Same sex marriage officialy legal through all of Canada Today

[one_raven]

I think what happens too often with such debates is that is stops being sbout whether or not it should be banned and becomes about whether or not it is right or wrong in your personal opinion.

I supposed it comes down to what you think the fundamental role of government should be:
To protect the innocent from those who would harm them.
or
To decide and dictate personal morality.

I think it's pretty clear where my vote lands.

 

[Baron Max]

I think what happens too often with such debates is that is stops being sbout whether or not it should be banned and becomes about whether or not it is right or wrong in your personal opinion.

What the hell is the difference? If we ignore our personal opinions, then what do we have left? The issue of "right n' wrong" is the very reason for such issue to ever arise in the first place ....and those are always opinions.

I supposed it comes down to what you think the fundamental role of government should be:.....

Well, not exactly! It's about laws, laws that would apply equally to all citizens of the nation. The marriage laws are already equally applied ....hetero males can't marry males AND, equally, homo males can't marry males. Hetero females can't marry females AND, equally, homo females can't marry females. There ain't no difference, there ain't no discrimination. The laws are applied equally to all citizens.

I think it's pretty clear where my vote lands.

Well, I hope you think about it a little more. And also think about the BAD as well as the GOOD ....if you focus on only the good, everything seems just wonderful and utopian. But think about human nature and their ability to turn anything good into something bad!

For example: You don't seem to want to government to interfere with personal morality, right? Well, how do you feel about child porno ...NOT sexual acts on children, but photos of children distributed to those who like to see children in "suggestive" nude photos? They're just photos, right? There is NO sexual contact with them at all ....just nude photos of cute little children.

For example: You don't seem to want to government to interfere with personal morality, right? Well, how do you feel about people fucking and/or sucking right there on the public streets? In front of children? Is that okay with you?

For example: You don't seem to want to government to interfere with personal morality, right? Well, how do you feel about some people walking around in public totally nude? In front of children? Is that okay with you?

And remember, if you begin to control SOME aspects of morality, then how can YOU create a particular line and say YOU'RE right, when someone else wants to create a different line and says that they're right? You either control personal morality or you don't .....the big question is where do you draw the line.

Baron Max

 

[Neildo]

For example: You don't seem to want to government to interfere with personal morality, right? Well, how do you feel about child porno ...NOT sexual acts on children, but photos of children distributed to those who like to see children in "suggestive" nude photos? They're just photos, right? There is NO sexual contact with them at all ....just nude photos of cute little children.

Well I've no problem with simple nude pictures of children so long as there's no sexual acts done on them or having them spread eagle playing with dildos and whatnot. You can go anywhere in the world, even here in the US, and see naked kids running around or heck, even on TV (no genetalia though). People here in the US are way too sensitive when it comes to the nude body but have no problem with any other "sins". Heck, remember people wanting to ban TV ads that might happen to show a baby's bottom in fear of it turning on child molestors? There was even a thread made about that in this forum. Ridiculous.

For example: You don't seem to want to government to interfere with personal morality, right? Well, how do you feel about people fucking and/or sucking right there on the public streets? In front of children? Is that okay with you?

For example: You don't seem to want to government to interfere with personal morality, right? Well, how do you feel about some people walking around in public totally nude? In front of children? Is that okay with you?

Most laws follow the golden rule. Simply don't do things that can harm others and it's all good. And I'm pretty sure most people, other than the zealots, can agree that's how laws should be. Visual things can harm people so it's why most places don't allow public nudity, however, does that ban nudity completely? Heck no. There are beaches and resorts that allow public nudity as well as being able to be nude in one's home. Banning something outright that even applies to when one is in private is wrong (yes, even smoking pot, omg, but hey something like PCP is bad due to the easy rage that is caused by it.. which alcohol can easily fall under the PCP catagory as well yet it's legal) and that's the type of thing banning gay marriage is. People should be free to do what they want in private because it cannot harm others. This is when those laws are wrong because it tries to ban things outright muchlike the old stupid laws of say, not being able to beform oral sex in private or spouses having to sleep in seperate beds. Gay marriage in no way compares to public nudity and whatnot.

- N

 

[Baron Max]

Visual things can harm people ...

Ya' mean like see two men holding hands, hugging and kissing in public?

Simply don't do things that can harm others and it's all good.

Agreed. Now what do we say when the majority of American say that gays marrying harms them in some way? Are you to be the authority on who is harmed by what? If not you, then who? See? That's the issue, the real issue that people seem to want to ignore or sluff-off as nonsense. If those people say seeing two men kissing in public harms them, then it harms them. There ain't no other way to see it. And if there's a majority that make that claim, then .....?

Gay marriage in no way compares to public nudity and whatnot.

True. But it's how and why those LAWS were instituted ....in which case, the LAWS against gay marriage is no different to the LAWS against other forms of sexual deviations ....like child porno and nudity. It's the LAWS that I'm interested in, not the comparisons between the sexual deviations.

Baron Max

 

[Neildo]

Ya' mean like see two men holding hands, hugging and kissing in public?

Or anyone holding hands, hugging, and kissing in public, regardless of sexual preference. There are people out there that dislike any form of public display of affection, regardless of who it's coming from. So if you're worried about two men doing it, then all forms of PDA should be banned, but that's a bit silly but hey, if the people want it, then I guess it's okay as f*cked up as society will become if people like that become the majority passing laws like that.

Agreed. Now what do we say when the majority of American say that gays marrying harms them in some way? Are you to be the authority on who is harmed by what? If not you, then who? See? That's the issue, the real issue that people seem to want to ignore or sluff-off as nonsense. If those people say seeing two men kissing in public harms them, then it harms them. There ain't no other way to see it. And if there's a majority that make that claim, then .....?

The act of homosexuals marrying each other or doing sexual activities with one another in private DOESN'T harm others. It's the THOUGHT of it that harms them. And the word that should be used is them finding those acts "disturbing", not harmful. If it DOES harm them, those people are oversensitive whackos and they're out of hand for being like that. I can think of unlimited acts of perfectly normal and harmless things that some crazy people out there find disturbing, but hey, they're nutcases. The same applies to the homosexual scenario if they feel "harmed" by it as opposed to just disliking it.

True. But it's how and why those LAWS were instituted ....in which case, the LAWS against gay marriage is no different to the LAWS against other forms of sexual deviations ....like child porno and nudity. It's the LAWS that I'm interested in, not the comparisons between the sexual deviations.

Homosexuality isn't a form of sexual deviation. It has nothing to do with your examples. The only thing that would come remotely close is the old laws of banning interacial marriage which is pretty stupid. THAT is an exact example except when it comes to what religious preferences you have which church and state is supposed to have nothing to do with one another.

- N

 

[locknroll]

Well, not exactly! It's about laws, laws that would apply equally to all citizens of the nation. The marriage laws are already equally applied ....hetero males can't marry males AND, equally, homo males can't marry males. Hetero females can't marry females AND, equally, homo females can't marry females. There ain't no difference, there ain't no discrimination. The laws are applied equally to all citizens.

Baron Max

Let's see if we can look at your logic in a different light, say circa 1930

Well, not exactly! It's about laws, laws that would apply equally to all citizens of the nation. The marriage laws are already equally applied ....black males can't marry white females AND, equally, white females can't marry black males. Black females can't marry white males AND, equally, white males can't marry black females. There ain't no difference, there ain't no discrimination. The laws are applied equally to all citizens.

Baron Max, I think it's time to rethink your position.

locknroll

 

[Bowser]

Jeeez! It's easy enough to see. What the hell is wrong with you people.

 

[Baron Max]

Jeeez! It's easy enough to see. What the hell is wrong with you people.

Yeah, I agree! I just don't know what's wrong with some people ...just so easy to see, ain't it. People of the same sex should not be permitted to marry ...it's so damned easy to see.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Homosexuality isn't a form of sexual deviation.

Is fucking a hole in a tree a sexual deviation? How 'bout fucking a hole in a fence post?

If homosexuality is NOT a sexual deviation, what, pray tell, IS a sexual deviation?

Baron Max

 

[ReighnStorm]

WHY GAY MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION IS WRONG?

It's hard to describe. If you don't have it naturally then u probably never will. It's usually prominent in naturally good natured born people(u know who u are ). Those people that I refer to already know what it is and why it's here. Other people "not so natural" have no clue how it feels,what it looks and sounds like. So to them we're just speaking in tongue(another good language). We can go round and round and round. But the end results will be the same. They'll never understand it and we'll just grow weary in our old age worrying about it! I say let them have it! We're doomed anyway from the very first mistake that was made anyway. The world began with incest! Or didn't u know that already?

 

[Baron Max]

I say let them have it!

I say we don't let them have it!

I'll say the very same about ANY special interest group that attempts to change laws, rules, etc for their own selfish interests. I think the terrorists of the world are trying to do it with bombs and guns, others do it with "pretty" words and speeches. I like the terrorists better ...they're easier to deal with and to understand.

Baron Max

 

[Neildo]

Is fucking a hole in a tree a sexual deviation? How 'bout fucking a hole in a fence post?

If homosexuality is NOT a sexual deviation, what, pray tell, IS a sexual deviation? Baron Max

What the hell does screwing inanimate objects outside of one's species have to do with homosexuality? Lol, gotta love how you do this is almost all of your posts, regardless of the subject, comparing things that have nothing to do with one another. As I said, homosexuality is not a sexual deviation. Put your flippin Bible down and actually go out and read some scientific studies about this subject. Heck, by now you should have seen and read the threads made about it on these forums. The animal kingdom, including us, is littered with homosexual species -- it's far from a deviation. Go ahead and resort to googling if you have to, but until then, don't even bother trying to argue against it.

- N

 

[Baron Max]

What the hell does screwing inanimate objects outside of one's species have to do with homosexuality?

Read the post again ....and then show me where I made any reference or comparison to homosexuality being the same as fucking a fence post.

As I said, homosexuality is not a sexual deviation.

Is fucking a hole in a tree a sexual deviation? How 'bout fucking a hole in a fence post?

If homosexuality is NOT a sexual deviation, what, pray tell, IS a sexual deviation?

Just a side note, but did you see where the Iranians hanged two homos the other day ...for being homos? That wasn't very nice ...they should have sent them to America where it's becoming accepted as a deviant sexual practice!

The animal kingdom, including us, is littered with homosexual species -- it's far from a deviation.

If it's not a sexual deviation, then what it is? Or have scientists become so scared of political correctness that they fear using even proper English to make such observations?

Go ahead and resort to googling if you have to....

Can't do that any more ....every time I use Google, I get stuck in a fuckin' sex or homo site and can't get out of it without pulling the plug on my computer!!! ....and then have to use a virus-thingie to get my system back up on line! I hate Google!!

Baron Max

 

[Neildo]

A sexual deviation is simply a sexual act that is far from the norm. And even if something may be a sexual deviation, it does not make it wrong if nobody is unwillingly harmed in the process.

If it's not a sexual deviation, then what it is? Or have scientists become so scared of political correctness that they fear using even proper English to make such observations?

What proper English have they been in fear of using to make such observations? But no, they haven't become scared of political correctness, many things have been hidden because of what we deem normal and abnormal in that those that feel what is normal would be shocked to find that their way of life isn't (ie, only heterosexuals beings exist and anything else is merely a fluke of nature). Here's something quoted from a quick search I did on nationalgeographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

"Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.

"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural."

Just a side note, but did you see where the Iranians hanged two homos the other day ...for being homos? That wasn't very nice ...they should have sent them to America where it's becoming accepted as a deviant sexual practice!

Why wasn't this a very nice thing in your eyes? Those Iranians are just doing what the Christian right wish they could be doing.

Can't do that any more ....every time I use Google, I get stuck in a fuckin' sex or homo site and can't get out of it without pulling the plug on my computer!!! ....and then have to use a virus-thingie to get my system back up on line! I hate Google!!

Hey, at least you can be funny at times, lol.

- N

 

[Baron Max]

And even if something may be a sexual deviation, it does not make it wrong if nobody is unwillingly harmed in the process.

(I hope you meant "unwittingly" instead of "unwillingly" in the above.)

Interesting. And how long do we wait to see it anyone is harmed? two minutes? One year? Ten years?

You should find it interesting, on the issue of harm, that many children who've been molested as little kids don't exhibit any harmful symptoms until they're grown adults, sometimes even in later years. (No, this is NOT a comparison, you fuckin' idiots who try to read it that way!!!!!)

But also "harm" comes in many, many forms ...and any competent psychologists and psychiatrists will be the first to agree with that. And if that's true, what now? Do we just keep letting sexual deviants do whatever they want in the hopes that no one will be harmed later in life?

I also wonder what harm might occur later in life if little kids see homosexual affection being exhibited in public? Do you know? Are there any stats on such a topic? Have there been any studies? (Is that why some hetero males beat the shit outta' homos sometimes? Perhaps harmed/changed from early experiences of seeing homos kissing and holding hands, etc?)

*
*
And NO! Baron Max dicking around with Google is NOT funny ....not even for the most twisted, deviant mind!

Baron Max

 

[Neildo]

I mean as in two people consenting to their actions. But hey, masochists exist so two consenting people could wind up getting hurt, but that's not bad because they wanted it.

- N

 

[Baron Max]

I mean as in two people consenting to their actions. But hey, masochists exist so two consenting people could wind up getting hurt, but that's not bad because they wanted it.

We have laws in the US that say no person can consent to his own harm! So aren't you going to protest that the rights of masochists are being taken away? ...LOL!

Oh, my goodness! But wait, if we change the law ONLY for masochists, then that's discrimination, right? Oh, darn, such a complex tangle of bullshit, huh?

Baron Max

PS - just so you know, the law(s) was enacted to prevent a "battered" wife from refusing to press charges against her husband for beating the shit out of her! I.e., she's scared of him, so the law tries to protect her even if she doesn't want it (or pretends to not want it!).

 

[Neildo]

We have laws in the US that say no person can consent to his own harm!

PS - just so you know, the law(s) was enacted to prevent a "battered" wife from refusing to press charges against her husband for beating the shit out of her! I.e., she's scared of him, so the law tries to protect her even if she doesn't want it (or pretends to not want it!).

Other than the spousal abuse law, which other ones can you think of? I'm just wondering what other laws there are since you mentioned plural. I can't think of many.

However, I do agree with that law because 99% of the time, the wife being scared of her husband IS going to be the reason if she chooses not to press charges against him, not because she wanted him to do it.. unless she did want him to do it so she could frame him, heh. However, for those that truly are masochists and the husband didn't beat his wife for his own pleasure but rather for hers, they can go to court to overturn it if he was thrown in jail for that wrongful conviction.

So aren't you going to protest that the rights of masochists are being taken away? ...LOL!

Well I don't see any masochists protesting so I won't protest, but I'll agree that yes, it's wrong for the rights of masochists being taken away. However, there's not many other laws that hinder them which is why it isn't a problem. If I slap myself and get thrown in jail for it, yeah, there's a huge problem, heh. But luckily there are no laws like that so it's all good. I can think of one rule off the top of my head I don't agree with and it's the seat belt law. People shouldn't be forced to wear them. If someone dies as a result of not wearing their seatbelt then good. That person gambled with their life when they had extra protection but they chose not to use it. There's many other ways people can gamble with their life but I don't see any laws against those other means. Trying to forcefully protect someone IS bad. A seatbelt law is no different than requiring people in vegetative states to remain on life support. If they wish to go, then let em.

Oh, my goodness! But wait, if we change the law ONLY for masochists, then that's discrimination, right? Oh, darn, such a complex tangle of bullshit, huh?

Yep, it is. And yeah it's a complex tangle of bullshit. You know why it is? Because other's are trying to prevent others from doing things that don't harm others. That's what happens when you try to control people rather than letting people live as they want. Laws should only exist to protect others from being unwillingly harmed by others. People should be free to do ANYTHING they want so long as it doesn't unwillingly harm others. If two people agree to stab each other, they should be able to, as odd as it may sound. If they die because of their idiocy, then good, we don't need whackos like that around. However, people should be free to be masochistic whackos if they choose but hey, so much for freedom, eh?

- N

 

[Baron Max]

Laws should only exist to protect others from being unwillingly harmed by others. People should be free to do ANYTHING they want so long as it doesn't unwillingly harm others.

And just who is to determine "harm"? If someone says that they're "harmed" by something, are we to ignore them because we, ourselves, are not "harmed"? Case in point ...the video industry and porno movies: What possible "harm" could come from kids playing video games or watching porno movies?

You mentioned the seatbelt law: If a wife and mother fails to wear her seatbelt and is killed in a car accident, is she "harming" her children and husband? Is that willingly "harming" someone? If not, why not?

...it's wrong for the rights of masochists being taken away. However, there's not many other laws that hinder them which is why it isn't a problem. If I slap myself and get thrown in jail for it, yeah, there's a huge problem,...

Well, it may not be a huge problem for you, but for the masochist, it is. They're forced to go "underground" to seek out the services of a sadist. It only takes one law, ya' know!? And more to the point, it's discrimination against a sexual desire or preference.

I still have to err on the side of caution and good sense. If someone says/thinks that homosexual marriage is "harmful" to them or to their beliefs or to their children's lives, how can we say that it isn't? I still wonder who is the final judge in what is "harm"? And, worse, will everyone agree to abide by his/her/their decisions? ...without complaint or protest?

Baron Max

 

[Mystech]

\Well, not exactly! It's about laws, laws that would apply equally to all citizens of the nation. The marriage laws are already equally applied ....hetero males can't marry males AND, equally, homo males can't marry males.

So the fact that it's applied equally negates the fact that it's written specifically to disenfranchise and ignore the needs of a segment of the population? That's some wonderfully narrow thinking there, Maxy.