Gay marriages

[acidic_liquid]

I think it's sad that some people are just thumping their bibles too hard that they just can't let gay people legally marry. And I also think it's sad that the word marriage carries so much weight.

Personally, I don't care what they call it if it becomes legalized. Gay unions, gay partnerships, maybe even keep the word marriage, it's not that big a deal. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

BUT, is the name the real issue here? If gay people agree to not be sacrilegious and shatter the age-old meaning of the word marriage, will everyone else let them? Is it just the word that's hindering this bill to be passed?

Hmm I don't think so. I think it's more of an issue of people fearing change. The fact that these people link it with things like polygamy and bestiality is amazingly stupid. What does that have to do with it? People will say anything to go against gay marriages.

Society has gotten better in tolerating homosexuals, but tolerance is not acceptance. Very few (considering the population) people actually ACCEPT homosexuals. I meet a lot of people and just say it's ok that I'm gay because I'm a cool guy. Well I say FUCK YOU. I don't need your permission to be here. If you don't want to associate with me, then don't. Let's not play pretend.

Gay people being "accepted" is more of an illusion. Look at how the media portrays the gay scene. It's just one new thing to market. People are OKing homosexuals because they have this great marketable image, or they're a must-have accessory for every girl, or they show that guys are sensitive. This is not acceptance, it's like payment for existing.

This is why there is a big opposition on gay marriages. I'm not sure the world is ready for something like this. I don't think we'll ever fully be. I guess the question to be asked is: When is the right time?

[Haze]

But I like my dog :D

- ë

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by 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?

Oh yeah that too. Marriage is really not much more than a legal contract.

[galaxie]

Originally Posted by acidic_liquid

I think it's sad that some people are just thumping their bibles too hard that they just can't let gay people legally marry. And I also think it's sad that the word marriage carries so much weight.

Personally, I don't care what they call it if it becomes legalized. Gay unions, gay partnerships, maybe even keep the word marriage, it's not that big a deal. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

BUT, is the name the real issue here? If gay people agree to not be sacrilegious and shatter the age-old meaning of the word marriage, will everyone else let them? Is it just the word that's hindering this bill to be passed?

Hmm I don't think so. I think it's more of an issue of people fearing change. The fact that these people link it with things like polygamy and bestiality is amazingly stupid. What does that have to do with it? People will say anything to go against gay marriages.

Society has gotten better in tolerating homosexuals, but tolerance is not acceptance. Very few (considering the population) people actually ACCEPT homosexuals. I meet a lot of people and just say it's ok that I'm gay because I'm a cool guy. Well I say FUCK YOU. I don't need your permission to be here. If you don't want to associate with me, then don't. Let's not play pretend.

Gay people being "accepted" is more of an illusion. Look at how the media portrays the gay scene. It's just one new thing to market. People are OKing homosexuals because they have this great marketable image, or they're a must-have accessory for every girl, or they show that guys are sensitive. This is not acceptance, it's like payment for existing.

This is why there is a big opposition on gay marriages. I'm not sure the world is ready for something like this. I don't think we'll ever fully be. I guess the question to be asked is: When is the right time?

I couldn't agree more.
The whole "word" and "definition of marriage" argument is just a scapegoat to the real issue of people in the straight community not wanting to accept gays. PERIOD. Granted, I'm sure that there are the few super-religious bible bangers that actually DO have a problem with the "sanctity of marriage" being ruined, then again, if they're that religious then it's safe to assume that they also object the whole idea of being gay.

Whether or not the straight community likes it, THERE ARE GAY PEOPLE - there always have been and always will be. Check out history, look back at the Medieval times - kings and queens (and other royalty) back then held concubines of the same sex!

It's about time that the rest of the population crawled out from behind the denial rock and got to accepting gays and gay couples the same way straight people and straight couples are accepted. Seriously.

The bottom line is - WHO CARES what other people do with their lives? How does it affect YOU? It's doesn't! If Bob and Jim want to get married, how is that going to affect Jane and Dave's relationship or their lives? IT WON'T - well, except they may get to go to a really cool wedding if they're not total fucking wankers.

Gnosis has a HUGE point - there are faaaaaaaaaar more pressing issues the government should be spending their time and money on!

[Rhianna]

Originally Posted by 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!)

You took the words out of my mouth. Every time I hear people going off about this I become sad that they aren't a little more worried about oh I don't know..........important things that will actually effect them.

I've become very sick of this topic. It's legal here. Get over it and shut-up.

[Gusto]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

Oh yeah that too. Marriage is really not much more than a legal contract.

For some people it's a lot more than that. We don't get to define what things like this mean for other people. That said, I'm all for gay marriage. The impact on my life is nil. Let's not deny basic freedoms to people based on their sexual orientation. Some excellent points in this thread already, I won't bother to try and rehash.

[lou_belle]

Originally Posted by galaxie

I couldn't agree more.
The whole "word" and "definition of marriage" argument is just a scapegoat to the real issue of people in the straight community not wanting to accept gays. PERIOD. Granted, I'm sure that there are the few super-religious bible bangers that actually DO have a problem with the "sanctity of marriage" being ruined, then again, if they're that religious then it's safe to assume that they also object the whole idea of being gay.

I think that the gay population should see that the word "marriage" is being used as the scapegoat to stop them from being able to be unified legally as a couple, and they should make a new word and go from there. AKA......skip the BS, and get to the real problem without offending the hypocrites;P

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by gusto

For some people it's a lot more than that. We don't get to define what things like this mean for other people. That said, I'm all for gay marriage. The impact on my life is nil. Let's not deny basic freedoms to people based on their sexual orientation. Some excellent points in this thread already, I won't bother to try and rehash.

Yes but in the eyes of the government, municipal, provincial, federal, that's all it is. I'm not talking in terms of what someone's personal belief is. What it is, bare bones, is a legal contract.

[Gusto]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

Yes but in the eyes of the government, municipal, provincial, federal, that's all it is. I'm not talking in terms of what someone's personal belief is. What it is, bare bones, is a legal contract.

i figured thats what you meant, but i wanted in on the thread ok

[lou_belle]

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.

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!@#$

There won't be any competition if they are exactly equal. They will be in the race together. I'm all for the gay people to make their own word and make it more sacred than the previous word marriage.

Gay marriage is still marriage. You think if they used that term, gay people would be saying "YAY! We are gay married!" LOL

[galaxie]

^ Why should THEY have to be the ones worried about not offending anyone? They have no control over their sexual orientation! No one should be offended over any of this - politicians are using the whole gay marriage debate to get votes for their side, that's IT!

@#$%

[lou_belle]

You have to sacrifice a little, to get a lot.

[lou_belle]

LOVe-tied*

[galaxie]

^ Fucking stupid.

Marriage is MARRIAGE.
I guess they wouldn't be allowed to call their wedding a wedding, either? And then they couldn't have engagement rings or wedding rings, etc..

[djmarkpaul]

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

NO DOUBT!

Thing is before the inquisition, the crusades, or the bible society at large became a predominant faith, you had marrage.

Marrage become a sacred bond between a man and a woman. The love they have for each other is sacred. Why? Because when they make love they have the ability to create life. I don't care how much Adam and Steve bum each other, if they're a monogamous couple, or how much any dike is in love with her bull-dike, that love, however powerful it may feel towards each other, will never result in creating a life. Therefore it's not a sacred bond, that is it plain and simple. That's not to say they can't love each other greatly, or deserve custody, visitation rights, or the plethora of other rights you get with the union of marrage. Everyone deserves that. Just call it a different fucking name. To call it marrage, is to allow the homosexual movement to trample on faiths that were long established before the popularity of this movement that recognize marrage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. How is THIS fair? It's completely hypocritical, and if it happens, there better be a god-damn straight parade.

[miss.myra]

Hey, if I don't ever intend on getting married or making babies, where's my discrimination? I've made my choice.

[automatic]

the point i think lou_belle and other's are missing is that "marriage" isn't just a word, it's a legal term. if you expand the LEGAL definition of marriage to include same sex unions, then all of the thousands of laws in the criminal and civil arena that apply to marriage instantly apply to gay unions. if you come up with a seperate term to define a gay union, even if you say off the bat that it is going to be granted all of the same legal rights as marriage, you still have to go and re-write THOUSANDS of separate laws that pertain to marriage. also as opposed to the one vote that we are going to have in parliament now, it's possible that each of those laws, or at least groups of them would have to have their own bills and votes in parliament, and the issue could be dragged out for decades if that were to happen. it's just simpler and cheaper to do it this way.

[bigorangedan]

the church and religion has no place in law and vice versa. The church and society needs to learn to get its damn nose out of everyones bedrooms and start dealing with the real issues that are bringing our society down. Lets not worry about children without homes and food....lets bicker about where people put their privates.

If the religious right put half as much effort into really giving a damn about society as they do into figuring our who everyone wants to do the dirty with we could see a lot of real wrongs righted real fast.

[automatic]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

NO DOUBT!

Thing is before the inquisition, the crusades, or the bible society at large became a predominant faith, you had marrage.

Marrage become a sacred bond between a man and a woman. The love they have for each other is sacred. Why? Because when they make love they have the ability to create life. I don't care how much Adam and Steve bum each other, if they're a monogamous couple, or how much any dike is in love with her bull-dike, that love, however powerful it may feel towards each other, will never result in creating a life. Therefore it's not a sacred bond, that is it plain and simple. That's not to say they can't love each other greatly, or deserve custody, visitation rights, or the plethora of other rights you get with the union of marrage. Everyone deserves that. Just call it a different fucking name. To call it marrage, is to allow the homosexual movement to trample on faiths that were long established before the popularity of this movement that recognize marrage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. How is THIS fair? It's completely hypocritical, and if it happens, there better be a god-damn straight parade.

this argument has been debunked so many times it's not even funny.

to put it so simply that everyone can understand it, if you argue that marriage is sacred because it's capable of "creating life" then why should infertile couples be allowed to marry? why should senior citizens be allowed to marry. they certainly can't create life. should we dissolve marriages if a couple hasn't popped out a tadpole in a certain amount of time? your argument is bullshit.

secondly, if you go back to ancient times, marriage wasn't some "sacred bond" used to procreate, marriage was a holding society together by letting everyone know who was taken and who wasn't, that's about it. and in many ancienct cultures gay people WERE allowed to marry, officially and unofficially.

also, there is such a thing as a test tube baby. if a straight married couple can legitimately have a baby with a sperm or egg donor that is genetically only half theirs and no one bats an eye, why shouldn't a lesbian or gay couple be able to do the same, and in that case they are creating life on the same terms.

[automatic]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

there better be a god-damn straight parade.

there is a goddamned straight parade, it's called "every parade except the pride one" or if you really want to get technical and define parade as "a street carnival with entertainment" and "straight pride" as "a celebration of heterosexuality" then the "straight pride parade" is every saturday night on granvilele street. be there.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by automatic

the point i think lou_belle and other's are missing is that "marriage" isn't just a word, it's a legal term. if you expand the LEGAL definition of marriage to include same sex unions, then all of the thousands of laws in the criminal and civil arena that apply to marriage instantly apply to gay unions. if you come up with a seperate term to define a gay union, even if you say off the bat that it is going to be granted all of the same legal rights as marriage, you still have to go and re-write THOUSANDS of separate laws that pertain to marriage. also as opposed to the one vote that we are going to have in parliament now, it's possible that each of those laws, or at least groups of them would have to have their own bills and votes in parliament, and the issue could be dragged out for decades if that were to happen. it's just simpler and cheaper to do it this way.

You have no understanding of law, that is just not how it works. All you would need is a supremacy clause ruling that whatever word used to describe the union of a gay couple would be granted the same rights as a married couple. Now go pretend you know what you're talking about in some other thread.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by Rhianna

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

You have made the fuhrer churn in his grave. Oh the peril!

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by automatic

there is a goddamned straight parade, it's called "every parade except the pride one" or if you really want to get technical and define parade as "a street carnival with entertainment" and "straight pride" as "a celebration of heterosexuality" then the "straight pride parade" is every saturday night on granvilele street. be there.

With that logic, the gay pride parade is every saturday night on davie street. And saying every other parade is a straight parade is farcical, you can't possibly believe that. Have you polled everyone performing in the parades to make sure they are hetero or pro-hetero for that matter?

And as for the infertile couples and senior citizens comment goes, you are just being ultra PC, and I think it's pretty obvious. Let me "debunk" it for you. This sort of attitude helps negate any true debating on these matters because it's filled with fallacy and double speak. For instance, It's OK for gay union to redifine marrage, but it's totally WRONG for the word to retain it's same definition. It forces heteros to be clumped in the same groups and homos, and that is a fallacy. It's also absolutely hypocritical, and if I have to explain why there is already no hope for you to understand.

The bond is still sacred because it's between a man and a woman, and only a man and woman have the capacity to create life as nature intended, under the correct circumstance. These circumstances are the unfortunate case of disablity, the love is still in the same light.

[galaxie]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

NO DOUBT!

Thing is before the inquisition, the crusades, or the bible society at large became a predominant faith, you had marrage.

Marrage become a sacred bond between a man and a woman. The love they have for each other is sacred. Why? Because when they make love they have the ability to create life. I don't care how much Adam and Steve bum each other, if they're a monogamous couple, or how much any dike is in love with her bull-dike, that love, however powerful it may feel towards each other, will never result in creating a life. Therefore it's not a sacred bond, that is it plain and simple. That's not to say they can't love each other greatly, or deserve custody, visitation rights, or the plethora of other rights you get with the union of marrage. Everyone deserves that. Just call it a different fucking name. To call it marrage, is to allow the homosexual movement to trample on faiths that were long established before the popularity of this movement that recognize marrage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. How is THIS fair? It's completely hypocritical, and if it happens, there better be a god-damn straight parade.

Hey smarty pants, if marriage is so sacred to you, you might want to learn how to spell it! gah!

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by galaxie

Hey fucktard, if marriage is so sacred to you, you might want to learn how to spell it! gah!

Your classic spelling bee rebutal, proving once again you have nothing worthy to say. I didn't really care about the spelling it's the point I'm trying to make, the one that went completely over that vapid void you call your noggin. If you're so interested in spelling and words, go look up the word "fallacy" in google. Your logic is riddled with it.