Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 8  Next

He has a point. All this does is just opens the door for anyone to challenge any traditions or laws we have. Multiple marriages will be the next frontier maybe won't happen now but probably will in the future. After all if none of you think gay marriage affects you then why would someone having multiple marriages affect you?

   

Scape, I don't give a shit who marries who or what. As long as they keep my kids and dog out of it. I firmly believe that what happens between two consenting adults is purely their business. If Frankie wants to marry his long time boytoy, so be it. Who am I to stand in the way of love. Where the fags and dikes went wrong here in Canada is that they tried pushing the issue before society was ready for it...More to the point, they tried shoving their dicks in society's ass and society farted.

The next generation of adults will be more ...imbracing... of the gay community then my or yours is. I think society as a whole will need time to look at same sex marriage as anything more than a gay communities way of shocking society...and please take into consideration that my sister is very gay and I've spent the last 25 years among them and know what most of them are all about.

   

What the hell makes you think that I did not understand that? According to Wiki, polls on Canadians' support for same-sex marriage wavers around 50-50. Polls in the US, at least, are always skewed to the left.



??? Pffft, ROFL! Would you care to elaborate? The leftists argue that two men ought to be able to marry if they love each other. But if we are to redefine marriage, why not include polygamy? If we are not to dictate that two men may not marry because they love eachother then why not the same for three men? We are not to be 'judgemental.' We should not judge polygamous relationships - those people love eachother as do a man and a woman and should be allowed to marry.

Muslims and mormons will be happy.




Pathetic. One can disagree with leftist gays and their supporters and not be a "homophobe." Also, who said anything about denying them rights? They DO have as much right to marry a member of the opposite sex as do heterosexuals. Heterosexuals have no more right to marry a member of the same sex as do homosexuals. Just call it something else - it is not marriage.

Are not leftists fond of clinical terms? Call it 'Significant Other/Partner Relationship Valildation Ceremony/Ritual.' - Sounds like it was written by a "college" "professor!"





Halejulah!!!!

Another Canadian with at least a smidgen of common freacking sense! Way to go, Clogeroo. When you go to college, take a course on logic, you will like it.




Who are you to stand in the way of a threesome? For that matter, who are you to stand in the way of me and my relationship with Barney? (my dog) All the secularists on this board... When you don't believe in God, you don't believe in nothing, you believe in anything. I am atheist and I can see that.




That is a good point. Too much of this debate is anything but, it is a hate-fest, and the lefty gays and their supporters are by far the most bitter and hatefilled. Every unfortunate bastard that has the bloody chutzpah to disagree with the fascists is branded a "homophobe.." Ooooh! It is a badge of honor, as far as I am concerned. There are REAL homophobes out there, but nobody gives a shit because the gay mafia brands most people "homophobes," whether they are or not. Far too much emotion on the left....

I too know gays and have known many. Being gay does not mean anything significant - some were outstanding humans, some were average, and others were human garbage. Some are not slaves of the leftwing victimhood culture, either. I know a gay man from another forum who lives in Pennsylvania - home of soon-to-be-former senator Rick Santorum, who is arguably the most villified republican, other than myself, by the American left. This gay acquaintance of mine voted FOR Rick Santorum, despite his staunch opposition to same-sex marriage, because Santorum was also branded an "Islamophobe" by those same leftist fascists that brand him a 'homophobe.' Some gays are not victims of "progress." LOL, this guy is also Jewish - a gay, jewish republican that votes for Santorum.

*Sigh*

Leftists have so much to learn from conservatives...



W.

   

Well his point being only '2-3%' (his figures) of the population is gay and that they manage to somehow overthrow the majority rule and establish gay rights and by so doing defile the institution of marriage. Irrespective of the fact that it is beholden to the state or church, a smear tactic to muddy the issue and mix religion and politics for nothing more than selfish political grandstanding. Then using that logic he leaps to the idea that nothing is sacred and everything is up for grabs.

Here is the thing, societies change and we must not be duped in to fearing that change as that fear blinds. As for the rules of society being turned on their head don't hold your breath. THAT is fear mongering based on hatred, homophobia and naked intolerance using religion as a veil.

Simply put we are not going to go out marrying our dogs tomorrow and no you can't hump your cousin no matter how good looking she is. The institution of matrimony is made of far sterner stuff than W gives credit. No the sky ISN'T falling when it comes to matrimony no matter how much some may wish it. Polygamy by it's very nature is doomed to be limited in scope and shunned and ostracized by the majority. No matter how good the ratings for big love get it is still going to be marginalized. This is a non-issue to the majority but a major issue to bigots and homophobes.

   

"Marriage" is the only issue here. I suspect that only the most homophobic and backward among us would deny same-sex unions their legal rights as a family unit, but the same-sex marriage camp seems unusually focused on co-opting the word "marriage".

Why is that word so important? Why are equal rights under the law not good enough if they arrive under a different name?



This is the correct course of action. The word "marriage" should be removed from law, and the government should offer civil unions only. Once a couple is in a union, they can go to their church to have said union blessed as a marriage. If their church does not recognize same-sex unions as a marriages, tough cookies... join another church. Legally recognized religious institutions should not be forced to alter their tennets, or go against their core beliefs for the sake of individual rights.

The church has defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and the choice to re-define the word is theirs, and no one elses.

   

and what's wrong with that? hunting season is open.

   

Gay Marriage is a done deal and is here to stay.

Ideally Government should not define Marriage at all, but it has for many centuries and as things go precendence determines the future without some radical change.

   

Does common law have the same weight under the law as married? Does a gay spouse have the same rights to the estate when their partner dies as does a heterosexual couple? Are they allowed access to the same pension they they have paid in to? Do they have child custody? As far as common law goes if you cohabitate in the same address for more than six months your considered hitched as far as the law is concerned but that has no weight a divorce or probate court. You simply have no rights based solely on the definition of marriage.

   

Where exactly in my post did I write anything about common law? In fact, where in this entire thread has anyone suggested that common law be the new gay marriage?

I'm not talking about common law, I'm talking about a civil ceremony that carries with it every single one of the same legal rights as a marriage. Including rights to the estate, access to the same pension, yada. It's just not termed a "marriage". That option was offered on numerous occasions, and all the gay activist groups shot it down as unfair and discriminatory. Why? Why do they want that word so badly? It can't be a matter of legal equality, because that was offered to them and they turned it down. So it must come down to a matter of wanting to rewrite the doctrine of the church. Why else would they insist so strongly that their unions be termed "marriages"? I don't understand the thought process behind it all. It seems very emotional and arbitrary.

   

The way I've come to understand it is that by having separate 'marriages' and 'civil unions' the government would be then creating two unequal classes of marriage. Which therefore, can't be allowed under the Charter.

   

The importance of marriage as it pertains to the law is the core issue. The topic of this thread suggests that marriage not be an option for gay couples and futhermore prescribes that the current unions (common law) should suffice in its stead.

Being gay is not a criminal act and it is also a significant part of our society and is not going away. By what law or right does the anyone have to appoint rights and privileges to one group and not another if both said groups are recognized and afforded civil rights under the law?

   

scape:

I just love this sort of 'argument.' Do you believe that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage thinks that being gay is "criminal?"

   

Your are opposed to gay civil unions defined as marriage because you define gay marriage as a threat to the very idea of marriage. Therefore, in your opinion of gays, they are not civil. Meaning: they are not entitled to the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. We are all equal before the law so what law have they broken to earn this segregation?

   

Any man may marry any woman who would have him. Any woman may marry any man who would have her. I have been to many weddings and I never heard the priest ask the bride and groom if they are both heterosexual. Gays have the exact same rights regarding marriage as do heterosexuals. Any man plus any woman, gay or straight. The law is applied equally.

Tell me, if two men should be able to marry because they "love eachother," then why should not three men be able to marry, especially if they "love eachother?"


W.

   

Why would they be unequal? They would have the exact same rights and privileges under law, and merely be termed differently.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 8  Next