Gay marriages

[wum]

Originally Posted by Twisted~AngelX

i agree completely, i think everyone has the right to be together and also share the benifits of being together gay or streight :):)

^ OMG don't put those two smilies next to eachother!

[lou_belle]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

you give lou_belle a run for her money at dumbest person on the internet.

c'mon, you're the same person, right? there can't be TWO people here THIS stupid?

Anyways, here is my opinion on gay marriage. You might find it quite ironic that my opinion seems to be different to the common ignoramus views of your own. Personally, I haven't read your postback, but I know that it must contradict what I'm to say following ...

Gay "marriage" is as ridiculous as saying that "Irish dance" now defines "Japanese dancers doing Irish dance". Fuck that shit, the Irish already claimed use of the title. As Hetero couples already claimed marriage. Gays should make their own title of marriage, though holding the same values, it in definition conflicts with the original meaning of "marriage". This word is sacred to people holding faith in the ceremony. It should be called something better, come on, they must be able to think of a more colorful word;P

*clap *clap *clap *clap :D

[Ragga_Wh0re]

Originally Posted by wum

I meant "we've" and I'm just the opposite.

In all seriousness, it's sad that people don't realize that we live in an Illuminati Matrix.

You sound like a socially conscious person, and so Satan has tricked you and others under the banner of "tolerance" "equality" and "progress" that have given us mind-boggling hoaxes like Communism, lesbian feminism, abortion Holocaust, inter-faithism, and Multi-Culturalism (among many others).

Don't be tricked into thinking that by legitimizing homos it is an act of "goodwill", baby Jesus doesn't like that :(

and this is the same assfuck rat bastard slut whos apparently against pre marital sex and is a good christian boy and YET hes debating on wether or not to stick it in his friends mom?

hello pot youre black,

sincerely:kettle.

[veN]

Originally Posted by lou_belle

Anyways, here is my opinion on gay marriage. You might find it quite ironic that my opinion seems to be different to the common ignoramus views of your own. Personally, I haven't read your postback, but I know that it must contradict what I'm to say following ...

Gay "marriage" is as ridiculous as saying that "Irish dance" now defines "Japanese dancers doing Irish dance". Fuck that shit, the Irish already claimed use of the title. As Hetero couples already claimed marriage. Gays should make their own title of marriage, though holding the same values, it in definition conflicts with the original meaning of "marriage". This word is sacred to people holding faith in the ceremony. It should be called something better, come on, they must be able to think of a more colorful word;P

*clap *clap *clap *clap :D

Now there is a novel/new idea! Hmm... Very interesting! I kinda like it...

*You must spread some Karma before giving it to lou_belle again.

[wum]

.

[zeal_oner]

bwamp bwamp wamp wamp wamp bamp bwamp bwamp bwamp wamp wamp wamp bamp bwamp bwamp bwamp wamp wamp wamp bamp bwamp

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by lou_belle

Gay "marriage" is as ridiculous as saying that "Irish dance" now defines "Japanese dancers doing Irish dance". Fuck that shit, the Irish already claimed use of the title. As Hetero couples already claimed marriage. Gays should make their own title of marriage, though holding the same values, it in definition conflicts with the original meaning of "marriage". This word is sacred to people holding faith in the ceremony. It should be called something better, come on, they must be able to think of a more colorful word;P

why should we be forced to have a different title for marriage? i understand where you are going with that, but it seems a little too much like segregation for me.

to me this is the same thing as saying that black couples should have a different title for marriage, or hispanic people. you are just discriminating against people on very superficial terms.

[wum]

good fences = good neighbours

:)

[automatic]

first off, to anyone who thinks that marriage is somehow "sacred", i hope in that case that you're lobbying to outlaw divorce, because divorce rates are more of a threat to the sanctity of marriage than gay marriage, and second, if marriage is "sacred" then why can atheists get married in a civil ceremony?

the issue of gay marriage is largely a LEGAL issue despite the fact that most of those opposed are opposed to it on MORAL grounds.

while anyone has the right to the opinion that gay marriage is immoral, or that homosexuality itself is immoral, what really is at stake for gays are legal rights.

so many laws pertaining to inheritance, legal status, financial and legal affairs do not as they stand recognize gay unions in the same way that they recognize marriage. unfortunately, because marriage has it's own unique legal status this has led to certain inequalities.

as an example, because of this there have been many cases of long term partners of gay people being denied such things as visiting rights in hospital, input on the wishes of a deceased, being denied spousal benefits, being denied legal status in the cases of wills and inheritances, being denied tax options, etc... many times they are at the mercy of the partner's family, and if that familyhas disowned the partner then they often find themselves shut out fropm their partne's affairs. another example is that when a gay couple adopts, what usually happens is that one of the partners adopts and the other doesn't, they don't adopt jointly, as they could if they were married. if the adopter dies the other partner may not have any legal right to that child, despite the fact that they had a hand in raising it.

it's interesting that also "marriage" is in fact forced on straight couples when they might not want it (live with someone for 6 months in BC and you are legally married under the common law statutes), yet gay couples who have been together for decades have no status.

[Rhianna]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

to me this is the same thing as saying that black couples should have a different title for marriage, or hispanic people. you are just discriminating against people on very superficial terms.

OMG Jake, what will they do if they're inter-racial AND gay!

[Only_Glory]

i totally back up everything sidekick said, its like he travelled into my mind stole my ideas, made them hot, and posted it on fnk
sidekick your my new god

[justin]

the 'sanctity' of marriage is being used and abused all the time, through silly reality television shows and 24 hour drive though wedding chapels in vegas, i dont see how those take prevelance over a gay couple for example who's been together for 20 years but can't make their marriage "official" for all the reasons automatic stated and more.

[Rhianna]

^Oh please, mail order brides are super sacred.

[lou_belle]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

to me this is the same thing as saying that black couples should have a different title for marriage, or hispanic people. you are just discriminating against people on very superficial terms.

The definition of marriage states a man and woman. I mean, don't you think that a man and a man being together is a little different? The word marriage is only a couple of thousand years old. Why don't the gay people make a new word that will catch on quickly as a new definition for "marriage" of two people of the same sex? I think that in creating a new word, they will be able to capture the significance that "gay joyous ceremonies of eternal love" will hold in history. They should be proud to be different and not regret it. People will accept it, but at first, as always, people will doubt the similarities until proven, when they are dealing with people that are different from themselves. Gays should skip the BS and claim a new beautifully different word in the dictionary;P

LOVe LOVe...gay people being recognized as equals is awesome YaY~

[justin]

Originally Posted by lou_belle

The definition of marriage states a man and woman. I mean, don't you think that a man and a man being together is a little different? The word marriage is only a couple of thousand years old. Why don't the gay people make a new word that will catch on quickly as a new definition for "marriage" of two people of the same sex? I think that in creating a new word, they will be able to capture the significance that "gay joyous ceremonies of eternal love" will hold in history. They should be proud to be different and not regret it. People will accept it, but at first, as always, people will doubt until proven innocent and not the other way around when they are dealing with people that are different from themselves. Gays shoul skip the BS and claim a new beautifully different word in the dictionary;P

LOVe LOVe...gay people being recognized as equals is awesome YaY~

yeah, there is a different term.
it's called gay marriage
is that different enough for you? or would you still be confused and not be able to differentiate

[automatic]

Originally Posted by lou_belle

The definition of marriage states a man and woman. I mean, don't you think that a man and a man being together is a little different? The word marriage is only a couple of thousand years old. Why don't the gay people make a new word that will catch on quickly as a new definition for "marriage" of two people of the same sex?

first off, where is this "definition of marriage" you speak of? are you talking about the "biblical definition", because i don't think anyone is talking about being forced to go and re-write all of the bibles, and regardless, there ARE bibles out there that include gay marriage, there literally HUNDREDS of different versions and translations. and if you are talking about the bible then maybe we should do something about all of those pesky jews muslims and atheists defiling the sancitity of marriage by getting married, huh?

are you talking about the "dictionary definiton"? beside the fact that the dictionary is by definition flexible, this is a pretty weak argument don't you think.

are you talking about the legal definition, because that's what the all the fuss is really about. well, the law CONSTANTLY changes, in fact one of the reason this argument is before parliament is that over the years the courts have looked time and time again at instances where gay people have stood up and demanded rights of married couples be applied to their unions (pensions, benefits, etc...) and the courts have weighed the issues and granted those rights. it's gotten to the point where gay unions have pretty much been granted all of the rights of marriage. the important point is that until parliament rewrites the law, all of those rights are just "judgements" not laws, and are open to challenge and interpretation. at this point it is far, FAR simpler (and cheaper) to change the definition of marriage, then to create a seperate yet equal term and then rewrite literally THOUSANDS of laws to include that term.

[wum]

Originally Posted by automatic

there ARE bibles out there that include gay marriage, there literally HUNDREDS of different versions and translations.

a little off topic, but...

whatever Bibles those are, they probably come from the Rainbow flag flying United Church of Pantheism or some shit, because that's seriously news to me.

[filipmaj]

What if the world stuck to original definitions in all things legal? Then right now, women would have no right to vote, because ORIGINALLY, governments were run by men and the original DEFINITION of "voting" in general always explicitly allowed only MEN to vote. If the world didn't realise that discriminating people based on gender was STUPID and based on NOTHING, then women would still be slaves to men right now. You can't base an arguement on "Oh, this one guy, a long time ago, wrote this book called 'The Bible' and in it he said marriage was heterosexual only!"
This has nothing to do with any historical facts. This is about a legal decision to allow TWO PEOPLE (of any gender or race or other characteristic) that love each other to allow to become an official union in the eyes of the government.
It's going to happen eventually all over the world, just like voting rights for women, no matter what you or I say.

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by lou_belle

The definition of marriage states a man and woman. I mean, don't you think that a man and a man being together is a little different? The word marriage is only a couple of thousand years old. Why don't the gay people make a new word that will catch on quickly as a new definition for "marriage" of two people of the same sex? I think that in creating a new word, they will be able to capture the significance that "gay joyous ceremonies of eternal love" will hold in history. They should be proud to be different and not regret it. People will accept it, but at first, as always, people will doubt the similarities until proven, when they are dealing with people that are different from themselves. Gays should skip the BS and claim a new beautifully different word in the dictionary;P

LOVe LOVe...gay people being recognized as equals is awesome YaY~

if you really believe that gay people should be realized as equals, then you would be fine with the idea of sharing the word 'marriage' with us.

oh, and like it was said before...it's not like marriage is really the sacred thing it used to be: with the 24 hour elvis weddings in Las Vegas, and the divorce rate being what it is, reality shows like 'who wants to marry a multimillionaire', you can't really say that marriage between a man and woman is held in too much high regard at present time.

you're defending a very old definition of a term that doesn't mean the same thing now as it did then anyway.

maybe this is just the thing it needs to spice it up. a competition between gay couples and straight couples! let's see who can stay married longer! it'll be a race!@#$

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by Only_Glory

sidekick your my new god

i prefer grapes without seeds, and a nice firm palm leaf for my fanning, thank you very much.

[dj_soo]

the fact that this is actually an issue for some people completely boggles my mind.

it's one of the most retarded things that people could protest, yet it's still there. Hell, I can actually understand some of the arguments against abortion (if I try *really* hard) yet the fact that people are against gay marriage when there is absolutely no effect on their lives is completely staggering.

[Only_Glory]

i am appointing beautiful flute dancers as we speak

[Psycho_Laughs]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

if you really believe that gay people should be realized as equals, then you would be fine with the idea of sharing the word 'marriage' with us.

YES!
why not just share the name with everything else? why not change every title to one word?
men and women are still equal under the law, but they are still called men and women... why don't they share the same title?
you ask for so much sensitivity, but when it comes to give some back, ops can't do it.
have your gay unions. why do you HAVE to call them marriages? it clearly bothers a lot of people. why not do the politicaly correct thing and create a new term for it, that will stay off a lot of those people's hair?
why did we get rid of ethnical slurs? cause they're offencive to said ethnicity.
non racist terms were then developed. everyone is happy.
why not do it to the word marriage as well.

[gnosis]

I can't believe our next electoral process will be focussed around this circular trompe of tryte!

Could everyone maybe look at (and call for debate on) some more immediately relevant issues, people?!

Economy (and all of it's facets)
Immigration
Health care
Environment
Corporate (tax) entities and status
First Nations issues (forget the tsunami, there's tonz o' heartache in this land!)
Foreign Policies

Frosty
(Don't fall into the vortex!)

[trouble1984]

It's really nice to find so much openess to the relevance of this issue. As an active member of the gay and lesbian community in Vancouver I have to say that that seems to be a more and more frequent occurance.

After coming to terms with the fact that, yes, I'm bi, the last few years have thankfully shown a real turn around in the acceptance of "alternative" relationships - which came as a huge relief after years of apprehension. The horror stories my gay buddies had shared with me of their earlier experiences with the general population's attitude towards homosexual relationships.

But still... everytime I'm out with my girlfriend and we're having a nice romantic, heart-felt moment there's always that nagging fear in the back of my brain that it's going to just be shattered by somebody choosing an inappropriate time to voice their personal opinion against us. I have no problem with debate.. and for those of you out there who disagree with homosexual relationships, generally the gay community is very open to said debate... just please, please, sniffle your snickers and glares and coughing-comments in the restaurant.

what was it 40, 30, 25??? years ago that mixed race relationships were met with the same regard? Now, a couple generations later the descendent of those same race-biased marriage promoters are taking partners from all across the globe and all assortments of backgrounds. Most of North America can now generally claim (there is no 100% when it comes to public opinion) to be overall accepting of cross-cultural marriages.

Sure things may not seem as hunky-dory as during the first half of the 20th C, but hey.. lots of other stuff happened in there too.. WW1.. WW2.. technology... economies. There are just too many confounds in the theory that changing women's roles, cross-cultural marriage, an now homosexual marriage are to blame for the degradation of our precious social fabric.

And the Churchs. Well... you know they are based strongly on tradition and ancient writings.... like the ones that have been rewritten and translated and retranslated and rewritten time and time again for each new faction.

The debate over the churches & homosexual marriages is not one that just going to be resolved *poof* nothing new and religion ever really is. And it's something my pot-smoking, bisexual, sally-anne bible thumper of a best friend have been debating for countless hours. Her church doesn't approve, but she loves it, so she hides that very major part of her personality. But in the end she seems to resolve this conflict of faith and being with the same resolution I resolve my lack of any religion what-so-ever: Be happy, love yourself, be nice to others, try to do what you think is right. Enjoy life!

From a legal perspective, there's really not that much to alter by certifying gay marriages. With the relatively broad requirements for common law in BC to day, all an official marriage does is offer a method by which to accelerate the paperwork.

All the same, I've encountered enough leers and comments and opposition in the last year with my g/f to seriously impact my comfort level being with her outside of the gay community. As much as we strive to be ourselves and not let people get to us, in the end social pressure gets us (I've got a textbook full of examples and peer reviewed research to back it up).

As much as I'm madly in love with my girl, it's going to take a lot to truly make me as comfortable being publically affectionate towards her as when I'm with my boyfriend.