKRIS
Because YOU know what's best for the country don't you. Christ, you can't even formulate an intelligent sentence, so you'll have to forgive me if i don't put a lot of stock in your opinions. [B]No, I grew up in rural Saskatchewan.[B] Generally, the best way to garner support for your side a debate is to be intelligent and/or informed. Rediculous elementary school jargon and sub-teenage grammatical skills do nothing to support your stance.


wow, this guy is my hero. This is NOT a religious state, and therefor religion should not really have direct influence on governing. some of the people in here are knee-jerk, irrational, intolerant individuals. Im not saying their views are wrong, but gayness scares a lot of people and causes them to not really think, just blindly oppose it, often using religion as an excuse. I should mention that this isnt the case with all people using the religion card.

[finboy]

Originally posted by mo_virgin
I read this news report... and i don't exactly understand why Alberta CAN'T use the notwithstanding clause. I had hope in Alberta to not reconize this bullshit... but after this news story...

from what i gather, because the federal government made the ruling, the provincial government has no power against it. from what i have learned, a government can use the notwithstanding clause against lower forms of governments or citezens (such as the only other time its been used, quebec, requiring all signs to be in french).

not sure how accurate that is though.

[finboy]

Originally posted by dust-off
maybe ur right but i dont really care. im still against it and i hope that canada quits being stupid. so u have growin up around gay ppl getting married? i bet u had alot of fun knowing they were checking ur ass out n haveing wild thoughts about u in bed:barf:

man what a close minded post.

my parents have a few gay friends and i grew up around them. they are perfectly normal people, they don't have a lisp, they don't make out in public, they are the EXACT same as everyone else except their partner is the same sex. as for the "checking out your ass" comment, i'm sure there are lots of ugly/fat/etc. chicks that do the EXACT same thing, and that thought doesn't seem like it would bother you. how do you think a smoking hot girl feels, knowing that any guy on the street, or that she knows could think the same thing about her. i'll give you a hint, she probably wouldn't give it a second thought.

[abyss]

About the Adopting a child part, isn't it better to have two parents who love eachother than one, or none? If the kids get teased then they get teased ALL kids get teased. But as far as not letting your children go over to a household like that, that's just bullshit, Sure it will happen but eventually everything is full circle and it will be accepted. It's exactly like what happened to the Black people. How many white kids do you think weren't allowed to go over to their black friends' house? Now how often does that happen? not too often I'd say. But :thumbsdow on the fact that it still does though.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by jaysas_63
the only down side to being adopted by a gay family is that the child is unwillingly entering into a atmosphere that he/she may not want to be involved in, so i guess its kinda an ify subject, cause u can't really ask a 3month old if they would mind being raisied by gays lol

i thought this was a good point at first, but if u think about it some more, it really isnt a valid argument at all.

children are possibly unwillingly entered into many settings. im sure the kids of poor parents have thought to themselves, "i wish my parents were rich," im sure the kids of janitors (:dunno:) have thought, "i wish my parents were normal and not dirty janitors that everyone laughs at," AND im sure kids of gay parents may think, "gosh i wish i had straight parents."

as u can see, it really doesnt matter what the kids think. as long as their rights arent being violated, then their parents will supercedes theirs.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by TKRIS
I for one don't really give a $hit what your religious stand on it is. Last time I checked, we were a country based on rights and laws, NOT RELIGION. If you want to live in a country based on religion, I'm sure Saudi Arabia will take you. The fact is, you can be against it all you want. You can bitch about it if you want (free speech), but you've got no right to stop it. I'm so sick of hearing this "I don't think my church should be forced to recognize it because it goes against our teachings" bull$hit. Of course your church isn't going to be leagally bound to marry gays. Quit crying "wolf". Your church isn't (and wouldn't) marry me and my girlfriend due to my religious beliefs, so why the Fck would they be forced to marry gay people? That "Slippery Slope" argument is unfounded bull$hit.
As I said, hate it all you want, bitch about it all you want, but recognize the fact that it is Anti-Canadian of you to ban it. That's not the Canada I grew up in. good job on laying it down to all the ignorant, unchanging, and unenlightened fools.

[Toms-SC]

Society is all fucked up. Next its going to be man/woman wedding an object. Thats all I gotta say.

[Melinda]

Even if Klien can say no, they can still head off to sask or BC and get it done, they're still legally married when they come back to Alberta.

It doesn't affect me and I don't see how it really effects non gay people either, so why should people judge so harshly? Sure, religion condemns gay people but what's it to you? Let them be judged later on. Keep living your life the "right way" and you'll be set for your after life. Don't try to stick your nose in somewhere it doesn't really belong, it doesn't effect you except you might see two guys or two girls holding hands walking down the street instead of a guy and a girl...who cares? And do you really think continuing to make gay marriage illegal is going to stop gay people from being together? Hmm my guess is no.

I see no bad from this, only gay people being able to be happy together and legally be seen as a married couple, why is that a bad thing? :dunno:

[lint]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
Society is all fucked up. Next its going to be man/woman wedding an object. Thats all I gotta say.

If that's all you gotta say, then please stop talking now.

We're talking about union between two humans, there is no mention about objects or anything of the sort. A very weak slippery slope arguement.

[lint]

Originally posted by Melinda
Even if Klien can say no, they can still head off to sask or BC and get it done, they're still legally married when they come back to Alberta.

It doesn't affect me and I don't see how it really effects non gay people either, so why should people judge so harshly? Sure, religion condemns gay people but what's it to you? Let them be judged later on. Keep living your life the "right way" and you'll be set for your after life. Don't try to stick your nose in somewhere it doesn't really belong, it doesn't effect you except you might see two guys or two girls holding hands walking down the street instead of a guy and a girl...who cares? And do you really think continuing to make gay marriage illegal is going to stop gay people from being together? Hmm my guess is no.

I see no bad from this, only gay people being able to be happy together and legally be seen as a married couple, why is that a bad thing? :dunno:

You bring up a very important arguement. Even though judgement is reserved for God to dole out, the majority of followers would prefer to handle it themselves. Everyone wants to play God it seems. Everyone knows God's will.

[TKRIS]

Canada is not ruled exclusively by democracy. Laws and regulations, right and rules are what hold this country together. We require this type of regulation as a safe guard AGAINST democracy. Democracy in and of itself does not work terribly well due to the ignorance and manipulability of the masses. I'll give you an example. If Hitler was democratically elected, the halocost would still have taken place because the German people supported him. This is usually chalked up to "mob mentality". To safeguard again incidents like that (or at least ensure that the slide into chaos is gradual) we have things like the Charter of Rights. This protects us from ourselves. This prevents "Johnny" from being burned at the stake because the masses have been fed propaganda, misinformation and hate for so long that they think he's a witch and fire will excercise his demons.
I would like to add, I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe what I believe. That would be foolhardy. It's a difference in perception that will never be reconciled. My point is simply that we MUST put our personal feelings on the issue aside in order to look at the matter objectively. I realize that this is probably an excercise in futility as most (read: 99%) people are too self-absorbed to see past their own interests, whatever those may be.

If you want your Two Minutes Hate then I'll leave you to it. If you want ignorance, misinformation, religious zealotry and propaganda to rein, you shall have it. Just remember this, a million people that believe that 2+2=5 does not mean that 2+2=5.
Sell whatever you choose to sell, but don't expect me to buy it.

Kris

[lint]

Originally posted by TKRIS
Just remember this, a million people that believe that 2+2=5 does not mean that 2+2=5.
Sell whatever you choose to sell, but don't expect me to buy it.

Kris

Nice Orwellian reference :thumbsup:

[Aleks]

Originally posted by lint


If that's all you gotta say, then please stop talking now.

We're talking about union between two humans, there is no mention about objects or anything of the sort. A very weak slippery slope arguement.

So what if some humans out there wanna marry their sisters or brothers or even kids? Where do you draw the line?

[Melinda]

Originally posted by Aleks


So what if some humans out there wanna marry their sisters or brothers or even kids? Where do you draw the line?
That's a little unreasonable to associate gay marriage with incest or kiddie shit. Kids aren't leggally allowed to get married at all, and brothers and sisters have a very high chance of having incredibly screwed up children...gay people can't have kids, so again, where does that hurt you??? :dunno:

[Carfanman]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
just quick question, sorta off topic

who hear believes gays should have the right to adopt a child?

I dont have time to read this whole thread so forgive me if this has already been said.

If you believe that gays are influenced by thier surroundings than that would make adopted kids for gays more likely to become that way.

If you dont believe that then wont a kid feel cheated out of having a normal family and also feel wierd because his "parents" disgust him. not to mention how badly hed get picked on in school.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Aleks


So what if some humans out there wanna marry their sisters or brothers or even kids? Where do you draw the line?
With consenting adults who are both legally and biologically able to make their own decisions. The EXACT same way as the task is presently accomplished. As has been stated before, this is an incredibly weak "Slippery Slope" argument.
On a lighter note, I don't think it would be so bad for Molly to be able to marry a carrot, or Bubba to be able to marry his tractor. Think about it. They would be pumping money into the system to accomplish a completely benign act that would basically ensure that morons like themselves would not breed and make more morons who are destined to drive slow in the fast lane, and furthur clog Highway #2. See? We all win.;)


Kris

[finboy]

Originally posted by Carfanman


I dont have time to read this whole thread so forgive me if this has already been said.

If you believe that gays are influenced by thier surroundings than that would make adopted kids for gays more likely to become that way.

If you dont believe that then wont a kid feel cheated out of having a normal family and also feel wierd because his "parents" disgust him. not to mention how badly hed get picked on in school. general rule of thumb, and it applies to this post, READ THE WHOLE THREAD FIRST.

[hjr]

it would seem that the majority of albertans do not want gay marriage. But remember that alberta is the LEAST tolerant province in canada, with quebec generally the most. From what i understand (dont take this as gospel) The majority Quebec is in favor of legislation to allow it. Im just trying to put a contrasting point out there.

My next point is that a lot of you are talking about majority rule and democracy, well what if the majority of canadians are not as intolerant as this province? Ohhh,welll, ya, of course, nonwithstanding clause for sure. Cause democracy and majority rule are only legitimate when your beliefs are represented by the majority. not hypocritical at all...

[Aleks]

Originally posted by Melinda

That's a little unreasonable to associate gay marriage with incest or kiddie shit. Kids aren't leggally allowed to get married at all, and brothers and sisters have a very high chance of having incredibly screwed up children...gay people can't have kids, so again, where does that hurt you??? :dunno:

It doesnt hurt me any. I was just pondering the possiblity of this in the future. Say a man wants to marry his female cousin? Is there a law against this now? They might not wanna have kids just want the same rights as the rest of us.
PS I didn't mean to imply kiddie stuff I mean adults in all cases even when I said kids..

[hjr]

the ndp is in favor, the bloq is in favor, if the liberals want to push it, it will go through.

i did some quick research and a majority of canadians do agree with same-sex marriage. not all survays put it as a big majority, but most do show a majority in favor.

Check out these links...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marz.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll4.htm

http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=432

[Toms-SC]

Where was this poll conducted? Near Toronto I bet

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Aleks


It doesnt hurt me any. I was just pondering the possiblity of this in the future. Say a man wants to marry his female cousin? Is there a law against this now? They might not wanna have kids just want the same rights as the rest of us.
PS I didn't mean to imply kiddie stuff I mean adults in all cases even when I said kids..

What is the point of your comments in relation to the topic at hand. Have you decided that the issue of Gay Rights/Marriage is much to rudamentary for your advanced psyche and are therefore going to detract from the thread in order to speculate on inconsequential hypotheticals?
Or have you just realized that the initial argument you presented was without merit and are tying to justify your existence in this thread as something more than a distraction from the real issue?

I'm sorry if I come off harsh, but I think this issue is complicated enough without being distracted by the irrelevant.


Kris

[lint]

Originally posted by Aleks


It doesnt hurt me any. I was just pondering the possiblity of this in the future. Say a man wants to marry his female cousin? Is there a law against this now? They might not wanna have kids just want the same rights as the rest of us.
PS I didn't mean to imply kiddie stuff I mean adults in all cases even when I said kids..

Just an FYI, there is no law against marriage of a first cousin. (not generally accepted by society however) And if they do, they should receive the same rights as other married couples.
And can you elaborate on the issue with people who marry and don't chose to have children? What relevance does that have? Only couples who want kids should be allowed to marry?

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by TKRIS


What is the point of your comments in relation to the topic at hand. Have you decided that the issue of Gay Rights/Marriage is much to rudamentary for your advanced psyche and are therefore going to detract from the thread in order to speculate on inconsequential hypotheticals?
Or have you just realized that the initial argument you presented was without merit and are tying to justify your existence in this thread as something more than a distraction from the real issue?

I'm sorry if I come off harsh, but I think this issue is complicated enough without being distracted by the irrelevant.


Kris

It is in relation with the topic, what his trying to get across is if that the defination of marriage can be changed one way, what will stop it from being chaged the other way?

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by lint


What relevance does that have?

What relevance does this post have? None. Calm down, we are trying to look at the whole picture and not just one aspect of the issue.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Toms-SC


It is in relation with the topic, what his trying to get across is if that the defination of marriage can be changed one way, what will stop it from being chaged the other way?

And that has been addressed. Yet the posts continue....


Kris

[hjr]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
Where was this poll conducted? Near Toronto I bet :


Most Canadians feel that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry and the proportion of Canadians expressing approval of homosexuality has continued its sharp upward trend over the past five years, according to a[b] new national poll[b]

[lint]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
Where was this poll conducted? Near Toronto I bet

This statement is relevant to this debate because???

Obviously the opinions in Ont will vary from those in Alberta. As stated previously, Alberta is the most conservative province, whereas the rest of the provinces are more liberal.

The point is that just because the majority of Albertans may be opposed to same-sex marriage, that is not necessarily the case for the rest of Canada, who the ruling applies to.

[Toms-SC]

Sorry, I am always warry of polls like these HJR. Thank you for the clarification. :)

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by lint


This statement is relevant to this debate because???

Obviously the opinions in Ont will vary from those in Alberta. As stated previously, Alberta is the most conservative province, whereas the rest of the provinces are more liberal.

The point is that just because the majority of Albertans may be opposed to same-sex marriage, that is not necessarily the case for the rest of Canada, who the ruling applies to.

Geese. Thanks Cpt.Obvious! Say the word 'relevant' once more, I dare ya.

[lint]

Originally posted by Toms-SC


Geese. Thanks Cpt.Obvious! Say the word 'relevant' once more, I dare ya.

Relevant. Are you going to e-thug me?


Originally posted by Toms-SC
Society is all fucked up. Next its going to be man/woman wedding an object. Thats all I gotta say.

Thought you were done?

[Aleks]

Originally posted by lint


Just an FYI, there is no law against marriage of a first cousin. (not generally accepted by society however) And if they do, they should receive the same rights as other married couples.
And can you elaborate on the issue with people who marry and don't chose to have children? What relevance does that have? Only couples who want kids should be allowed to marry?

You misunderstood my comment about not having kids. It was in response to Melinda's post about gay people not being able to have kids and cousins having disfigured ones...

[lint]

Originally posted by Aleks


You misunderstood my comment about not having kids. It was in response to Melinda's post about gay people not being able to have kids and cousins having disfigured ones...

Please elaborate. I've re-read your comment and I am still unclear what you are saying.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by TKRIS


What is the point of your comments in relation to the topic at hand. Have you decided that the issue of Gay Rights/Marriage is much to rudamentary for your advanced psyche and are therefore going to detract from the thread in order to speculate on inconsequential hypotheticals?
Or have you just realized that the initial argument you presented was without merit and are tying to justify your existence in this thread as something more than a distraction from the real issue?

I'm sorry if I come off harsh, but I think this issue is complicated enough without being distracted by the irrelevant.


Kris

I was initially responding to lint's comment about human to human relationships and merely throwing in a Hypothetical situation into the mix. And yes my fairly advanced psyche got the best of me and made me expand on this discussion.

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by lint


Relevant. Are you going to e-thug me?

Thought you were done?

What relevance does your post have to the topic at hand.

I was done, now I am not. Alright defender of the queer's, buckle up and lets go for a ride.

Marriage, what is it exactly? Marriage is the union of the two sexes, not just the union of two people. It is the union of two families, and the foundation for establishing kinship patterns and family names, passing on property and providing the optimal environment for raising children.

The term “marriage” refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, “marriage” becomes meaningless. You can no more leave an entire sex out of marriage and call it “marriage” than you can leave chocolate out of a “chocolate brownie” recipe. It becomes something else.

Giving non-marital relationships the same status as marriage does not expand the definition of marriage; it destroys it. For example, if you declare that, because it has similar properties, wine should be labeled identically to grape juice, you have destroyed the definitions of both “wine” and “grape juice.” The consumer would not know what he is getting.

Marriage is the union of the only type of couple capable of natural reproduction of the human race—a man and a woman. Children need both mothers and fathers, and marriage is society’s way of obtaining them.

Children learn crucial things about family life by observing our crucial relationships up close: interactions between men and women; husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and parents to children of the same and opposite sexes. Human experience and a vast body of social science research show that children do best in married, mother-father households. It is wrong to create fatherless or motherless families by design. The effort is being driven by the desires of adults, not the needs of children.

The drive for homosexual “marriage” leads to destruction of the gold standard for custody and adoption. The question should be: “What is in the best interests of the child?” The answer is: “Place children, whenever possible, in a married, mom-and-dad household.” As homosexual relationships gain status, marriage loses its place as the preferential adoption family option.

Futhermore...

Lets look at the legal/social fallouts that can occur if we allow gay marriage.

Other groups, such as bisexuals and polygamists, will demand the right to redefine marriage to suit their own proclivities. Once the standard of one-man, one-woman marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point.

As society rewards homosexual behavior, more young people will be encouraged to experiment and more will be discouraged from overcoming homosexual desires.

Popular understanding of what marriage is and what it requires will undergo change. Homosexual relationships, which usually lack both permanence and fidelity, are unlikely to change to fit the traditional model of lifelong, faithful marriage. Instead, society’s expectations of marriage will change in response to the homosexual model, thus leading to a further weakening of the institution of marriage. Some homosexual activists have acknowledged that they intend to use marriage mainly as a way to radically shift society’s entire conception of sexual morality.

So, in conclusion, you want to get married to a person of the same sex? Head to Europe.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by lint


Please elaborate. I've re-read your comment and I am still unclear what you are saying.

Ok. In her post she says that brothers and sisters have a very high chance of having screwed up kids. I took that to mean that's why they shouldn't marry! (maybe an incorrect assumption). My counter argument meant to say what if a brother and sister just want to marry and not have kids...that's similar to a gay couple who can't have kids. Should they be allowed to marry? Anyways, hopefully that clears it up. I never meant to say people should only be allowed to marry if they are gonna have kids, or anything to that effect!


Originally posted by Melinda

That's a little unreasonable to associate gay marriage with incest or kiddie shit. Kids aren't leggally allowed to get married at all, and brothers and sisters have a very high chance of having incredibly screwed up children...gay people can't have kids, so again, where does that hurt you??? :dunno:

[TKRIS]

Stay tuned. Rebuttle to follow (when I've got time.)


Kris

EDIT: this kind of misinformation requires a proper rebuttle which I do not, at present, have time to formulate. Will respond after work.

[Toms-SC]

If you consider misinformation human nature than shoot. :) I am waiting plesently by.

[abyss]

Originally posted by Carfanman


I dont have time to read this whole thread so forgive me if this has already been said.

If you believe that gays are influenced by thier surroundings than that would make adopted kids for gays more likely to become that way.

If you dont believe that then wont a kid feel cheated out of having a normal family and also feel wierd because his "parents" disgust him. not to mention how badly hed get picked on in school.

I think we should have a poll....how many beyonder's BIOLOGICAL mother and father are CURRENTLY married/living together? Let's see how many NORMAL families there are out ther hmm?

[Melinda]

Mine are still together, and so are my mom's parents.

[Aleks]

My parents are still together as well...

[abyss]

How high is the divorce rate/adoption rate then? My family is "normal" as well, but I would expect that there are also VERY MANY that are adopted/divorced/single parent situations. Just trying to play the devil's advocate for once:devil:

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
If you consider misinformation human nature than shoot. :) I am waiting plesently by.
You talking about human habit, not human nature.

[Toms-SC]

So what it human nature to you then?

[TKRIS]

Instinct.

[method]

yeah they used to say black people couldnt marry white people

they also said jews were outcasts cause they 'killed christ'

they said a lot of shit. get with the times.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
Marriage, what is it exactly? Marriage is the union of the two sexes, not just the union of two people. It is the union of two families, and the foundation for establishing kinship patterns and family names, passing on property and providing the optimal environment for raising children.

Nice definition - for you. What gives you the right to define it for everyone else?



The term “marriage” refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, “marriage” becomes meaningless. You can no more leave an entire sex out of marriage and call it “marriage” than you can leave chocolate out of a “chocolate brownie” recipe. It becomes something else.


I love how people talk about marriage like it's still some sacred institution. Look up the divorce rate - it hasn't been sacred in years. Or is everyone that divorces going to hell as well?


Marriage is the union of the only type of couple capable of natural reproduction of the human race—a man and a woman. Children need both mothers and fathers, and marriage is society’s way of obtaining them.

Let's see: Kid A - raised by drunk single mom living off welfare vs Kid B - raised by 2 lesbian college professors... My money is on B.

Here's an ethical question for you then: A kid can either be aborted or given up for adoption to a gay couple. Which do you choose?


“What is in the best interests of the child?” The answer is: “Place children, whenever possible, in a married, mom-and-dad household.”

There are millions of kids that never get adopted period. Courts have long established that a gay parent does not make them an unfit one. Again, white trailer trash crack addict parent vs a gay paramedic - who's likely to be a better parent?


As society rewards homosexual behavior, more young people will be encouraged to experiment and more will be discouraged from overcoming homosexual desires.

AHAHAHAHA! Overcome your desires Luke!

There was a poll in Maxim recently about college girls. 40% had experimented with another girl. I wonder if you have a problem with that?


lack both permanence and fidelity, are unlikely to change to fit the traditional model of lifelong, faithful marriage.

Ok seriously. Are you a time traveller from the 50s?


So, in conclusion, you want to get married to a person of the same sex? Head to Europe. [/B]

You want to enforce your bigot beliefs on everyone else? Head to Iran.

What strikes me as most ironic is that almost all these arguments have been used against blacks in the 60s. Look up some of the protests against mixed race marriages - they sound exactly the same. Nice to know you share the same tolerances as supremacists. :thumbsup:

Khyron

[Mr. Burns]

^^ Fuck yeah!

[finboy]

Originally posted by Toms-SC


Marriage, what is it exactly? Marriage is the union of the two sexes, not just the union of two people. It is the union of two families, and the foundation for establishing kinship patterns and family names, passing on property and providing the optimal environment for raising children.

The term “marriage” refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, “marriage” becomes meaningless. You can no more leave an entire sex out of marriage and call it “marriage” than you can leave chocolate out of a “chocolate brownie” recipe. It becomes something else.

the definition can still change, as the government has seen fit to do so. marriage is already meaningless, look at our society and its become a joke. "who wants to marry a millionaire" "who wants to marry a midget" anna nicole smith, wakko jakko, it hasn't been meaningful for a LOOOOONG time :rofl:


Marriage is the union of the only type of couple capable of natural reproduction of the human race—a man and a woman. Children need both mothers and fathers, and marriage is society’s way of obtaining them.

so what about impotent men and women? they can't have kids, so should they not be allowed to be married as well?


Children learn crucial things about family life by observing our crucial relationships up close: interactions between men and women; husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and parents to children of the same and opposite sexes. Human experience and a vast body of social science research show that children do best in married, mother-father households. It is wrong to create fatherless or motherless families by design. The effort is being driven by the desires of adults, not the needs of children.

since no one knows how a gay parent will affect a child for sure, we can't say that the kid would turn out gay or not, this is where the argument of biological vs. choice of sexual orientation comes in.


The drive for homosexual “marriage” leads to destruction of the gold standard for custody and adoption. The question should be: “What is in the best interests of the child?” The answer is: “Place children, whenever possible, in a married, mom-and-dad household.” As homosexual relationships gain status, marriage loses its place as the preferential adoption family option.

again, we don't know the affect of gay parents on children, i know gay people who would make fine parents, you wouldn't even know they were gay if they didn't tell you.

Futhermore...

Lets look at the legal/social fallouts that can occur if we allow gay marriage.

Other groups, such as bisexuals and polygamists, will demand the right to redefine marriage to suit their own proclivities. Once the standard of one-man, one-woman marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point.


bisexuals are under the same umbrella as gays in this case, polygamists is a different argument for a different day


As society rewards homosexual behavior, more young people will be encouraged to experiment and more will be discouraged from overcoming homosexual desires.

just because you their is less hate mongering towards gays, doesn't meen everyone is going to go out and try being gay, i think that if society accepts homosexuality more, then more people will come out of the closet, but that doesn't mean people will be turned gay


Popular understanding of what marriage is and what it requires will undergo change. Homosexual relationships, which usually lack both permanence and fidelity, are unlikely to change to fit the traditional model of lifelong, faithful marriage. Instead, society’s expectations of marriage will change in response to the homosexual model, thus leading to a further weakening of the institution of marriage. Some homosexual activists have acknowledged that they intend to use marriage mainly as a way to radically shift society’s entire conception of sexual morality.

lifelong faithful marriage? that hasn't existed for YEARS, divorce rates in the state are already 50%. gays don't ruin the sanctity of marriage, hetero couples did that a LOOOONG time ago.


So, in conclusion, you want to get married to a person of the same sex? Head to Europe.

won't be happening, laws are already in motion here, it *should* read


So, in conclusion, you don't want to see gays getting married? Head to America.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by abyss


I think we should have a poll....how many beyonder's BIOLOGICAL mother and father are CURRENTLY married/living together? Let's see how many NORMAL families there are out ther hmm?

i throw this out since its been tossed 2-3 times out before

"SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUEMENT"

for the record, my parents are still together, thx for comin out tho ;) yes divorce rate is upwards of 50% but blame society for that. people are getting married for the wrong reasons. people expect the "honeymoon phase" to last through the entire marriage like it exists on tv and movies. people duck out of the relationship at the first sign that things are getting tough. i think divorce shoud be A LOT harder to go through. something like file for divorce then still live together for a year to see if something gets resolved instead of immature "IM OUTTA HERE!"

exceptions for extreme cases tho (such as abuse and what not)

I dunno life just seems diff for peeps of younger generations then they were for our parents. our parents raised us and were there for us. sure there were hard times and there were good times, but such is life. People are just lazy and scared now tho and know they can get the big "D" at the first sign of trouble.

[finboy]

Originally posted by 403Gemini


i throw this out since its been tossed 2-3 times out before

"SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUEMENT"

for the record, my parents are still together, thx for comin out tho ;) yes divorce rate is upwards of 50% but blame society for that. people are getting married for the wrong reasons. people expect the "honeymoon phase" to last through the entire marriage like it exists on tv and movies. people duck out of the relationship at the first sign that things are getting tough. i think divorce shoud be A LOT harder to go through. something like file for divorce then still live together for a year to see if something gets resolved instead of immature "IM OUTTA HERE!"

exceptions for extreme cases tho (such as abuse and what not)

I dunno life just seems diff for peeps of younger generations then they were for our parents. our parents raised us and were there for us. sure there were hard times and there were good times, but such is life. People are just lazy and scared now tho and know they can get the big "D" at the first sign of trouble.

my parents are still married as well, but atleast half, if not more of my friends' parents are divorced. marriage just doesn't mean the same now as it did in the past.

i would almost want to see divorce rate vs. age of people who got married

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by Khyron

Nice definition - for you. What gives you the right to define it for everyone else?
I love how people talk about marriage like it's still some sacred institution. Look up the divorce rate - it hasn't been sacred in years. Or is everyone that divorces going to hell as well?

Societal downfall. This slippery slope works both ways. This is the problem (I feel) with society right now. We all have this relativist idea of what is right and wrong; and therefore are supposed to be completely unjudgemental. Now I don't hate gay people at all... I just dont think they should have the right to get married, as this then drags the line one step further, as has already been argued here. The problem is that this small minority is so extremely vocal in proving their point.


Let's see: Kid A - raised by drunk single mom living off welfare vs Kid B - raised by 2 lesbian college professors... My money is on B.

Not neccesarily. Obviously neither one is good. Neither should have a kid. Yet, because one does.... does that automatically mean the other should as well?


What strikes me as most ironic is that almost all these arguments have been used against blacks in the 60s. Look up some of the protests against mixed race marriages - they sound exactly the same. Nice to know you share the same tolerances as supremacists.

I'm going to call B.S. on that statement. MOST of the arguments are not even slightly related. There is NO moral justification for the racism during the 60's. There is however a moral justification against gay marriage.

[finboy]

sure there was moral arguments

at the time it wasn't viewed as morally right for anyone of colour to marry someone who was white, and it was looked down on, whats the difference?

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by finboy
sure there was moral arguments

at the time it wasn't viewed as morally right for anyone of colour to marry someone who was white, and it was looked down on, whats the difference?

Are you insane. Besides a few southern rednecks who basically used any means possible.... there are NO moral justifications for racism whatsoever. It had nothing to do with morals.

[finboy]

Originally posted by liquid1010


Are you insane. Besides a few southern rednecks who basically used any means possible.... there are NO moral justifications for racism whatsoever. It had nothing to do with morals.

now it doesn't

way back in the 60's and earlier racism was common place, and that included inter-racial couples.

i'm not saying it was justifiable back then, what i'm saying is that the prejudice is the same now

[Khyron]

Originally posted by liquid1010
[B]Societal downfall. This slippery slope works both ways. This is the problem (I feel) with society right now. We all have this relativist idea of what is right and wrong; and therefore are supposed to be completely unjudgemental. Now I don't hate gay people at all... I just dont think they should have the right to get married, as this then drags the line one step further, as has already been argued here.

Your[B] line, not mine. I look back at the 50's and 60's and say "I'm glad I didn't live in those repressive times". But back to your "downfall of society" argument... I suppose you think women should stay in the kitchen and not work? You think minorities should be 2nd class citizens? You think blacks should be put back out in the cotton fields as slaves? Cause that's your "downfall of society" and it's called a progression of rights. Sure there's concequences - women entering the workforce is still having reprocussions on the economy. But is it bad?


Not neccesarily. Obviously neither one is good. Neither should have a kid. Yet, because one does.... does that automatically mean the other should as well?

Obviously? So shall we just execute the kids? Put them in group homes as wards of the state? You dodged my earlier question : Abortion, or adopt to a gay couple. You decide.


I'm going to call B.S. on that statement. MOST of the arguments are not even slightly related. There is NO moral justification for the racism during the 60's. There is however a moral justification against gay marriage.

There's no moral justification for you now. But the entire bible belt in the States was violently oposed to mixed race marriage and having mixed schools. Do you think the KKK was just having tupperware parties? They were protesting the "downfall of society".

Here's some I remember hearing: "Marriage is the act of union between a man and a woman of the same race. Mixing races causes birth defects, dilutes the gene pool, makes a race more likely to get diseases. Ever call anyone a "half-breed"? Pretty cruel insult back in the day. Pretty common too.

But here's the short answer. The supreme court upheld it because discriminating against people because they are gay violates the Charter of Rights. That's it. That's why they came back so fast.

Whether you like it or not isn't the point. No one is forcing you to go attend a gay wedding or to perform a ceremony, just like no one forces racists to go to mixed weddings or perform a ceremony.

Khyron

[Khyron]

VANCOUVER - Webster, 41, was killed three years ago in an area of Stanley Park frequented by gay men. A gang of youths armed with baseball bats and a pool cue chased him, beat him and left him to die from a torn artery in his neck.

Madam Justice Mary Humphries of the B.C. Supreme Court convicted 22-year-old Ryan Cran of manslaughter, but said there wasn't enough corroborating evidence to find 22-year-old Danny Rao guilty.

Nothing familiar sounding about that at all eh?

Khyron

[Toms-SC]

I've got two Mommy's :rolleyes:

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
I've got two Mommy's :rolleyes:

think of freuds theory now, how everybody wants to make love to their mom? having 2 lezbo moms, what if they were hot? would the kid wanna watch? (haha j/k!! i got a psych test today lol and i know my portrayal of freud here isnt accurate heh)

I'm somewhat against gay marriage, but if anything im on the fence about it. Right no about gay adoption, im SOMEWHAT against it, but i can appreciate all the valid points that have been brought up (ie poor single mom or 2 successful people in a gay couple)

hell look at the movie birdcage, that dude ended up marrying a chick ;) im pretty sure being gay is a bit of biological and upbringing.

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by Khyron
[B]Your[B] line, not mine. I look back at the 50's and 60's and say "I'm glad I didn't live in those repressive times". But back to your "downfall of society" argument... I suppose you think women should stay in the kitchen and not work? You think minorities should be 2nd class citizens? You think blacks should be put back out in the cotton fields as slaves? Cause that's your "downfall of society" and it's called a progression of rights. Sure there's concequences - women entering the workforce is still having reprocussions on the economy. But is it bad?

My goodness. Nothing like putting words in someone's mouth here. Making those statements, make you seem like the one who is ignorant. As for women entering the economy.... it's led to an increase in economic output. So maybe you should learn what you're talking about. Not one of those things you stated has any implication of moral regression. NOT ONE. Yet gay marriages does. I'm not sure if your getting the point at all.



Obviously? So shall we just execute the kids? Put them in group homes as wards of the state? You dodged my earlier question : Abortion, or adopt to a gay couple. You decide.

That's not even a decision I need to make. Neither. What kind of stupid question is that?


There's no moral justification for you now. But the entire bible belt in the States was violently oposed to mixed race marriage and having mixed schools. Do you think the KKK was just having tupperware parties? They were protesting the "downfall of society".

Do I look like I'm from the southern states? NO. I really have nothing to say about this, since I'm not from there, and never acted in that way. That's like me telling you, you're a KKK member because you're white (which is obviously a retarded statement).

[SaabKraft]

i think churches have the absolute right to refuse to marry a same sex couple, they were developed on certain dogmatic principles based on their principle faith, and they have every right to uphold those beliefs. if some want to, that is their choice.

as far as civil marriages go, fine by me. i don't think that the word marriage should be reserved for hetero couples, because regardless of what legal title the union is given, the same-sex couple will probably always use the word amongst their family and friends anyway.

seems a lot of men in general fear gay men 'checking out their ass' and 'fantasizing' about them. but of course they have no issue with lesbians :rolleyes :. think about it: do you get all hot and bothered thinking about EVERY female you see in a day? Gay men have standards too, so i doubt many of you are in 'any real trouble' of being included in crazy 'ass-fucking' fantasies. it's a fact that anal sex isn't practiced by all homosexuals.

[TomTom]

marriage is between and man and woman, if they want a man-man and woman-woman they shouldnt call it that they should make up there own joining title

[hjr]

so this entire fight is about the word "marriage"? It can't be, thats would be almost illogical. perhaps what it is, is that there are no real good arguments that support discriminating against people different from us, so the argument is reduced to bickering semantics about the word marriage.

[Khyron]

Originally posted by liquid1010
As for women entering the economy.... it's led to an increase in economic output. So maybe you should learn what you're talking about.

So according to you, religious leaders were not opposed to women working as men, voting as men and basically being equal to men? You don't recall the movement saying that women leaving the household was leading to the destruction of the familly, because 3rd parties were now substantially more responsible for raising children? You think women just woke up one day and said "Hey, let's work" and the current establishment said "Ok!" without protest?!? I think it's you that needs to pick up a history book or two. And if you don't see any long term negative effects (on employment rates, pensions etc) of basically doubling the labour force, maybe read an economics book as well.

My point is every time some oppressed minority/sub-group has fought for equal rights, the same arguments get brought up, whether it's blacks being allowed in public schools "My johnny is going to be corrupted by that nasty black-man music" or women working "The family unit will be destroyed, and our kids will all become monsters". But in the end, people adapt and life goes on.


Not one of those things you stated has any implication of moral regression. NOT ONE. Yet gay marriages does. I'm not sure if your getting the point at all.

Every one of them is an example of moral regression to someone. Maybe not you, but then since when are you the only one that matters?


That's not even a decision I need to make. Neither. What kind of stupid question is that?

Many people that have abortions do it because they know there are so many unwanted kids already. If you all of a sudden increase the number of prospective parents wanting children, that argument becomes less convincing. So you might just see the number of abortions decline. I'm assuming that would be a good thing to you, even if they are being raised by homos? (Thus the original question).


Do I look like I'm from the southern states? NO. I really have nothing to say about this, since I'm not from there, and never acted in that way.

Several people sound like it, only with a different topic.


That's like me telling you, you're a KKK member because you're white (which is obviously a retarded statement).

If I stand up and say "Death to all Arabs", my skin color doesn't tell you I'm racist. My statement tells you that. So if you stand up and say "Gay people are an abomination to God and do not deserve the same benefits as me", I'm allowed to call you a bigot.

Khyron

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by Khyron
[B]
So according to you, religious leaders were not opposed to women working as men, voting as men and basically being equal to men? You don't recall the movement saying that women leaving the household was leading to the destruction of the familly, because 3rd parties were now substantially more responsible for raising children? You think women just woke up one day and said "Hey, let's work" and the current establishment said "Ok!" without protest?!? I think it's you that needs to pick up a history book or two. And if you don't see any long term negative effects (on employment rates, pensions etc) of basically doubling the labour force, maybe read an economics book as well.

I really dont care who was opposed to what, and when... when it comes to women in the workforce. You're essentially arguing that because someone else disagreed with "something" a long time ago, I should not disagree with gay marriage. I dont buy this moral relativistic garbage that everyone seems to love nowadays. It's illogical. As for your idea that women in the work force has had a negative effect on economic growth... perhaps you're the one who needs to pick up a few books. As to date, with economic growth continuing as it has... it has had no "real" negative impact. In fact, almost the entire unemployment rate to date is due to frictional and cyclical unemployment. If you dont know what that means.... look it up.


My point is every time some oppressed minority/sub-group has fought for equal rights, the same arguments get brought up, whether it's blacks being allowed in public schools "My johnny is going to be corrupted by that nasty black-man music" or women working "The family unit will be destroyed, and our kids will all become monsters". But in the end, people adapt and life goes on.

Your comparison of gay marriage, and the idea of black civil rights is so extremely ridiculous, that I'm not going to bother giving you much more of an explanation. You're grasping for straws. Black civil rights had NO MORAL GROUNDS..... end of discussion. Stop bringing such a ludacris argument to the table.


Many people that have abortions do it because they know there are so many unwanted kids already. If you all of a sudden increase the number of prospective parents wanting children, that argument becomes less convincing. So you might just see the number of abortions decline. I'm assuming that would be a good thing to you, even if they are being raised by homos? (Thus the original question).

Wow. Perhaps you need to do some research there. Over 80% of abortions are done simply because the mother doesn't want the child in some form or another. Here's an idea.... maybe have people take responsibility for their actions... and then we wouldn't have that problem.


If I stand up and say "Death to all Arabs", my skin color doesn't tell you I'm racist. My statement tells you that. So if you stand up and say "Gay people are an abomination to God and do not deserve the same benefits as me", I'm allowed to call you a bigot.

Gotta love how you just jump so far ahead of everything I've said. I don't hate gay people, I even have a gay cousin who I get along with fine. Does that mean I agree with his lifestyle....... no. Does that mean I think he should have the right to adopt kids..... no. Why would I be for something that I believe is harmful top our future and our society?

[Khyron]

Originally posted by liquid1010
I really dont care who was opposed to what, and when... when it comes to women in the workforce. You're essentially arguing that because someone else disagreed with "something" a long time ago, I should not disagree with gay marriage. I dont buy this moral relativistic garbage that everyone seems to love...


Your comparison of gay marriage, and the idea of black civil rights is so extremely ridiculous, that I'm...

Ok, last time, with extra bluntness. I was illustrating the similar fear-mongering used whenever some subset of society fights for equal rights. You have no concrete reasons for opposing it other than to say "It's wrong because I think it is". The whole point of this is to show you that you have no moral ground. Gay marriage, mixed race marriages, black civil rights, gender discrimination - they are all ultimately the same thing.

But because one is immoral to you you think it's somehow different. To someone like me who thinks none of them are immoral (perhaps distasteful), they are all the same! So your twisted view of morality is no different to me than hearing someone proclaim that whites shouldn't marry asians, or that women shouldn't work. Do you get it yet? A bigot is a bigot, regardless of the subject matter!

Here's the definition - fits like a glove:

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


Wow. Perhaps you need to do some research there. Over 80% of abortions are done simply because the mother doesn't want the child in some form or another.

:rofl: :rofl: And what's the other 20%? Because she was bored? 100% of abortions are because the mother doesn't want the child. The question to ask is why they choose abortion over adoption. And one of the common answers is "Because there are too many unwanted children already". Make that justification go away, and you have less arguments in favor of it.


Gotta love how you just jump so far ahead of everything I've said. I don't hate gay people, I even have a gay cousin who I get along with fine. Does that mean I agree with his lifestyle....... no. Does that mean I think he should have the right to adopt kids..... no. Why would I be for something that I believe is harmful top our future and our society?

So you feel that he's inferior to you. Very nice. Bigot and an Elitist. Maybe he should have to stay at the back of the bus?

Khyron

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by Khyron






So you feel that he's inferior to you. Very nice. Bigot and an Elitist. Maybe he should have to stay at the back of the bus?

Khyron

So how often in a day do you put words in other peoples mouths? Once? Twice?:dunno:

[Khyron]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
So how often in a day do you put words in other peoples mouths? Once? Twice?:dunno:

Only when it fits. :thumbsup:

I'd love to hear your reasoning on how saying "I don't think he should have the right to adopt kids." does not fit the bill of being an elitist. If I said "I don't think religious fanatics should be allowed to vote" I'd get the same title now wouldn't I?

Remember, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with something or commenting that it's gross or whatever. But telling other people what they can or cannot do based on your personal definition of morality is wrong. Of course you can get to an extreme point with someone who thinks sleeping with kids is ok - but that's why we have laws that say what's illegal and what isn't.

Khyron

[DEREK57]

Originally posted by method
yeah they used to say black people couldnt marry white people

they also said jews were outcasts cause they 'killed christ'

they said a lot of shit. get with the times.

So basically the majority at the present time formulates your thoughts for you??









I personally am against gay marriage, but then again I also don't aagree with Mill in terms of government, where I believe most Canadians do.

As for gay couples adopting kids, I am strongly against it. I believe their are certain psycological neccessities that a family should fulfill for a child that a gay couple will not be able to provide.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by DEREK57


So basically the majority at the present time formulates your thoughts for you?? actually hes telling you to stop being a bigot, bigot.

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by Khyron
Ok, last time, with extra bluntness. I was illustrating the similar fear-mongering used whenever some subset of society fights for equal rights. You have no concrete reasons for opposing it other than to say "It's wrong because I think it is". The whole point of this is to show you that you have no moral ground. Gay marriage, mixed race marriages, black civil rights, gender discrimination - they are all ultimately the same thing.

You truly don't like to listen. The fact that you keep spouting the same argument proves the fact that you have yourself firmly entrenched. There is no fear-mongering. The reasons I oppose gay marriage go a little deeper than "it's wrong because I think it is". First off, I'm not even going to get into the biological implication that you can't procreate, which proves it simply isn't rational. Second of all, and I say this broadly, as it doesn't define all gay people whatsoever. So don't jump ahead of me which you seem so keen to do. :rolleyes: Once, again.... since repetition helps.... I dont mean this about ALL gay people. Most however have very loose moral standards. This isn't stuff that is made up, it is hard quantitative fact. Also, you seem to love this analogy of the gay man today, being like the black man pre-civil rights. A man has no choice to be born black or white, and a black man is the same as a white man. A man or woman however has the choice to become gay.... there is no gay gene. In fact, to prove my point further, I know black men that would be seriously ticked off with you using the anaolgy. Since you seem to be on this track, let me ask you this?
when was the last time gays weren't allowed to read and write?
when was the last time they seperated gay and straight water fountains?
where are the poor gay ghettos?
Simply put Khyron, your anaolgy is horrible.


But because one is immoral to you you think it's somehow different. To someone like me who thinks none of them are immoral (perhaps distasteful), they are all the same! So your twisted view of morality is no different to me than hearing someone proclaim that whites shouldn't marry asians, or that women shouldn't work. Do you get it yet? A bigot is a bigot, regardless of the subject matter!

Call me a bigot if you want. I really couldn't care less. I believe strongly that marriage should stay between a man and a woman. As you can see from this thread, most people seem to agree with me.


So you feel that he's inferior to you. Very nice. Bigot and an Elitist. Maybe he should have to stay at the back of the bus?

Witty.... to bad wit isn't a substitute for rationality. First off, him and I are actually pretty decent friends. I do not believe for a moment that I am a better person than he is; in fact he's alot brighter than I am. I don't agree with his lifestyle, but that's ok. He knows that. I dont look down on him at all. So making comments like the one above, doesn't help your argument whatsoever.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by liquid1010
First off, I'm not even going to get into the biological implication that you can't procreate, which proves it simply isn't rational. uh u just went into it. anyway, ure flat out wrong on this one. if u want to talk about biological rationality, then sexual reproduction itself is irrational, since it selects against itself by a factor of 1/2. the point im making is that you are in no position to define biological rationality.


Originally posted by liquid1010
Most however have very loose moral standards. This isn't stuff that is made up, it is hard quantitative fact. if u could prove this, im sure khyron would shut up. so go ahead and find a study backing u up.


Originally posted by liquid1010
A man or woman however has the choice to become gay.... there is no gay gene. again, if u could prove this, khyron would shut up. however, being that u are not a geneticist nor do u have a working knowledge of the human genome, u are making statements that u are not qualified to. knowing how to a gut a fish doesnt make u a brain surgeon.


Originally posted by liquid1010
Call me a bigot if you want. I really couldn't care less. you should. as a human being, u are obligated to follow your conscience.



i dont want to get into the pissing contest between u and khyron, so dont view this as a personal attack on you. im merely pointing out that your argument would be perfect, IF you could back up your statements with professional authority.

[bksze]

here's me stirring up the pot a little bit . . . I just remember reading this article a month ago or so, figured I'd do a quick search and post the link with regards to the genetics of homosexuality . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6233719/



Another sidenote to consider, there was a study done in the early 90s that did confirm the existence of a gene directly linked to causing homosexuality. This study was actually published in a pretty prestigious journal (the name escapes me) however was debunked after subsequent attempts at replicating the results ended in failure.

[mo_virgin]

Fuck the analysis...

Fuck quebec... for being the most liberal province.
Fuck the Feds... Got no care for Alberta.
And if your Gay... Fuck the fact that you are.

[Toms-SC]

Hmm, I figure if they want to be wed legally they should get their own word for the act.