Gay marriages

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by wum

Sex and marriage used to be one. With the relaxing of morals and now with the gaying up of marriage, its meaning is all but lost. Just read the article more thoroughly :)

Wumbles, do you think that people only had sex when they were married up until very recently? Of course you don't, that's silly.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

How is not being able to marry the person you love = to having the same legal status?

I hate having to retype points already stated, looks like you didn't read over my previous posts, oh well. Look, you can have a union where you declare a status like the one of marriage. You are expected to remain monogamous, and caring towards your partner. You gain extra rights of legality as far as custody and visitation, simply using another word for this union. You are not married, make another word, I got one and it took me a second....you are PARTNERED, don't like that word, come up with one yourself, the onus is on you, I don't know why you aren't gay about this opportunity. Same legal status of a married couple, but there is a distinction of the sexual orientation by the word used to define this union. That way anybody reasonable can be satisfied.

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

How are we re-writing anything?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Marriage

1. A.The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

This definition will be destroyed, as for sub-definition D goes, I say throw it out, and replace it with a new word, one where legal status is honored.

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

The 1982 Charter (of R&F) clearly states that the government must not discriminate - this is simply an extension of our rights under the Charter.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

No shit? What section or subsection does this pertain to?

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability

If we are indeed equal, you should respect those that find the union of man and woman to be a religious expression. By rewriting this definition, it forces viewpoints to consider marriage no longer as a sanctimonial act of man and woman. How is this equal under law based on religion?

This isn't the extension of your rights, it's the destruction of religious rights. You are actually breaking the law of the charter, feel stupid yet?

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

And i'm not sure what you mean by hypocracy by democracy.. But the charter is NOT democratic.

Hypocrisy (sorry for the continued typo): You must know the definition.

Democracy: Look up the latin meaning for demo, you will find in it's context that democracy means nothing more than mob rule.

What I mean from Hypocrisy by Democracy is this: social change is dependant on public opinion, you have the majority and minorities. The majority has usually been immoral and imposing. There are however minorities with their morals seemingly intact. However when these minorities, which asked for much more humbling viewpoints such as tolerance, not acceptance, in regards to their archetype, pick up in numbers, this humbleness is replaced with imposing their own beliefs. This imposing of beliefs is what this once said minority was met with while a minority, and at one point they probably asked themselves why it's so hard for people to "Live and let live".
Now they become a majority. They got their cake and can eat it too, and start imposing their beliefs on minorities as they once to their disdain had to struggle from. We come full circle without the humbling moral of tolerance. Thus, hypocrisy by democracy. For further example, look what happens to the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

It's very difficult to ammend - and for good reason.

I guess Canadians having no rights for the ownership of property is one of those good reasons eh? I guess the notwithstanding clause was a good move too eh? Like digging holes eh?

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by acidic_liquid

Sexual PREFERENCE is NOT a choice. I did not wake up one day and say, "WOW, I think I'll be gay today." I did not wake up and say, oh I think I'll go for guys. Don't argue with me on this.

I won't, I tried reasoning with you but that didn't work.

Originally Posted by acidic_liquid

YES, acting upon it or not is a choice. I understand what you mean by society imposing sex and no one can really control these urges anymore, however, these are two entirely different things. Did your powerful arguing and logic skills fail you this time?

Kundalini. I doubt you have the patience for it. Sexual preference, with a strong enough will can be overcome. There are plenty of ex-gays that through a religious belief have been "cured" from this preference. This may seem insulting to you, but know that these thoughts came from folks once a part of the gay community.

Originally Posted by acidic_liquid

I can't help it if men have appeal to me and not women. I can think about men, and have urges and I can choose not to act on them. Does this make me straight? NO. It's not your actions that make you gay, it's your preference.

Preference is determined by thoughts. If you don't have control over your thoughts, you are just a programmed drone. Wait a second, this is all making sense somehow.

Originally Posted by acidic_liquid

There's even discoveries of a 'gay' gene.
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4215427.stm

I thought the things you've said until now was actually decent. This claim just makes no sense.

YOU MAKE NO SENSE! The first link COMPLETELY contradicts your futile rebutal, I will quote it to make your point nullified:

...Of course, just near the end of the NPR discussion, certain necessary caveats were fleetingly added. But only an expert knew what they meant- that the research actually showed nothing whatever in the way of what was being discussed. The vast majority of listeners would think that homosexuality had been all but conclusively proven to be "genetic." But the real question is whether or not there is such a "gay gene."

In fact, there is not, and the research being promoted as proving that there is provides no supporting evidence. How can this be? In order to understand what is really going on, one needs to understand some little- known features of the emerging study of behavioral genetics (much subtler than the genetics of simple, "Mendelian" traits such as eye color)....


and the second link is debunked from your first, but here's more to add:

...Dr Mustanski said the next step would be to see if the findings could be confirmed by further studies, and to identify the particular genes within the newly discovered sequences that are linked to sexual orientation.

"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," he said, but added that other factors were also important.

"Sexual orientation is a complex trait. There is no one 'gay' gene.

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

Originally Posted by acidic_liquid

I think he's a closet homophobe and he's justifying this by saying the gays are attacking the straight ppl's rights.

No, it's Dalyn right? Have I ever singled you out for being gay in public? Have I once been cruel to you in any way when speaking in person? I must be a homophobe that's why I hung out with some gays in my raving days, and even became friends with some. Yeah, so homophobe. Face it, you can't stand it that I am being logical, because you don't want to pick apart any downfalls of your movement for being immoral. To do so would probably take the movement a step back for the time being, so you'd rather just go with the numbers. It's a shame homosexuals can't honor a monogamous legal union by giving it a distinct name under law. This is moral hijacking.


***
I believe I wash my hands of this thread, good luck to all you lesbians and gays in your gayness. You took the word gay btw too, it used to mean happy. Atleast lesbians made up their own word, which asserts my long founded belief that women are on average more intelligent (as far as morality is concerned) then men. Happy trails.

[lou_belle]

Originally Posted by The_acidhouse

Moreover, I fail to see how a lower marriage rate, or how raising children out of wedlock is 'ruining society'? Places all over the western world have had declining marriage rates for years and last time I checked the world hasn't yet ended.

How is raising children out of wedlock not ruining society? Am I supposed to believe you haven't been able to find any statistics saying that the world's working class people are becoming more depressed and less fulfilled with their lives? There used to be an image that an average person could aim for, a family and a marriage. The average being needs this strength. Society is held together with ritual, re-occuring traditions and formalities, refinement and excellence. Straying role-models don't and can't send a good message to young children growing up in a world that revolves around a productive and profitable "conformist economy". You may not be able to see it, but the world isn't made up of a bunch of free spirits, you should go out onto the freeway at 6:30-8:30am, that phenomena that you will see is the regular commute of "average working class beings". Unlike you or I, these people are followers that don't question authority. They read the Province or Sun. They need authority, they thrive in a situation where choice isn't complex, it's simple, it's refined, and it's free, but not without a proper image to follow. People can be whatever they want to be, but the total average citizen needs normalcy.

Why would you want to begin diverting children to hundreds more choices, everything could just become more and more complex as we get older, and how will you be able to relate to your child if everything just changes with each new generation, no rules, just free choice everywhere. No different than what we have now really, but there will be no "normal" grounds for chidren to follow. These rules have been laid, nice and simple, let's not go overboard with freedom and start changing everything against peoples will.

66% of Canadians don't want the WORD marriage to be changed;)

That doesn't mean they disagree with same-sex unions.....god, they should have jumped the bandwagon and made a way cooler word. I think the gay people are getting their panties in a knot because they're being rejected by majority to take a word that was already claimed. So ridiculous, it not like people see a very nice image of gay TV personalities, they are offensive and more often than not rude:(

[acidic_liquid]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

Sexual preference, with a strong enough will can be overcome. There are plenty of ex-gays that through a religious belief have been "cured" from this preference. This may seem insulting to you, but know that these thoughts came from folks once a part of the gay community.

I don't believe those gay people have actually "converted." All they're doing is repressing the truth. I'm thinking most of these cases are because have something to do with a conservative or religious family. I can't think of anyone who would want to deny who they truly are.

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

Preference is determined by thoughts. If you don't have control over your thoughts, you are just a programmed drone. Wait a second, this is all making sense somehow.

If this is true then the time I forced myself to like girls should have turned me straight.

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

YOU MAKE NO SENSE! The first link COMPLETELY contradicts your futile rebutal, I will quote it to make your point nullified

This is my bad. I meant to say there's discussion of it.

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

No, it's Dalyn right? Have I ever singled you out for being gay in public? Have I once been cruel to you in any way when speaking in person? I must be a homophobe that's why I hung out with some gays in my raving days, and even became friends with some. Yeah, so homophobe. Face it, you can't stand it that I am being logical, because you don't want to pick apart any downfalls of your movement for being immoral. To do so would probably take the movement a step back for the time being, so you'd rather just go with the numbers. It's a shame homosexuals can't honor a monogamous legal union by giving it a distinct name under law. This is moral hijacking.

This isn't Dalyn. He goes by the name Liqwid on here. It's Erwin, and we've never met. My comment about you being a homophobe was made tongue-in-cheek. I wasn't completely serious. It just seems like you're attacking this "movement" and you keep saying your points are valid but they're basically your opinion. You have a very holier-than-thou attitude, and your rebuttals just seem like your trying to show off. You sound like a Philosophy student having fun with his new knowledge.

Also, if you read my posts, I said I didn't care what a gay "marriage" is called. It's not the name that counts. I just don't understand why it's a big deal. Religion is not a good enough reason. I'm sure there were homosexuals on this earth before men evolved and formed organized religions and started preaching their beliefs to others.

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

I believe I wash my hands of this thread, good luck to all you lesbians and gays in your gayness. You took the word gay btw too, it used to mean happy. Atleast lesbians made up their own word, which asserts my long founded belief that women are on average more intelligent (as far as morality is concerned) then men. Happy trails.

See what I mean by your holier-than-thou attitude? I don't know you in person. I dont judge people by what they post on here. People can post the most stupid things and they can still be great in person. I think the same way for you. But right now, you seem like one of those people that walk around thinking they know everything and people should be in awe.

[The_acidhouse]

Yes, deny subdefinition because it is not consistent w/ your argument: for those who care dictionary.com defines it as all of the below:

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Marriage

1. A.The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

This definition will be destroyed, as for sub-definition D goes, I say throw it out, and replace it with a new word, one where legal status is honored.

Um no, actually as the prime minister clearly stated a number of times - this is only for marriages in the CIVIL context. That is, as recognized by the GOVERNMENT. The GOVERNMENT must not discriminate. CHURCHES are NOT the GOVERNMENT - They will be able to discriminate if they want.

So, you sir, are the one who should feel stupid as it is fairly evident that you don't even understand what the charter is. The charter is NOT human rights legislation (in the way that say companies should treat their employees etc). It is legislation w/in the constitution that pertains soley to the way the GOVERNMENT treats its PEOPLE.

Once again - the GOVERNMENT cannot and will not force CHURCHES or whatever to perform marriages, they will simply recognize those who are married either from churches who accept this form of marriage OR as performed in the civil context.

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability

If we are indeed equal, you should respect those that find the union of man and woman to be a religious expression. By rewriting this definition, it forces viewpoints to consider marriage no longer as a sanctimonial act of man and woman. How is this equal under law based on religion?

This isn't the extension of your rights, it's the destruction of religious rights. You are actually breaking the law of the charter, feel stupid yet?

So what are you rambling about here?
Gays are becoming the majority? Gays are planning to overthrow the government?

I think it's fairly clear that everyone and every group in Canada deserves equal treatment under the law. The government SHOULD NOT have any right to dictate what is right or wrong when it comes to victimless crimes nevermind consenting sexual activity or love for that mater.

Face it: allowing gays to marry doesn't destroy society, nor does it infringe on other's rights - it simply respects the charter for what it is meant to be.

Our rights and freedoms under the law are what makes us live in possibly one of the best places on earth.

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

Hypocrisy (sorry for the continued typo): You must know the definition.

Democracy: Look up the latin meaning for demo, you will find in it's context that democracy means nothing more than mob rule.

What I mean from Hypocrisy by Democracy is this: social change is dependant on public opinion, you have the majority and minorities. The majority has usually been immoral and imposing. There are however minorities with their morals seemingly intact. However when these minorities, which asked for much more humbling viewpoints such as tolerance, not acceptance, in regards to their archetype, pick up in numbers, this humbleness is replaced with imposing their own beliefs. This imposing of beliefs is what this once said minority was met with while a minority, and at one point they probably asked themselves why it's so hard for people to "Live and let live".
Now they become a majority. They got their cake and can eat it too, and start imposing their beliefs on minorities as they once to their disdain had to struggle from. We come full circle without the humbling moral of tolerance. Thus, hypocrisy by democracy. For further example, look what happens to the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.



I guess Canadians having no rights for the ownership of property is one of those good reasons eh? I guess the notwithstanding clause was a good move too eh? Like digging holes eh?

[The_acidhouse]

Oh please - most of this is a major jump from gay marriage, so you can rant all you want but it's not today's topic.
Besides;
You can have commitment outside of wedlock.
Financially: child support law and subsidies help.
There is such a thing as remarriage, and new commitments.
Moreover, by your very argument allowing gays to marry actually helps society in creating a framework to raise children.
Lastly, People will break up whether they are married or not.

As for that 66% - I wonder how many are from places like canmore alberta..
I wonder what the distribution of young to old is..

I'm sure 66% of white people in the deep south didn't want blacks in the same school as them.

Originally Posted by lou_belle

How is raising children out of wedlock not ruining society? Am I supposed to believe you haven't been able to find any statistics saying that the world's working class people are becoming more depressed and less fulfilled with their lives? There used to be an image that an average person could aim for, a family and a marriage. The average being needs this strength. Society is held together with ritual, re-occuring traditions and formalities, refinement and excellence. Straying role-models don't and can't send a good message to young children growing up in a world that revolves around a productive and profitable "conformist economy". You may not be able to see it, but the world isn't made up of a bunch of free spirits, you should go out onto the freeway at 6:30-8:30am, that phenomena that you will see is the regular commute of "average working class beings". Unlike you or I, these people are followers that don't question authority. They read the Province or Sun. They need authority, they thrive in a situation where choice isn't complex, it's simple, it's refined, and it's free, but not without a proper image to follow. People can be whatever they want to be, but the total average citizen needs normalcy.

Why would you want to begin diverting children to hundreds more choices, everything could just become more and more complex as we get older, and how will you be able to relate to your child if everything just changes with each new generation, no rules, just free choice everywhere. No different than what we have now really, but there will be no "normal" grounds for chidren to follow. These rules have been laid, nice and simple, let's not go overboard with freedom and start changing everything against peoples will.

66% of Canadians don't want the WORD marriage to be changed;)

That doesn't mean they disagree with same-sex unions.....god, they should have jumped the bandwagon and made a way cooler word. I think the gay people are getting their panties in a knot because they're being rejected by majority to take a word that was already claimed. So ridiculous, it not like people see a very nice image of gay TV personalities, they are offensive and more often than not rude:(

[Gunter S]