Same sex marriage officialy legal through all of Canada Today

Bells said:
So because they make you go "ewww", you will fight to not give them equal rights?

With regard to marriage, homos DO have equal rights!

Straight males can't marry males, gay males can't marry males.

Perfectly equal rights ....no discrimination at all.

Bells said:
...apparently it is wrong because people like Reighn and Baron think it's "ewwww".

Oh, you've got me wrong ...I think homos should be allowed to suck dick and fuck male assholes all they want to, but that has little or nothing to do with the marriage laws! Just because you think sucking dick and fucking assholes is fun, why should that have anything to do with marriage??

There is no discrimination in the marriage laws against homos ....none!

Baron Max
 
QUOTE by Bells
So because they make you go "ewww", you will fight to not give them equal rights?
See, that's your problem.......in order to fight something you need an action. I'm posting my opinion only. I will not get involved in any process against them or for them. What will be will be.
by bells
You need proof that a child is not born with the knowledge to automatically discriminate against others because of their race, sexuality, etc, even if it is not taught to do so?
Once again putting words...................I said you have no definitive proof. I don't need it....I already sleep good at night.
by bells
You tell me. Society has been teaching children about heterosexuality and about how it is the only way, yet many are still born homosexual and remain so till the day they die.
I'm not qualified to answer that question either.
I understand you have an absolute fear and dislike for homosexuality and homosexuals in general. You have stated several times that you find them to be disgusting, etc. But that is not the reason to start sounding like a fool.
I do not fear anyone or anything. I never said that I dislike homosexuals... I said that I think they're (practice of sex)
Disgusting - To excite nausea or loathing in; sicken.
To offend the taste or moral sense of; repel. Profound aversion or repugnance excited by something offensive.

This is a fool topic. So I've been acting accordingly.
by bells
You didn't post it for conversation. You posted it because you thought it would somehow validate your argument. When you realised that it did not, you flipped sides, yet again.
You're crossing the line Bells.... Do not ever tell me that I'm lying! I have no reason to. I put it here for exactly the reasons I said! I haven't flipped a damn thing.....In the end you're the one who keeps agreeing with me...Prove my sides flipped anywhere in this post!
by bells
So now you think that one's rights should come up for a popular vote? I wonder how you would feel if the racists in society started pushing for the abolition of marriage between non-white Americans and it was put to a popular vote? Would you feel outraged? Or would you simply sit there and agree that such rights should be up for a vote?
I actually would agree of the abolition of marriage between non-white and european american....I think that they were on to something there. True opinion! So no I would not be outraged.
 
ReighnStorm said:
Once again putting words...................I said you have no definitive proof. I don't need it....I already sleep good at night.
Yes I'm sure you do..

ReighnStorm said:
I don't agree completely....a child born into integration would not see a noticeable difference. Mild difference maybe...once all the old foggies (all colors) die out, there will be no one left to tell them that their everything except american....instead it will be just american born and raised.
Example:
My daughter was about 8 yrs old...she loves her grandpa (my step-dad) almost more than me....he's white (german mix)....she was told by someone one day that he was a white man. She got confused and came to me to clarify. She had never noticed with her own eyes any difference from him to her until someone told her so.
Link
My my my... So which one is meant as a conversation piece and which one is not? Oh and you can actually click on the links I provided for you. You might actually stun us all and learn something.

I'm not qualified to answer that question either.
No you are not.

I do not fear anyone or anything. I never said that I dislike homosexuals... I said that I think they're (practice of sex)
Disgusting - To excite nausea or loathing in; sicken.
To offend the taste or moral sense of; repel. Profound aversion or repugnance excited by something offensive.
You don't hate them but you think their sex life is disgusting? Alrighty then! Nice to know that hypocrisy still abounds...

ReighnStorm said:
Rearing a child not to hate someone because they're different would most definately work....but that my friend will never happen.... as you say!
Link
I think I'm going to 'puke'... (for lack of a better term)... Tell me, was this for "conversation" as well? Or are you trying to fit in better with the racist clique on these forums?

And I do realise you seem to be fondly attached to dictionary.com, but there is no need to keep posting the meanings to each long word you use. We do know what they mean and if you need constant clarification in regards to their definition, might I suggest you open it in another window for your own reference?

You're crossing the line Bells.... Do not ever tell me that I'm lying! I have no reason to. I put it here for exactly the reasons I said! I haven't flipped a damn thing.....In the end you're the one who keeps agreeing with me...Prove my sides flipped anywhere in this post!
Oh good grief! Did I say you were lying? I said that you made a mistake. Look up your favourite online dictionary and see the difference.

And you think I am agreeing with you? Heh! Again, might I suggest you brush up your comprehension skills before participating in debates online. And I don't need to prove how much you've flipped, be it in regards to which side you've been on in this argument or in any other sense. It is quite obvious when one reads your posts.

I actually would agree of the abolition of marriage between non-white and european american....I think that they were on to something there. True opinion! So no I would not be outraged.
Interesting! The question I was actually asking was whether you would find it offensive and disturbing if non-white Americans were prevented from marrying altogether, but never mind...

ReighnStorm said:
I see what you're thinking, but why divide? Is it the color of the skin?, the testorone level of the races?, the ability to dance? What is the reason behind why we should divide.
Link

Why divide indeed! So tell me Reighn, why don't you think that whites and non-whites should marry? Have you told your mother this? Do you have a problem with races mixing? If so, why ask the question of "why divide" in the other thread and then say that they should be kept apart in this thread? Is this for "conversational" purposes again? Or are you again trying to fit in with the racist set in these forums? So much for your claims earlier that you are "colourblind" and telling others that they should be as well...

ReighStorm said:
NO reasons to hide....far from it....I'm colorblind as you should be!
Link
Or was this said merely for "conversation" as well?

So, in regards to your comments in this thread, you would not be outraged if you were told that you could not marry at all? Be it to any individual? I understand from another post that you don't appear to believe in marriage at all, but just for argument's sake... you would not be upset or angry if all non-whites in the US were told that they were not allowed to marry anyone because they were not white?
 
With regard to marriage, homos DO have equal rights!

Straight males can't marry males, gay males can't marry males.

Perfectly equal rights ....no discrimination at all.

For the hundreth time, to slap the stupidness, yet again, out of that comment you preach over and over, that is NOT a right but rather a discriminating limitation to BOTH hetero and homosexuals. "Rights" and "can't" cannot exist in the same sentence of law as they contradict each other. You don't seem to know what a right is.

The only time "can't", or rather, "not" would be a right would be if it was said that you have the right to NOT marry a male, while at the same time saying you also have the right TO marry a male. The same applies to anything such as tieing shoes. I have the right NOT to tie my shoes, but then I also have the right TO tie my shoes. Now if it's expected that a person can ONLY wear shoes that have their laces untied, therefore saying you CAN'T tie your shoes, then that's a limitation on the rights of someone who doesn't want their laces tied, and this is the case in the laws of marriage.

- N
 
Last edited:
I do not fear anyone or anything. I never said that I dislike homosexuals... I said that I think they're (practice of sex)
Disgusting - To excite nausea or loathing in; sicken.
To offend the taste or moral sense of; repel. Profound aversion or repugnance excited by something offensive.
This is a fool topic. So I've been acting accordingly.

How is finding homosexuals disgusting not a case of disliking them? Let's try putting you in their shoes for you to better understand. How about I say that I don't dislike blacks, I just find them disgusting because their dry nappy hair stinks especially when they put their moisturizing formula in it. I betcha you'd call me a racist for that just as other's would call you a homophobe for your comments. Maybe that'll help you understand since it'll hit closer to home.

Edit:

I just noticed the problem in the communication. You said "I think they're (practice of sex) disgusting". You're using "they're" incorrectly. By using "they're", you're saying THEY ARE disgusting in general, referring to homosexuals. That's why your statement sounds so silly because you're saying "I don't dislike homosexuals, I just find them disgusting". You should be using "their" and take "practice of sex" out of parenthesis so that it becomes "I think their practice of sex is disgusting" which means you find their practice of sex disgusting rather than homosexuals in general. Well, heh, unless you DO mean both?

- N
 
Neildo said:
"Rights" and "can't" cannot exist in the same sentence of law as they contradict each other. You don't seem to know what a right is.

When did marriage become a "right" and not a simple legal union between a man and a woman?

Marriage is a "right"??? Since when? And even if you somehow claim that it is a "right", where did that "right" come from? Who conferred it upon us? And when?

Is marriage noted in the Constitution as a "right"? Where?

Baron Max

Ooh ...forgot to add the reminder:

Straight males can't marry males, gay males can't marry males.

Perfectly equal rights ....no discrimination at all.
 
Last edited:
Baron Max said:
Marriage is a "right"??? Since when? And even if you somehow claim that it is a "right", where did that "right" come from? Who conferred it upon us? And when?
No you are correct. Marriage is not really a "right" as such in the US Constitution. It is not guarranteed in the US Constitution. However it is a sanctioned right given by each individual State. And under said "rights" those who are married are granted certain protections and benefits. Now when the Court in certain States ruled that denying homosexuals the right to marry was unconstitutional, what does the Government do? That's right, they ammend the law to ensure that said privileges and rights are now denied to one group residing within that State... However, Ammendment XIV (Section 1) of the Federal Constitution states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"...

Hmmm..

The words of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the landmark case of Loving vs. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967) still rings in my ear...

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

Imagine that...
 
The only reason why marriage has anything to do with law is due to the government tax breaks that come along with it. That's why they say what they say in regards to marriage as they're paying the bills for em. People can marry whom they wish otherwise, they just don't get the government perks. I can guarantee you that if tax breaks were no longer given for marriage, the amendments would be removed and people would be free to marry whom they choose, as crazy a combination of those involved as you can think of. However, the less people able to marry, the more money the government keeps. Then there's the whole forcing of religious dogma too.

- N
 
Yes, but in the case of the Army, certain people fail to meet the requirements to perform a certain duty.
Well, some 15 year olds are capable of shooting a gun and fighting in the Army, but the US doesn't let them. The requirements the Army has make sure its soldiers have the some ablity, which is not to say that all those in the Army deserve to be there. Some get by the initial requirements but fail in action.

What exactly is the duty required in marriage that only a man and woman can do? Marriage isn't about sex otherwise all the married couples who choose not to have children or those who cannot have children due to reproductive issues would be banned from marriage as well rather than just homosexuals.
My requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman is more of a definition. Duities, too, must be done to some end. In the Army, their duty is clear, to protect the US against foreign threat.

t exactly is the duty required in marriage that only a man and woman can do? Marriage isn't about sex otherwise all the married couples who choose not to have children or those who cannot have children due to reproductive issues would be banned from marriage as well rather than just homosexuals.
Well, no. The duty of marriage could be to create and to raise children. If this was the objective end to marriage, then it could be made a requirement; but say the requirement is either unpractical or destrucctive, then requiring itdoesn't make sense. After all, most agree that one end to marriage is for two people to love each other, but this end couldn't be made into a requirement; it isn't practical.

What qualifications are those?
gay or homosexual
 
Well, some 15 year olds are capable of shooting a gun and fighting in the Army, but the US doesn't let them. The requirements the Army has make sure its soldiers have the some ablity, which is not to say that all those in the Army deserve to be there. Some get by the initial requirements but fail in action.

I actually agree that if someone is qualified in a job, they should be allowed to do it. Unfortunately we have a stupid blanket law that says only someone of the age of 18 or older is an adult. I also find it amusing how one can be of the age to die for one's country but not be legal to drink.

Age doesn't make one an adult but rather maturity does and nor does it mean one of adult age is mature. So if that younger person is mentally mature to deal with the situations of the job, then hey, go for it. I hate stupid blanket laws but unfortunately most people prefer the easy way out. Quantity over quality, I guess.

Well, no. The duty of marriage could be to create and to raise children. If this was the objective end to marriage, then it could be made a requirement; but say the requirement is either unpractical or destrucctive, then requiring it doesn't make sense. After all, most agree that one end to marriage is for two people to love each other, but this end couldn't be made into a requirement; it isn't practical.

And if the duty of marriage is to be able to create and raise children, why aren't couples that choose to not have children or cannot have children due to reproductive problems banned from marriage? And why is divorce even allowed? Once one divorces, the raising of a child is now put in jeopardy. And what of those that get married just for the perks? Or what about homosexuals that marry the opposite sex and create a child, but then live with their more preferred homosexual partner? Let's face it, there is NO logical reason to limit marriage between only a man and woman. For any reason that is thought of, it either places more limitations on people, or the reasoning gets shot down in an instant.

- N
 
Baron Max said:
Ooh ...forgot to add the reminder:

Straight males can't marry males, gay males can't marry males.

Perfectly equal rights ....no discrimination at all.

how many times will you pull this out and have it shot down before you put it away for good?

straight males can marry their preferred gender, gay males cannot currently marry their preferred gender in your country. you cant say that your stament is equal. because the emotional factor is different. its like having apples, and oranges, both are equally good fruit, but some people prefer oranges, antd some prefer apples. if you reasoning was applied, and the eating of apples was not allowed. then would that be equal, the people who like apples are deprived of the right to eat a food they enjoy. while the people who like oranges retain that right
 
Originally Posted by ReighnStorm
I don't agree completely....a child born into integration would not see a noticeable difference. Mild difference maybe...once all the old foggies (all colors) die out, there will be no one left to tell them that their everything except american....instead it will be just american born and raised.
Example:
My daughter was about 8 yrs old...she loves her grandpa (my step-dad) almost more than me....he's white (german mix)....she was told by someone one day that he was a white man. She got confused and came to me to clarify. She had never noticed with her own eyes any difference from him to her until someone told her so.
by bells
My my my... So which one is meant as a conversation piece and which one is not? Oh and you can actually click on the links I provided for you. You might actually stun us all and learn something.
surprisingly bells, you can actually rear a child without someone else having to tell you how and why. In reference about a child's mind and thinking can not provide ANY definitve proof.....I could tell you the story about a child who did notice that his family member just wasn't quite normal like other men! but why? There never was or ever will be definitive proof of either case. Can you leave it alone now or should you continue on your quest to annoy me? Oh and it's all for conversation. That's why I say it's my opinion only! :bugeye:
by bells
are you trying to fit in better with the racist clique on these forums?
What I'm doing is being Reighnstorm! What are you doing? I can laugh in the face of my enemies because I fear no one. It seems to me that you don't know how to do that yet!

by Bells
And I do realise you seem to be fondly attached to dictionary.com, but there is no need to keep posting the meanings to each long word you use. We do know what they mean and if you need constant clarification in regards to their definition, might I suggest you open it in another window for your own reference?
I don't seem to be... I am.. very fond of it. Might I ask....no tell you ..... to stop suggesting (polite way of demanding) on what to do! I don't assume to know anything about people on this site. Mind your own post. I might suggest to you..... that you talk to much about anything. Your post are wayyyy tooooo loooong and you spend much of it repeating yourself! You've proven to me that you don't know the meaning of all the words you use because they're always misplaced....need clarification??


by bells
Oh good grief! Did I say you were lying? I said that you made a mistake. Look up your favourite online dictionary and see the difference.
Yes you did! Look

by reighnstorm
It was a post. not an agreement by me about the post. Just posted it for conversation.
by bells
You didn't post it for conversation. You posted it because you thought it would somehow validate your argument. When you realised that it did not, you flipped sides, yet again.
That's plainly calling me a liar! :eek:
 
Bells said:
Now when the Court in certain States ruled that denying homosexuals the right to marry was unconstitutional, what does the Government do? That's right, they ammend the law ...

Yeah, and that's how all of the federal laws were enacted!

Bells said:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"...

Read that again, Bells ...read it carefully. It specifically states that no STATE shall ...... The new law was NOT a state law, but a federal law. And the federal laws take precedent over STATE laws.

SC Warren can state his opinion if he wants to ...but it don't change the laws of the law!

I just don't think that gays and lesbians should be permitted to marry. There! That's my opinion ...and it's just as good as SC Justice Warren's.

Another thing that's interesting; The social security funds pay a certain percentage of the "husband's" benefits to the "wife" of the deceased "husband" ....how are we to fix that benefit for gays? Will one of the gays be the "designated wife"??

Bells said:
Marriage is not really a "right" as such in the US Constitution. It is not guarranteed in the US Constitution.

Great! You now admit it ...thank you. And you can see, right, that "we, the people" can bestow the legal designation of "marriage" to whoever the fuck we want to. And, apparently, "we, the people" don't want to give that "right" to gays and lesbians. So be it.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max

All I will say to you is this Baron... One day, you will learn the difference between State laws and Federal laws, as well as the difference between rights and privileges granted by each of the individual State Constitutions and those granted by the Federal Constitution.
 
And if the duty of marriage is to be able to create and raise children, why aren't couples that choose to not have children or cannot have children due to reproductive problems banned from marriage?
In many cases, those that are not able to have children adopt children. In any case, it's not the only duty, just one of the duties.

And why is divorce even allowed? Once one divorces, the raising of a child is now put in jeopardy.
Yes, divorce puts the raising of a child in jeopardy, but if the marriage is truly disfunctional, then perhaps it might be what is best for the child.

And what of those that get married just for the perks?
It's impossible for the state to weed these people out.

Or what about homosexuals that marry the opposite sex and create a child, but then live with their more preferred homosexual partner?
I don't get where your going here. While they were married, they created a child, but when they divorced, they will have no more children.

Let's face it, there is NO logical reason to limit marriage between only a man and woman.
There's no logical reason to limit marriage between two people.
 
by neildo
I just noticed the problem in the communication. You said "I think they're (practice of sex) disgusting". You're using "they're" incorrectly. By using "they're", you're saying THEY ARE disgusting in general, referring to homosexuals. That's why your statement sounds so silly because you're saying "I don't dislike homosexuals, I just find them disgusting". You should be using "their" and take "practice of sex" out of parenthesis so that it becomes "I think their practice of sex is disgusting" which means you find their practice of sex disgusting rather than homosexuals in general. Well, heh, unless you DO mean both?
..................... ;) shhh, don't tell nobody! :eek:
 
okinrus said:
There's no logical reason to limit marriage between two people.

Oh, really? And that would include marriage between a man and his daughter? ...a woman and her son? ...a sister and brother? And, oh, yeah, how 'bout between a 30-yr old man and 17.95-yr old woman?

Baron Max
 
Oh, really? And that would include marriage between a man and his daughter? ...a woman and her son? ...a sister and brother? And, oh, yeah, how 'bout between a 30-yr old man and 17.95-yr old woman?
What I was saying is if limiting marriage to be between a man and a woman is illogical, then limiting marriage to be between two people is also illogical. The failure to accept cultural norms and faith-based arguments makes both limitations illogical.
 
Back
Top