Gay marriages

[automatic]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

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?

go see about buying yourself a sense of humour, the lizard people can probably transpalnt one by now, i was joking.

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

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.

you think it's "obvious", i think it's a total fallacy.

i have the logic on my side to back it up, you apparently don't because i haven't seen a LOGICAL argument from you.

my argument, again:

if you say marriage is sacred between a man and a woman because that union can produce children, and union between to gay people is not sacred because it can't form children, then therefore the defining point of the sancitity of marriage is the ability to have children, therefore senior and infertile couples amrriages = not sacred

q.e.d

that's logic, and it shows why your reasoning is absurd.

and as for "forcing hetero's to be clumped in the same groups as homo's" you're absolutley right, it DOES force hetero's and homo's to be clumped in the same group, that group being "citizens of Canada, equal under the law". just as giving the vote to chinese (1947), natives (1960), and women (canada-wide in 1940) clumped them in the same group as white men.

[lou_belle]

Originally Posted by 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!

@#$%

"They"....are different then "they" before them. I'm sure you've gone to a new school before? You know, when you walk into a classroom and you are "new" and "different". You don't just jump into the flow of things and all of a sudden you own the slide?:P You gain respect, and then you make the jump. If gay people want to unify legally, they should forget the whole idea of jumping straight in with the word marriage, and choose a much less trodden path. A new word, for a different union. It's much more than votes son, it's about who's first, and how the people who were first feel about the use of "their" word. The bible didn't come and go, there are people out there that truly believe that it's "not right".

Gay people I don't believe are disreguarded as equals, there definately has been a huge change in that opinion. This argument about gay "marriage" would only make way more sense if they started out by saying, we deserve the right to be legally tied as partners on paper. Then go from there and see how people feel about it then. If it were all about votes, then people should be voting on the real problem, not the sanctity of a word they call there own.

[galaxie]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

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.

haha please, spare me the patronizing attitude.
For once (lol) it was REALLY about the spelling. I was making a point: if marriage is SO sacred to you, how is it possible that you don't even have the respect to spell it correctly?

I fully see your point, but really, I wouldn't call it a point because it's dull and it has already been stated that it is completely hypocritical. I would have written a long-winded rebuttal but everyone before me pretty much summed up my feelings on your attitude.

[wum]

what's with the liberal use of "hypocritical"?

please look up the word

[galaxie]

Originally Posted by lou_belle

"They"....are different then "they" before them. I'm sure you've gone to a new school before? You know, when you walk into a classroom and you are "new" and "different". You don't just jump into the flow of things and all of a sudden you own the slide?:P You gain respect, and then you make the jump. If gay people want to unify legally, they should forget the whole idea of jumping straight in with the word marriage, and choose a much less trodden path. A new word, for a different union. It's much more than votes son, it's about who's first, and how the people who were first feel about the use of "their" word. The bible didn't come and go, there are people out there that truly believe that it's "not right".

Gay people I don't believe are disreguarded as equals, there definately has been a huge change in that opinion. This argument about gay "marriage" would only make way more sense if they started out by saying, we deserve the right to be legally tied as partners on paper. Then go from there and see how people feel about it then. If it were all about votes, then people should be voting on the real problem, not the sanctity of a word they call there own.

Whaaaaaaaaat?

Gays are human beings, just like the rest of us, and they do NOT have to gain our respect for being gay to be OK. Should they have to gain our respect to have jobs in the mainstream? Do they need to gain our trust, too? Holy shit, you people are referring to them as though they are a different creature entirely!

We are referring to the lives and happiness of other people - our friends, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, grandparents, co-workers, nieces, nephews, ET CETERA. Who are we, as straight people, to even think that we should have a say in how they live their lives? I don't tell straight people what to do, so why should I tell the gay people what to do? It is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS what anyone else chooses to do with their life, and therefore, gay people SHOULD be allowed to get married.

[wum]

Originally Posted by automatic

if you say marriage is sacred between a man and a woman because that union can produce children, and union between to gay people is not sacred because it can't form children, then therefore the defining point of the sancitity of marriage is the ability to have children, therefore senior and infertile couples amrriages = not sacred

q.e.d

that's logic, and it shows why your reasoning is absurd.

We're more than just the sum of our parts. Does someone have less a soul because he is of diminished intelligence? Are you less of a human being if your legs are amputated?

There are axioms in this world that cannot be perfectly defined but are immediately recognizable. They cannot be broken down by characteristics, re-shuffled, and made anew to justify a perversion as "normal".

Marriage since time immemorial has been "known", perhaps intrinsically, as a union between a man and woman reproductive abilities notwithstanding. That's just the way things are. :)

[galaxie]

Originally Posted by wum

what's with the liberal use of "hypocritical"?

please look up the word

He said some garbage about an union of a man and woman with the purpose of procreation. However, automatic proved that his argument contradicts itself, therefore making it a hypocritical argument. Just for good measure, my Roget's Thesaurus lists "contradictory" as a synonym of hypocritical.

:)

[wum]

^ hmm. But didn't Markus add a component like, "as nature intended"? I don't think nature intended artificial insemination, or surrogate mothers

[galaxie]

Originally Posted by wum

We're more than just the sum of our parts. Does someone have less a soul because he is of diminished intelligence? Are you less of a human being if your legs are amputated?

There are axioms in this world that cannot be perfectly defined but are immediately recognizable. They cannot be broken down by characteristics, re-shuffled, and made anew to justify a perversion as "normal".

Marriage since time immemorial has been "known", perhaps intrinsically, as a union between a man and woman reproductive abilities notwithstanding. That's just the way things are. :)

Like it has already be said, things change.
And whether some people like it or not, people ARE becoming more accepting on a general scale, and it is only a matter of time before gay marriages are legalized. May as well legalize them now and save all the bickering.

[galaxie]

Originally Posted by wum

^ hmm. But didn't Markus add a component like, "as nature intended"? I don't think nature intended artificial insemination, or surrogate mothers

He most certainly implied it.

And that's beside the point, too. Even if some people can be artificially inseminated, many cannot, and many women who get married are far past the time in which they are able to produce children.

[wum]

Originally Posted by galaxie

Like it has already be said, things change.
And whether some people like it or not, people ARE becoming more accepting on a general scale, and it is only a matter of time before gay marriages are legalized. May as well legalize them now and save all the bickering.

Changing for better or for worse?

[galaxie]

^ Change for the greater happiness of a significant amount of our citizens is most definitely change for the better.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by automatic

go see about buying yourself a sense of humour, the lizard people can probably transpalnt one by now, i was joking.

Ad hominem, chalk up another fallacy. Besides, it wasn't funny.

Originally Posted by automatic

you think it's "obvious", i think it's a total fallacy.

i have the logic on my side to back it up, you apparently don't because i haven't seen a LOGICAL argument from you.

my argument, again:

if you say marriage is sacred between a man and a woman because that union can produce children, and union between to gay people is not sacred because it can't form children, then therefore the defining point of the sancitity of marriage is the ability to have children, therefore senior and infertile couples amrriages = not sacred

q.e.d

that's logic, and it shows why your reasoning is absurd.

and as for "forcing hetero's to be clumped in the same groups as homo's" you're absolutley right, it DOES force hetero's and homo's to be clumped in the same group, that group being "citizens of Canada, equal under the law". just as giving the vote to chinese (1947), natives (1960), and women (canada-wide in 1940) clumped them in the same group as white men.

You're so PC it's sad. First your point is moot because you skipped my main point in my last post. Chinese aren't equal to natives aren't equal to women aren't equal to white men aren't equal to gays. All these groups are different archetypes, that means they aren't equal. I am all for EQUAL RIGHTS, to treat each other with EQUAL RESPECT, but that doesn't make us equal. With your logic, someone mentally retarded who can't scratch their own back is equal to a rocket scientist who may discover cold fusion. All the groups have their own strengths and weaknesses and aren't equal, and that is a great thing because it makes the world diverse and interesting. Everyone being a blank Canadian destroys the diversity of being Canadian, that's where your "logic" will lead to.

[wum]

equal doesn't mean sameness

[acidic_liquid]

First of all, you (djmarkpaul) weren't possibly serious about that straight parade comment were you? I don't know why people bring that up whenever there's a "gay" argument. Anyway, what's stopping people from having an actual heterosexual parade? Probably because it would be too much like having a White History Month?

Secondly, why does it matter what the word marriage meant and what it holds? You say it yourself, it's just a word. Sure it's "precious" to those people that insist that it be nothing else but a union between a man and a woman. How does it trample on faiths? I think that's mostly personal. Why does it have to be a religious issue? Religious groups still don't accept homosexuals (see Spongebob being gay thread), and probably never will. So why does religion even have to be a factor in this issue?

If gay marriages were to be legalized, it's not as if gay people would take away from the heterosexual enjoyment of marriage. This is like the kid who has everything not wanting to share with the kid who has nothing.

[automatic]

sigh....believing in equality doesn't make me PC, in fact i believe in free speech too much to ever be PC. i believe that human lives should be valued equal, but that doesn't make me think that all people are equal. on the contrary to be honest i happen to think i'm more intelligent than most of the people i meet, including most the people on this board, including you, markpaul. that's right, i'm smug.

if you stop arguing semantics for a second it becomes pretty clear that the "equal" i've been talking about is a LEGAL concept. i've stressed this a few times haven't i? i think that cince the courts have time and time again granted gay unions the legal rights of marriages through application of the charter of rights and freedoms, to hte point where for all intents and purposes gay marriage is legal, that it's time for parliament to take the next step and enshrine those judgements in law.

it's just that simple for me, and personally i don't think it'll harm our society, other than pissing off some people, but then again there were lots of people pissed off about giving the vote to blacks in the states, it didn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. obviously it's a completely different issue, the only similarity is that both revolved around a definition of rights for a minority group, but it's surprising how virtually every argument i've seen against gay marriage is almost exactly similar to the arguments advanced to the anti-segregationalists in the 60's

[wum]

Originally Posted by automatic

it's just that simple for me, and personally i don't think it'll harm our society, other than pissing off some people

A question that our society, not minority lobby groups, are capable of answering.

[Chewy]

i ve said it before and ill say it again....

who the fuck cares what people do... as long as what they do dont hurt nobody then its all good

[Rytalin]

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK ABOUT POPULATION CONTROL!!!!!!!!


if gays and lesbians are allowed to legally marry, ie sign a legal document stating til death do us part, and grant the legal benefits of hetero married couples, then we will have a WHOLE BUNCH of happily married couples who WON'T HAVE KIDS!!! well, none that aren't planned for at least. It's really a no brainer when you think about it.


But whatever... when the world consists of all humans and no food, the fundamentalists and conservatives against gay marriage will be the first ones on my dinner plate.

So if your against gay marriage.... please do the rest of us a favor and get reeeeeal fat ok?

[Rytalin]

PS people only hate the idea of gay marriage cos it makes them think about a pp in their poop shoot

[lou_belle]

The facts are as follows:

Homosexuals are viewed as equals.

Homosexuals are different than heterosexual people.

The definition of marriage doesn't need to be changed.

In changing the definition, gay people are asking to be judged, and disliked by the groups of people that don't agree.

If homosexual couples had their own word describing a "Gay-Unit, they would be able to be free from this discrimination.

Marriage- A legal union of a man and woman to be husband and wife.

G-Unit- A legal union of a man and a man, or woman and woman to be husband and hubby, or wife and wifey;P

PS. Galaxie, although my personal feelings are that gay people deserve the right to get married, I acknowledge the views of many other people and then I make my point based on the attempt to please everyone. If you're trying to be liberal, you might want to think about both groups. While pleasing one side, you are disreguarding the views of the other. Have you ever heard...you have to sacrifice a little to get a lot? In this situation I know it would go a long way.

[wum]

G-G-G-G-G unit!!

[automatic]

Originally Posted by wum

A question that our society, not minority lobby groups, are capable of answering.

so who speaks for our "society"?

every poll i've seen over the last few years has suggested that the majority of canadians are in favour of this change, albeit not by a huge margin, but still, they're pretty muc in favour.

we elected a government that ran on a platform of making this change and therefore gave them a mandate to do it.

that to me suggests that society has answered the question, and with a yes.

the only argument that i can think of against this is that a piece of legislation like this might be better left to the clearer mandate of a majority government, rather than a minority government, but regardless, this is a case of a political party keeping an election promise....what more do you want?

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by lou_belle

The facts are as follows:

Homosexuals are viewed as equals.

Homosexuals are different than heterosexual people.

The definition of marriage doesn't need to be changed.

In changing the definition, gay people are asking to be judged, and disliked by the groups of people that don't agree.

If homosexual couples had their own word describing a "Gay-Unit, they would be able to be free from this discrimination.

Marriage- A legal union of a man and woman to be husband and wife.

G-Unit- A legal union of a man and a man, or woman and woman to be husband and hubby, or wife and wifey;P

most of your 'facts' are really just your opinions.

[automatic]

Originally Posted by Rytalin

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK ABOUT POPULATION CONTROL!!!!!!!!


if gays and lesbians are allowed to legally marry, ie sign a legal document stating til death do us part, and grant the legal benefits of hetero married couples, then we will have a WHOLE BUNCH of happily married couples who WON'T HAVE KIDS!!! well, none that aren't planned for at least. It's really a no brainer when you think about it.


But whatever... when the world consists of all humans and no food, the fundamentalists and conservatives against gay marriage will be the first ones on my dinner plate.

So if your against gay marriage.... please do the rest of us a favor and get reeeeeal fat ok?

i'm willing to bet $100 usd that in the states there's a correlation between obesity and opposition to gay marriage!