Gay marriage galvanizes Canada's religious right
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
ahanscomb @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:32 am
$1:
If it weren't for laws and regulations, we'd all be out raping women, killing babies and stealing old mens' wallets.
And Dubyah would be with his goat.
Scape @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:56 am
ahanscomb ahanscomb:
$1:
If it weren't for laws and regulations, we'd all be out raping women, killing babies and stealing old mens' wallets.
And Dubyah would be with his goat.
God, what a visual.
dubyah @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:34 am
$1:
Is there any other reason to oppose it?
Tradition. Culture.
$1:
Debating with irrelevant hypotheticals is stupid.
Not everyone agrees that these hypotheticals are irrelevant. 40 years ago same-sex marriage was described as you have described this. My point is about the failure to come up with a better argument than one about 'consent...' LOL. Is that the best you have? Perhaps it will work to prevent any such 'marriages' but it is chilling to think that it is the ONLY argument offered against animal/human marriage. The west is sliding down the shitter and fast!
w.
dubyah @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:36 am
ahanscomb ahanscomb:
$1:
If it weren't for laws and regulations, we'd all be out raping women, killing babies and stealing old mens' wallets.
And Dubyah would be with his goat.
Op op op..!
One step at a time, ahan. First, gay marriage. Then I can start to whine about me and my goat.
W.
CanuckMom @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:03 pm
MKULTRA MKULTRA:
Why should anyone have to ask the government permission to marry in the first place? That is the real issue.
In the U.S. this whole thing goes back to slavery. The U.S. government wanted to stop inter-racial relationships so they required people to get a marriage license(AKA asking permission to marry) and that is how they stopped a black man from marrying a white woman or a white man from marrying a black woman. It became a union of man, woman, and the state and not just man and woman.
Much like everything it touches, the government ruined marriage. It is clear that asking the government permission to marry does nothing to improve the chances of your marriage lasting. If anything, the exact opposite appears to be true, although I'm sure you can chalk it up to a lot of factors.
The government should not have the authority to grant anyone permission to marry or not to marry. This whole debate is a red herring.
In the U.S. this whole thing goes back to slavery. The U.S. government wanted to stop inter-racial relationships so they required people to get a marriage license(AKA asking permission to marry) and that is how they stopped a black man from marrying a white woman or a white man from marrying a black woman. It became a union of man, woman, and the state and not just man and woman.
Much like everything it touches, the government ruined marriage. It is clear that asking the government permission to marry does nothing to improve the chances of your marriage lasting. If anything, the exact opposite appears to be true, although I'm sure you can chalk it up to a lot of factors.
The government should not have the authority to grant anyone permission to marry or not to marry. This whole debate is a red herring.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
CanuckMom @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:08 pm
dubyah dubyah:
$1:
Personally, I feel that gays should be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals.
Oh, for Christ's sake! Please read the thread before you comment. The laws apply ABSOLUTELY EQUALLY. A man may marry any woman, a woman may marry any man, sexual orientation aside. The law applies equally.
W.
As for your comment, sir, I do believe I did read the thread, and what I saw was a discussion about gays being allowed to marry, and how that is causing quite an uproar.
My suggestion to you, sir, is this: If you wish to engage in discussion, do so with respect for other members of this forum. If you wish to be slapped in the face because of your persistent rudeness towards me and other members here, you shall be rewarded with the same. Get over yourself and get off your high horse.
dubyah @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:50 pm
CanuckMom CanuckMom:
dubyah dubyah:
$1:
Personally, I feel that gays should be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals.
Oh, for Christ's sake! Please read the thread before you comment. The laws apply ABSOLUTELY EQUALLY. A man may marry any woman, a woman may marry any man, sexual orientation aside. The law applies equally.
W.
As for your comment, sir, I do believe I did read the thread, and what I saw was a discussion about gays being allowed to marry, and how that is causing quite an uproar.
My suggestion to you, sir, is this: If you wish to engage in discussion, do so with respect for other members of this forum. If you wish to be slapped in the face because of your persistent rudeness towards me and other members here, you shall be rewarded with the same. Get over yourself and get off your high horse.
Good dodge!
I salute you!
W.
grainfedprairieboy @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:11 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
If a gay couple COULD conceive a child, would you agree to homosexual marriage? Is there any other reason to oppose it?
Debating with irrelevant hypotheticals is stupid.
Debating with irrelevant hypotheticals is stupid.
Damn you Blue_Nose, I had to go some where but was forced to take the time to respond to your challenge.
I can think of 10 good reasons that have nothing to do with reproduction and are all based on fact:
Religion: God pretty much opposes homosexuality whether you’re a Muslim, Jew or Christian. Also, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and even the gods and spirits of native North American aboriginals and African tribes are opposed to homosexuality.
Juche: Juche is the government mandated, organised and written religion of North Korea. SSM empowers homosexuals to carry on with their jihad against Christianity which has seen everything from court challenges against Catholics for refusing the sacraments of marriage to Supreme Court challenges to ban biblical scriptures. Some academics believe it is only a matter of one or two generations before all religions practised in Canada are forced to return to the underground or accept the Canadian mandated, liberal advocated version of Juche. But fortunately we have the Muslims on our side and they will blow your ass up when your attacks on Christianity cross the line and confront Islam tough guys!
Nature: Mother Nature pretty much endowed a male-female role for all its mammals and not just for sexual purposes. Aside from the unarguable fact of reproductive ease of such an arrangement, even the most flaming homos will concede that in every single gay relationship there is a male and female role. Additionally, society downplays the hosts of medical issues resulting from putting things in places where nature never intended them to be placed. I do recall reading Statistics Canada acknowledge that the average lifespan of a homosexual male in Canada is 47 years. In light of the health problems associated with homosexuality alone it is incrediably irresponsible for any government to advoate such an unsafe lifestyle.
Tradition: For the 5000 years of recorded human history the overwhelming majority of people have been involved in monogamous relationships. Surely there have been periods in history of polygamy that even stretch in to today but these seem to be centred around a cultural perspective which views women as chattel or a reaction to a societal lack of males. Whenever homosexuality has been accepted by a culture or society in history it correlates to that society’s downfall.
Children: When Rosie O’Donnell’s six-year-old son asked, “Mommy, why can’t I have a daddy?” he was begging not for what he wanted, but for what he needed. Rosie’s answer, “Because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy,” illustrates the liberal selfishness and sanctimonious disregard for anyone other then themselves which is embodied in same-sex marriage. The overwhelming majority of psychologists (even the gay friendly ones) acknowledge that a stable male-female relationship is important to girls and absolutely, fundamentally imperative to boys. Look at all the problems we have with boys from one parent homes who are statistically more likely to do poorly in school, commit crimes, be abusive towards women etc.
Family: Families have been the building blocks of all societies from small tribes to great nations. Never at any time in history has any society at any time been able to reconcile the denigration of the family with the longevity of the state. From ancient Greece and Rome to the modern Soviet Union and even the kibbutzes of Israel and the hippie communes of the 1960s, never has it successfully been achieved. Of course, supporters of SSM are willing to bet my Canada on an idea which has failed every time in history and they witness failing today in other countries that have a 10 year head start.
Now what? When one aspect of paraphillia is legalized another has always followed as each generation tries to out liberal the next. From bestiality to pedophilia what will the test tube children of the SS couples demand a generation hence?
Women: We know that there is a ground swell of support for polygamy based on the same arguments used to advance SSM. And aside from a few Torontonians who will participate in MMMF marriage it is more likely that this will degrade women back into chattel as the value of a man in the future is partially tied to the number of females he can support. Advancing the cause of homosexuality at the expense of women’s rights has been one angle tolerated by the Muslim community.
Benefits: When SS couples started demanding equivalent benefits from their typical government employers it becomes just one more level that the very few productive Canadians who are wealth generators (non-government) have to support in addition to the already massive cadre of wealth consumers (medical, military, bureaucrats, welfare, pensioners, etc).
Marriage: As an institution marriage is cheapened when you allow fake, counterfeit or cheap knock offs to pollute the collective. But hey, nothing like actual data for the liberals to ignore: “According to Stanley Kurtz, (Hoover Institution), he says that marriage in Scandinavia is dying, partly because of the “marriage-like same sex registered partnerships” in place now for more than ten years. Kurtz reports that “a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born out of wedlock, as are 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark. In socially liberal districts of Norway, where the idea of same-sex registered partnerships is widely accepted, marriage itself has almost entirely disappeared.”
When it comes to SSM it’s like a big bowl of ice cream, if you dab in just the tiniest amount of feces the whole thing tastes like shit.
grainfedprairieboy @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:41 pm
MKULTRA MKULTRA:
In the U.S. this whole thing goes back to slavery. The U.S. government wanted to stop inter-racial relationships so they required people to get a marriage license(AKA asking permission to marry) and that is how they stopped a black man from marrying a white woman or a white man from marrying a black woman. It became a union of man, woman, and the state and not just man and woman.
The formal marriage license traces its roots back to English law from 1215 when "calling the banns" meant publically announcing your marriage intentions for three Sundays in order that those opposing the union could have the opportuinty to present their case. This lead to the formal Marriage License in the 14th century where you could pay a fee to the State and not be required to call the banns. The traditions, customs and laws of England were transposed on New England, eventually the 13 colonies and ultimately America.
Now the first mairriage license was issued about 150 years before Columbus reached the shores of North America and nearly 300 years before the sailing of the Mayflower. But I admit your revisionist PC blame AmeriKKKa story is more entertaining and probably more readily accepted then actual fact.
grainfedprairieboy @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 1:59 pm
ahanscomb ahanscomb:
It shouldn't be a question of whether you think it's right or wrong. It should be do you think it's right or wrong for you?
Selfish? Self - centered/indulgent/seeking/interested? Sanctimonious? Eqotistical? Narcissistic? What is the word I'm looking for to summarise your statement? Ah yes! Liberal!
EyeBrock @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:03 pm
They still 'read the banns' to this day in the UK, Eire and mine were read out in NFLD.
That aside who really cares? I have several gay friends who are married and their marriage does not threaten me at all. The lesbians I work with are great chicks and my wife’s gay friends are good eggs. Their sexuality does not alter my view of them one bit, although I won’t try and shag them at work piss-ups!
I think there may be a generational issue here. I don't think too many people under 40 see this as a problem, apart from the religious types.
Really the right can only lose support from the centrist right over this. I agree that people who don’t see this issue my way shouldn’t be forced to marry gays and lesbians, otherwise this is an issue that really is less than important to most.
Blue_Nose @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:29 pm
Well, I thought it was obvious that I made the quoted statement rhetorically to argue my point that "Debating with irrelevant hypotheticals is stupid".
But what the hell, let's not let all that hard work go to waste; it'll be more entertaining than reading "Local Stability of Filled and Encased Steel Sections", at least.
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Religion: God pretty much opposes homosexuality whether you’re a Muslim, Jew or Christian. Also, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and even the gods and spirits of native North American aboriginals and African tribes are opposed to homosexuality.
Religion pretty much opposes homosexuality, but we still ignore that and let people poke whomever they wish - is it any less real if you don't acknowledge it officially?grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Juche: Juche is the government mandated, organised and written religion of North Korea. SSM empowers homosexuals to carry on with their jihad against Christianity which has seen everything from court challenges against Catholics for refusing the sacraments of marriage to Supreme Court challenges to ban biblical scriptures. Some academics believe it is only a matter of one or two generations before all religions practised in Canada are forced to return to the underground or accept the Canadian mandated, liberal advocated version of Juche. But fortunately we have the Muslims on our side and they will blow your ass up when your attacks on Christianity cross the line and confront Islam tough guys!
There's a difference between the right to practice your religion, and the right to enforce it on others. If you think your religious beliefs should apply to anyone other than yourself, you're shit out of luck.grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Nature: Mother Nature pretty much endowed a male-female role for all its mammals and not just for sexual purposes. Aside from the unarguable fact of reproductive ease of such an arrangement, even the most flaming homos will concede that in every single gay relationship there is a male and female role. Additionally, society downplays the hosts of medical issues resulting from putting things in places where nature never intended them to be placed. I do recall reading Statistics Canada acknowledge that the average lifespan of a homosexual male in Canada is 47 years. In light of the health problems associated with homosexuality alone it is incrediably irresponsible for any government to advoate such an unsafe lifestyle.
Humans have pretty much flipped Mother Nature the bird when it comes to respecting her, so I don't think this is going to make a huge difference. Marriage is not going to affect the fact that these people are not in a male-female relationship. As for lifespan, Canadians live longer than Americans, so would it be irresponsible to advocate living in the US?grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Tradition: For the 5000 years of recorded human history the overwhelming majority of people have been involved in monogamous relationships. Surely there have been periods in history of polygamy that even stretch in to today but these seem to be centred around a cultural perspective which views women as chattel or a reaction to a societal lack of males. Whenever homosexuality has been accepted by a culture or society in history it correlates to that society’s downfall.
Qualify this.grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Children: When Rosie O’Donnell’s six-year-old son asked, “Mommy, why can’t I have a daddy?” he was begging not for what he wanted, but for what he needed. Rosie’s answer, “Because I’m the kind of mommy who wants another mommy,” illustrates the liberal selfishness and sanctimonious disregard for anyone other then themselves which is embodied in same-sex marriage. The overwhelming majority of psychologists (even the gay friendly ones) acknowledge that a stable male-female relationship is important to girls and absolutely, fundamentally imperative to boys. Look at all the problems we have with boys from one parent homes who are statistically more likely to do poorly in school, commit crimes, be abusive towards women etc.
Why don't we prohibit single-parent families then? Let's enforce minimum daily parent-child interaction while we're at it.Of course, you're assuming a child is involved in every marriage, which is often not the case, even for hetero-couples.
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Family: Families have been the building blocks of all societies from small tribes to great nations. Never at any time in history has any society at any time been able to reconcile the denigration of the family with the longevity of the state. From ancient Greece and Rome to the modern Soviet Union and even the kibbutzes of Israel and the hippie communes of the 1960s, never has it successfully been achieved. Of course, supporters of SSM are willing to bet my Canada on an idea which has failed every time in history and they witness failing today in other countries that have a 10 year head start.
Whether or not gay people are married is of no consequence to this - do you think by prohibiting marriage you're somehow preventing homosexuality?grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Now what? When one aspect of paraphillia is legalized another has always followed as each generation tries to out liberal the next. From bestiality to pedophilia what will the test tube children of the SS couples demand a generation hence?
Hell, they let the blacks vote, next thing you know they're going to be letting horses and sheep vote! It's a slippery, slippery slope, I tell ya!grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Women: We know that there is a ground swell of support for polygamy based on the same arguments used to advance SSM. And aside from a few Torontonians who will participate in MMMF marriage it is more likely that this will degrade women back into chattel as the value of a man in the future is partially tied to the number of females he can support. Advancing the cause of homosexuality at the expense of women’s rights has been one angle tolerated by the Muslim community.
Bullshit. What about all the abusive or disfunctional relationships that happen already?! You could use the same argument to argue that all marriage should be prohibited, and I find that unlikely.grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Benefits: When SS couples started demanding equivalent benefits from their typical government employers it becomes just one more level that the very few productive Canadians who are wealth generators (non-government) have to support in addition to the already massive cadre of wealth consumers (medical, military, bureaucrats, welfare, pensioners, etc).
Why should one group of people receive these benefits over another? You haven't come up with a good reason yet, I'm afraid.grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Marriage: As an institution marriage is cheapened when you allow fake, counterfeit or cheap knock offs to pollute the collective. But hey, nothing like actual data for the liberals to ignore: “According to Stanley Kurtz, (Hoover Institution), he says that marriage in Scandinavia is dying, partly because of the “marriage-like same sex registered partnerships” in place now for more than ten years. Kurtz reports that “a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are now born out of wedlock, as are 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark. In socially liberal districts of Norway, where the idea of same-sex registered partnerships is widely accepted, marriage itself has almost entirely disappeared.”
grainfedprairieboy @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:29 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
That aside who really cares?
Who really cares?
Canadian Patriots - who look at history and see the downfall of every single nation, state or tribe that tried the same thing and refuse to let their precious Canada be sacraficed upon the alter of liberal narcissism.
Families - who understand the importance of strong multi-generations to their God, Country and ancestry.
Traditionalists - who believe Canadian customs and values are more important and transcend the PC liberal flavour of the day.
Religious - early Christians were persecuted for placing their allegiance with Christ over the Emperor and this at the time was intolerable. Today practitioners of Falun Gong are persecuted for the same reasons. From Catholics to Islamics, the purpose of God transcends the nation state they reside in and its rules.
Responsible Gays - SJ 24's sister is not the only one with a large number homosexuals being actually against the act of SSM. Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE) has been a long-time opponent of SSM as has been the editors of Xtra for example.
Canadians - Polls show more than half of Canadians are opposed.
Prime Minister - Harper promised an open vote in the House.
Alberta - The greatest province of Confederation and the future of Canadian political influence has a people and government actively and proudly opposed to gay marriage.
That's who care.
Blue_Nose @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:06 pm
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Alberta - The greatest province of Confederation and the future of Canadian political influence has a people and government actively and proudly opposed to gay marriage.
ROTFL We'll all have to start wearing WWAD bracelets.
grainfedprairieboy @ Sat Dec 02, 2006 3:24 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Well, I thought it was obvious that I made the quoted statement rhetorically to argue my point that "Debating with irrelevant hypotheticals is stupid".
Translation - My point is so hollow that I hope nobody challenges it. You may find dubyah’s bestiality example extreme in 21st century Canada but in mid 20th century Canada the concept of SSM, no rules abortion, sex changes etc would have been as easily dismissed by the progressives of their day. How can you be so sanctimonious that you can believe that you represent the generation where the buck will stop? One thing leads to another as the saying goes.
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
But what the hell, let's not let all that hard work go to waste; it'll be more entertaining than reading "Local Stability of Filled and Encased Steel Sections", at least.
Canada's best engineers were always farm boys who lived this stuff from the time they were old enough to bend a wrench or weld. City boys obviously make better bureaucratic engineers if they can even cut it. Which one are you?
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Religion pretty much opposes homosexuality, but we still ignore that and let people poke whomever they wish - is it any less real if you don't acknowledge it officially?
What is less real? The marriage? Then you are acknowledging that it is no biggy if SSM is not allowed.
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
There's a difference between the right to practice your religion, and the right to enforce it on others. If you think your religious beliefs should apply to anyone other than yourself, you're shit out of luck.
Juche is not forced on others it is just regarded as the acceptable religion to the State as the State itself has moulded the religion. If the Supreme Court is successful in banning Biblical passages and forcing Churches to subscribe to its laws rather then God's then it becomes Canadian Juche by default. Anyway, Christians seem to follow the maxim "love the sinner but hate the sin". Something liberals obviously can't distinguish between.
Additionally, I am not arguing from the religious side which seems to be the defensive mantra of the supporters of SSM, but certainly acknowledge and respect the contributions of Christianity to Canadian society and the role its played in helping to provide the freedoms it has given us to even be able to debate the topic. I debate as a patriot who places the potential of a real Canadian nation above the historically destructive fact of homosexuality.
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Humans have pretty much flipped Mother Nature the bird when it comes to respecting her, so I don't think this is going to make a huge difference. Marriage is not going to affect the fact that these people are not in a male-female relationship. As for lifespan, Canadians live longer than Americans, so would it be irresponsible to advocate living in the US?
Were talking the difference about a couple of years of living a richer life or people being cut down in the prime of their life. Maybe I should take a page from ahanscomb's book and double tap centre mass the left wing flake preaching the joys of homosexual love to my school age children and who is trying to push them into a lifestyle he feels is justified through larger participation and which will likely result in their premature death.
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Qualify this.
Show me a single society in the history of the earth which recognises women as people and allows polygamy. Only in societies that regard women as property with few if any rights, does polygamy exist.
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Why don't we prohibit single-parent families then? Let's enforce minimum daily parent-child interaction while we're at it.
Of course, you're assuming a child is involved in every marriage, which is often not the case, even for hetero-couples.
Of course, you're assuming a child is involved in every marriage, which is often not the case, even for hetero-couples.
Agreed. We should prohibit single-parent families by returning to pre-Trudeau fault based divorce.
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Whether or not gay people are married is of no consequence to this - do you think by prohibiting marriage you're somehow preventing homosexuality?
It has everything to do with this. In each of those cases from the greatest Empire to the lowest commune they died out because they destroyed the foundation of family. Homosexuality should exist on the fringe, when it becomes mainstream it takes down the society. Let me ask you this...why do you believe Canada can be the first nation in history to redefine the family and survive? Especially when other modern nations around us with a head start are falling apart? Is Canada not important enough that it is worth risking for such a social experiment?
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Hell, they let the blacks vote, next thing you know they're going to be letting horses and sheep vote! It's a slippery, slippery slope, I tell ya!
Mock it if you will but I'd bet dollars to donuts your grandfather is not particularly proud of your lack of ethics and morals and would likely kick your ass.
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Bullshit. What about all the abusive or disfunctional relationships that happen already?! You could use the same argument to argue that all marriage should be prohibited, and I find that unlikely.
What a crock of shit. Abusive and dysfunctional relationships are directly correlated to the relationships the participants were exposed to in their youth. As we move to let the liberals destroy the family expect each subsequent generation to be more dysfunctional then the last. Every shred of statistical evidence and common sense supports this. Can you even give me empirical evidence otherwise?
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
[Why should one group of people receive these benefits over another? You haven't come up with a good reason yet, I'm afraid.
Sure I have, they are not entitled to them because they are gay. If you really really like your SS roomate should I have to pay for his coverage? Yeesh.
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next