Same sex marriage officialy legal through all of Canada Today

[Mystech]

No, of course not. But its a matter of law!! The nation creates certain laws to prevent certain "unwanted" marriages ....like incest and beastiality and polygamy ....AND... same-sex unions!

See? Its laws.

Haha, my goodness, some public school decades ago really cheated you out of a decent education, didn't they? Or maybe you were just too busy talking in class because you love the sound of your own voice?

At any rate, let's try to apply some critical thinking here. Are same sex unions unwanted? Clearly this is not so on the part of Canada. Sure there are those who dislike the idea, but those put in positions of responsibility to the people and the preservation of their nation's ideals are able to see things a bit more clearly. It's their job to serve all Canadians, not just a vocal minority who asserts that their religious teachings take precedent over all others, and even civil law.

In America we've grown to a point of maturity where we can see that these particular laws which prohibit the rights of homosexuals are useless. They serve no valid end save to betray our countries dearly held egalitarian principles of equally applied justice, a place for everyone, and all that.

You, on the other hand, Max, seem only to be able to see that there's something written on a paper, and are incapable of drawing any distinction between one thing written and another. I suppose that this is the root of your opposition - either that or you've got some other reasons for your feelings on the subject (such as your blatant homophobia which you've let show on numerous occasions) and are just really really bad at trying to make a reasonable argument to mask this fact.

If we change the law which discriminates against gays, how can we maintain the laws that discriminate against others for other abberrations?

Gee, I don't know - perhaps by analyzing such laws and seeing what purpose they actually serve? If it's truly a benefit to our society then there isn't much worry is there? It's a bit sad that the best argument you've got to keep flogging endlessly here is some sort of super-slippery-slope where if one group of people who have been proven to be productive non-harmful members of society are finally considered for equal rights and protection under our laws that suddenly the whole concept of law and order itself becomes null and void and we've got to let pedophiles teach gym class in our schools.

If you can find a conclusion based on a premise in which one actually follows the other, please do voice it. For the time being, however, you may want to give it a rest.

It's laws that make this nation what it is and if we just change laws whenever some special interest group complains, how is that going to work?

Is fulfilling our nation's promise of equal rights to all citizens really a "special" interest? I certainly don't view it as such.

In any case, we've already let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, when we gave into African American special interests and gave them the right to vote and own land. And we thought that it would just stop after women got their special interests as well. Logical fallacy or not, maybe you're onto something with this slippery slope idea.

By the way, calling us "stupid tarts" is not going to help further your special agenda! ...LOL!

This may be true, but it is at least apt.

 

[Baron Max]

...we can see that these particular laws which prohibit the rights of homosexuals are useless.

I'm for equal rights for gays and lesbians. I've said that over and over. But gay men have exactly the same rights as I do ....I can't marry a male, neither can a gay male. Ditto for women and lesbians. There is NO discrimination taking place with the marriage issue .....NONE!!

Is fulfilling our nation's promise of equal rights to all citizens really a "special" interest? I certainly don't view it as such.

Perhaps you should view it more carefully. Gay men have exactly the same rights as I do ....I can't marry a male, neither can a gay male. Ditto for women and lesbians. There is NO discrimination taking place with the marriage issue .....NONE!!

As to your comment on my "slippery slope" argument ....it's not a slippery slope, it's illustrutive of exactly what you are trying to argue. We have certain laws that prevent incestuous marriages ...and those are, in fact, discriminatory against same-blood relatives. Another such law is that males can't marry males. That, also, is discriminatory against gays. But those are the laws that exist now in this nation. YOU, however, want to change those laws to suit YOUR OWN interests, without regard to the ideals of discrimination. I.e., you want SPECIAL CONSIDERATION just becasue you like to suck cocks and stick you dick into a male's asshole. See? Strangely, that's a "special interest" ....or can't you see that?

...public school decades ago really cheated you out of a decent education, didn't they?

No, not really. The education was there for me to grasp .....I was just too smart, too know-it-all, too filled-up-on-myself, that I didn't grab it while I could. Sorry ...that's what happens if you don't pay attention in class!

Baron Max

 

[vslayer]

Huh? Vslayer, are you reading and writing in English? What the hell are you saying and how did you get it from my post? (And how old are you??)

Baron Max

in what way is my english impaired? or are you just so homophobic that you instinctively render yourself incapable of comprehension when someone supports gay rights?

did you not say that to allow gay marriages but not incest or bestial ones was a form of discrimination? i simply drew the same conclusion by giving a scenario in which heterosoxual relationships benig allowed would be the same discrimination as in your accusations about gay relationships. in order to prove just how idiotic the idea is.

what does my age have to do with anything?, you could find it by doing a bit of research, but you seem too lazy for that, it seems you would rather stick to your ill conceived predjiduces because they are so much easier to aqcuire.

 

[okinrus]

At any rate, let's try to apply some critical thinking here. Are same sex unions unwanted? Clearly this is not so on the part of Canada.

I wouldn't immediately leap to this conclusion. After all, a Nazi protest might be allowed by the state but not the least bit be wanted.

not just a vocal minority who asserts that their religious teachings take precedent over all others, and even civil law.

People believing their religious teachings take precedent over all others is different from informing one's conscious based upon once's religious beliefs. The difference, I think, is what's rational. (That is, if a person is able to shown that some issue or definition is outside rational thought, such that premises have to be relied on, then the use of religious premises are no worst than any other premise.)

In America we've grown to a point of maturity where we can see that these particular laws which prohibit the rights of homosexuals are useless. They serve no valid end save to betray our countries dearly held egalitarian principles of equally applied justice, a place for everyone, and all that.

The problem with gay marriage is it uses a term, marriage, incorrectly. Of course, I don't know whether the harm here is greater than the benefits attributed to gay marriage. There are certainly some benefits, like hospital visits, that gay people should have. (But so should close friends as well, and no one's pushing for the word "friend" to become "marriage".)

OK, that said, Here are a few harms. First, health care benefits, traditionally given so that family member stays home to raise the children while the other works, will be awarded to two gays with absolutely no plans to raise or adopt children. Happends in heterosexual marraige, too, but a lot less, I think. Second, incorrect usage of the word marriage will eventually spill over to the educational system and even in general conversation. Eventually, the word marriage will mean both gay and hetersexual marriage; televangelists will have to say a few extra words when they want to say marriage and school children will be confused with all the different definitiions.

 

[Xerxes]

Yeah, I heard about this.

Then, *yawn*, I changed the channel and got back to eating fruit loops.

Do people seriously care?

 

[one_raven]

OK, that said, Here are a few harms. First, health care benefits, traditionally given so that family member stays home to raise the children while the other works, will be awarded to two gays with absolutely no plans to raise or adopt children. Happends in heterosexual marraige, too, but a lot less, I think. Second, incorrect usage of the word marriage will eventually spill over to the educational system and even in general conversation. Eventually, the word marriage will mean both gay and hetersexual marriage; televangelists will have to say a few extra words when they want to say marriage and school children will be confused with all the different definitiions.

Do you think a homosexual couple should not be allowed to raise children?
I know quite a few who do raise children- should they not be afforded the same rights?
Should heterosexuals who are not planning on having children not be allowed to wed?
What about sterile heterosexuals? Remove their right to marry?
Does this not sound absurd to you?

Evengelists will have to say a few extra words? It will confuse school children? Come on. I hope you are being facetious.
Actually, it will make it simpler to define relationships (as if defining relationships should have anything to do with this).

"Daddy, what is marriage?"
"Well, son, it is when two people love each other and decide to agree to be responsible for each other under the law."
As opposed to.
"Daddy, what is marriage?"
"Well, have a seat. What state are you referring to? Oh, they have a distinction between 'Marriage' and 'Civil Union' and each has different laws. Let me explain..."

I have yet to hear a single valid rational argument against gay marriage.
If you don't want to marry a member of the same sex, no one is asking you to!
If you don't want your church to be forced to perform wedding ceremonies for couples they deem "immoral" no one is asking them to!

Baron:

I can't marry a male, neither can a gay male. Ditto for women and lesbians. There is NO discrimination taking place with the marriage issue .....NONE!!

The law does not keep you from marrying someone that you are in love with.
It does, on the other hand, keep a homosexual from marrying someone he or she is in love with.
That is the epitome of discrimination.

As far as beinging beastiality and incest into teh picture, that is a totally seperate debate with entirely seperate issues at hand and should be treated as such.
We are discussing whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry, to bring other unrelated topics into the issue serves no purpose other than to obfuscate the matter.
That is absolutlely no different than saying, "Well, if you allow heterosexual couples to marry what's to stop heterosexual siblings from marrying?"
The law and how it is written, that's what.

In all the multitude of arguments I have read and heard regarding gay marriage, I have yet to find one that makes a single valid point against it.

Most often I hear religious arguments.
Judaism says that Jews can not marry gentiles. Is there a law against it? Of course not. Why? Because that would be descrimination.

So what does that say?
Jewish people are included in the laws that protect people from discrimination.
Gays are not.
Does that mean that those who argue against gay marriage think of gays as less than people in some way? Inhuman?

If not, then PLEASE explain this to me, because I just don't get it.

 

[one_raven]

Do people seriously care?

Yes.
It's sad to me that not enough do.

People will spend hours upon hours every day discussing the details of the absurd lives of celebrities, and act as if this is simply a non-issue.

If it doesn't directly affect them, they simply don't care.
Very American.

 

[one_raven]

I care about this as much as I care about racial discrimination against blacks, even though I am not black or homosexual.

It is a matter of humanity and equality that this damned country is supposed to be based on.

 

[one_raven]

Furthermore, if you want to grasp onto the farcical "slippery slope" argument, then you have to acknowledge it from the other side of the coin.

If we use the Bible to dictate the laws, then:
Men should be allowed to have as many wives as he wants.
People should be stoned someone to death for saying the name of God.
It would be illegal to take more steps than is necessary to get to and from church on the Sabbath.
Interfaith marriages should be banned.
Should I go on?
Seems to me that disallowing homosexual marriage based on Biblical dictate is a slippery slope that will lead to disintegration of social morals, no?

 

[dogpenis]

The question of wether or not same sex marriage should be legal doesn't seem to be a question of what the "rules" of marriage are, it's more like wether or not the "majority" feels that homosexuality is right or wrong. If a person believes that homosexuality is ok then they would most likely feel that marriage is right, and if they are bigots then they would most likely disagree. i still don't really understand the argument AGAINST same sex marriage other than they consider it closly linked to marrying animals and some other nonsense. I'm pretty sure that in the u.s. both parties have to be a legal age ( I'm not sure what the legal age is for animals, I guess it may depend on the species or something) , they have to have some form of legal identification like a social security card, ( I really didn't know that they gave those to animals, but hey, you learn something new everyday) I know they must have like a birth certificate or passport, (again, didn't know animals had them) and i know they must be CONSENTING, and by consenting they mean both parties being able to agree,( i have no idea how they get a verbal or writen agreement from an animal, maybe the government has one of those pet psycics.) so as for animal/ human marriage.. give me a fucking brake people, If a person is THAT hard up for a peice of ass that they resort to beastialities then the government should consider some sort of loser outreach program. Now If people want to marry a person in their family they should be required to show their relation to that person and depending on the closeness of the relation they should be evaluated ,much like forigners who wish to marry u.s. citezen, because any person who's intelect is up to par with the rest of human kind would be seriously concerned about what sort of abuse a girl would have been exposed to in order to consent to marrying her own father, and really no matter how you look at it it's wrong. the father was obviously a waste of a human body and had some mental issues and mannaged to either pass them to his daughter or brainwashed the poor thing.in such a case there should be some institutionalizing rather than marriage.

 

[dogpenis]

As for homosexuality: i sure as hell don't care to watch two men fuck, but then again i don't want to watch alot of people fuck. i don't care who you want to fuck or how you want to do it, just don't do it in front of me unless i ask you to , is homosexuality "right" depends on who's eyes you're looking through, mine: it's perfectly fine. If two people can find the kind of love that i have for my husband , then i wish them the best. and thank god there are people who still believe in the sanctity of marriage, when we have something like 70% of married "straight" men cheating on their wives. To me that is a totall disrespect to marriage, and so is running of to vegas to marry randomly just cause you're in vegas. are we going to outlaw that? are we going to forbid documented "cheaters" from marrying again?

 

[dogpenis]

The reason same sex marriage is not legal in this country is simple: or country is run and inhabbited my a large number of evolutionarily inferior, brainwashed christian biggots

 

[Baron Max]

The law does not keep you from marrying someone that you are in love with.

The laws of marriage have nothing whatsoever to do with "love", whatever the fuck that is!

It does, on the other hand, keep a homosexual from marrying someone he or she is in love with. That is the epitome of discrimination.

No! There is no discrimination at all! The law is the same for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals ......males can't marry males, females can't marry females. There is NO discrimination in the marriage laws ....the marriage laws have nothing to do or say about sexual abberrations.

In the laws of marriage, homosexuals are EQUAL to heterosexuals .....and love ain't got shit to do with it! Nor does health benefits or hospital rights or child adoption rights or any other such bullshit!! Those are totally separate issues and/or laws.

Baron Max

 

[dogpenis]

The laws of marriage have nothing whatsoever to do with "love", whatever the fuck that is!



No! There is no discrimination at all! The law is the same for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals ......males can't marry males, females can't marry females. There is NO discrimination in the marriage laws ....the marriage laws have nothing to do or say about sexual abberrations.

In the laws of marriage, homosexuals are EQUAL to heterosexuals .....and love ain't got shit to do with it! Nor does health benefits or hospital rights or child adoption rights or any other such bullshit!! Those are totally separate issues and/or laws.

Baron Max

in case you weren't previously aware, marriage has everything to do with love, or at least assumed love, depending on the emotional maturity of the individual to understand such a concept

 

[cybercom]

The argument that homosexuals will get 'undeserved' benefits from being allowed to marry is completely void.

I know couples who are a gay man and gay woman who married so they could have the benefits. I don't care that they do this, its their life, I would probably do the same put in their position.

I'm just saying that if they're going to get the benefits anyways, why not let them marry someone they're actually attracted to, or preferably, in love with.

 

[okinrus]

Do you think a homosexual couple should not be allowed to raise children?
I know quite a few who do raise children- should they not be afforded the same rights?

All things considered, a heterosexual couple should be preferred over a homosexual couple for raising children. The statistics are just <a href=http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0095.html>not comprehensive</a> enough to place our children in such a situation. If two homosexuals are raising a children, then they should have the same health case benefits as heteresexuals. But these are benefits not rights and I don't believe health care benefits should automatically go to a gay coupld just by merely being married. They have to be raising children.

Should heterosexuals who are not planning on having children not be allowed to wed?

If by "wed" you mean marriage recognized by the state, then no, I don't think so.

What about sterile heterosexuals? Remove their right to marry?
Does this not sound absurd to you?

Well, I believe sterile heterosexuals are more likely to adopt children than two homosexuals. With heteresexual marriage, not having children is the exception not the norm. With homosexual marriage not having children is the norm. Therefore, the benefits given to heterosexual marriages are in some cases not suited to homosexual marriage.

Evengelists will have to say a few extra words? It will confuse school children? Come on. I hope you are being facetious.

Yes, I was.

Actually, it will make it simpler to define relationships (as if defining relationships should have anything to do with this)."Daddy, what is marriage?"
"Well, son, it is when two people love each other and decide to agree to be responsible for each other under the law."

Well, according to the studies I've read, the majority of Americans don't think gay marriage is marriage.

 

[Neildo]

All things considered, a heterosexual couple should be preferred over a homosexual couple for raising children.

Yeah, when 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and many of those ending in very bitter divorces, I can see that being SO much better for a child than being raised by a homosexual couple. And I won't even bother to mention the high amount of horrible married heterosexual couples that neglect their kids too. All this "one side is better" crap is pure rubbish.

- N

 

[Baron Max]

Yeah, when 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and many of those ending in very bitter divorces, I can see that being SO much better for a child than being raised by a homosexual couple.

Well, the 50% rate seems to be true. However, what it does NOT say is that the greater majority of those divorced parents marry again almost immediately ....and thereby maintaining at least a semblance of parenthood for the children.

And I don't know, but I have/had several gay friends and they are the most promiscuous and sexually active men that I've ever known in my whole life! As far as I can tell, they'd fuck a hole in a tree if there were warm cheeks on either side of it and a tube of K-Y jelly handy! And they're proud of it, they revel in it. And they also say that it's fairly prevalent in the gay community to have many, many lovers ......and few of them have anything that would resemble a "relationship" like marriage.

No, that isn't to say that all gay males are like that ...but it seems to be pretty widely accepted even in the gay community. Anyone have any statistics on that?

Now also note that this is NOT true of lesbians. I know a few lesbians, and they're all in a long-term relationship ....and they don't seem to be promiscuous at nearly the same rate as homo males.

All of that being said, and if it's even remotely true, then homo males would NOT make good parents for a children.

Baron Max

 

[okinrus]

Yeah, when 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce

For your point to be valid, you'd have to claim 50% of heteosexual marriage with children end in divorce and do so before the child reaches 18. In any case, the statistic your siting is somewhat <a href="http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html">flawed</a> and is really around 40%.

 

[Neildo]

Well, the 50% rate seems to be true. However, what it does NOT say is that the greater majority of those divorced parents marry again almost immediately ....and thereby maintaining at least a semblance of parenthood for the children.

Even more dysfunction in the family then. How many parents do they need? I wish I could find the number, but I wonder how many kids hate their step-parents? I knew many that did and heck, I had to deal with it too. Usually the first step-parents are the worse because it's based off a rebound relationship so it's more about wanting to find a secure person to live with, especially when it comes to women, as opposed to finding a good mate, so that rebound relationship usually gets tossed in the gutter real fast.

And I don't know, but I have/had several gay friends and they are the most promiscuous and sexually active men that I've ever known in my whole life! As far as I can tell, they'd fuck a hole in a tree if there were warm cheeks on either side of it and a tube of K-Y jelly handy! And they're proud of it, they revel in it. And they also say that it's fairly prevalent in the gay community to have many, many lovers ......and few of them have anything that would resemble a "relationship" like marriage.

And exactly what does this have to do with a married gay couple? Those gay people are single and horny and is no different than single heterosexuals. If you wanna paint them bad because of that, heterosexuals are just as bad, if not more. Why? First, heterosexual horny males outnumber the horny gay males so there's more badness to go around. Second, the heterosexual can still get females pregnant without having to be married which means more poor neglected bastard children running around. Third, if you wanna complain about wicked horniness, care to look at the figures of how many heterosexual males forcefully rape people as opposed to gay males going out and raping people? See, I can make heterosexuals look worse in the horniness department so I suggest you drop that argument as it has no relevance to the discussion unless you wanna open this whole can of worms as I did.

For your point to be valid, you'd have to claim 50% of heteosexual marriage with children end in divorce and do so before the child reaches 18. In any case, the statistic your siting is somewhat flawed and is really around 40%.

Sure, I've no problem with that. Let's say it's 40%. Wow, a whole 10% less and I guess that makes it okay now? Lol. Yeah, a heterosexual family is SO much more secure and less dysfunctional now than having gay parents.. uh huh..

All of that being said, and if it's even remotely true, then homo males would NOT make good parents for a children.

You've still yet to come up with a reason why. Heck, the reason doesn't even have to be groundbreaking.. just at least somewhat reasonable as opposed to all this silly stuff you guys are coming up with.

- N