Gay marriages

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by wum

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

okay, so it's a question for our society. that's cool; we do live in a supposed democracy.

according to a census done in 2001 in canada, 60-65 percent of canadians aged 18-29 were in favour of same-sex marriage. (Myers, 2004)

i would bet that number has been raised by 2005.

these so-called minority lobby groups are the ones opposing same-sex marraige.

[automatic]

Originally Posted by lou_belle

The facts are as follows:

Homosexuals are viewed as equals.

not quite yet under the law.

Originally Posted by lou_belle

Homosexuals are different than heterosexual people.

can't argue with you there

Originally Posted by lou_belle

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

tell that to a queere who has been been denied any inheritance from a long-term partner without a will, or who has been shut out from a long term partner's death bed by a vindictive family, or who has had to fight in court for spousal health benefits that would be automatic ti a married couple.

Originally Posted by lou_belle

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

no, they're asking to have their long term relationships recognized under the law the ame as hetero long term relationships, the judgement and dislike comes from the other side, they didn't ask for it and frankly most of them don't care what you think, they're not doing this to piss you off, they're doing it for themselves.

Originally Posted by lou_belle

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.

as i've said before it would be a massive undertaking to introduce a parallel yet equal form of marriage as opposed to simply redefining how our law defines marriage. secondly, you simply don't water down human rights decisions to avoid upsetting a stratum of society. this essentially IS a decision about human rights.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

okay, so it's a question for our society. that's cool; we do live in a supposed democracy.

according to a census done in 2001 in canada, 60-65 percent of canadians aged 18-29 were in favour of same-sex marriage. (Myers, 2004)

i would bet that number has been raised by 2005.

these so-called minority lobby groups are the ones opposing same-sex marraige.

is that the case...

[automatic]

Originally Posted by wum

is that the case...

yes, the simple fact, is that most canadians, by a slim majority support same sex marriage, and if you look at the poll, since the younger a person is, the more likely they are to support it, it seems likely that support will continue to rise, not fall, as it seems to me at least, more likely a generational support (from the 60's generation on) than an opinion that will change as people grow older.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marz.htm

[lou_belle]

Auto....you bitch and bitch, and yet you offer nothing new. Your solution is to argue this out until the next generation takes over. You suck big time.

[Ragga_Wh0re]

now now boys! just hug and make ass fuck to eachother.

[mugsy]

this is actually an argument\debate?
same sex marriage doesnt affect anyone but the people getting married, within the relationship. it wont affect the hetero laws of marriage, its just adding in more words here and there.
for some reason i am remnded of last year, when this lady in my class said that my heterosexual relationship offended her, and could i please not talk about my boyfriend with my friends. i told her that her homosexual relationship did not offend me and she could talk about her girlfriend anytime she wanted to.

its just sad that we even have discussions or debates about this, and that the issue hasnt already been completley solved.
marriage is about love, commitment, compassion, ect. all those things come in many differnt forms, why not embrace them all?
OBVIOUSLY statistics show an increase in support of gay marriage, and acceptance has deffinately increased, or at least i think it has. as im not gay, i really wouldnt know first hand. i go by what i see outwards.
anyways, love it love. everyone has the right to cherish it with marriage.

[galaxie]

Originally Posted by lou_belle

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

I'm not trying to be liberal.
I am being ME. MY opinion is that the definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex unions.

I don't give a fuck about pleasing ignorant rednecks who are using the definition of the word marriage and the bible as a scapegoat for the real issue - they don't want to see gay people married, hell, they don't even want people to be gay. They think it's wrong, and I think they're STUPID.

Originally Posted by lou_belle

Auto....you bitch and bitch, and yet you offer nothing new. Your solution is to argue this out until the next generation takes over. You suck big time.

Please tell me you are joking?
He is NOT just bitching, he and Sidekick are stating their opinions, as well as facts based on statistics taken from the 2001 Census.

You are just re-stating your SAME opinions over and over, and calling them "facts". Like Sidekick said, your so-called "facts" are just opinions!

PS: G-Unit is a freaking rap group. Get with the times, man!

[broken_angel69]

love is love. people should have the right to be with whoever they want and be able to be married the same as any other couple in love.

[acidic_liquid]

Originally Posted by galaxie

I don't give a fuck about pleasing ignorant rednecks who are using the definition of the word marriage and the bible as a scapegoat for the real issue - they don't want to see gay people married, hell, they don't even want people to be gay. They think it's wrong, and I think they're STUPID.

Amen to that! If we were to live based on how bible thumpers see the world.. wow, I don't even want to imagine that.

[sidekick]

^just look at certain areas of the states.

[wum]

Jesusland?

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by 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? .

Well why not? Yes I did say it in jest, but what would be the problem? Everyone has the right to be proud of who they are so long as they don't take away other groups rights to do the same/or the ability for that group to remain authentic and distinct. There should be a White History Month, that's a great idea! Why not a Black, Asain, Native and East Indian History Month too while you're at it, this is Canada (any other ethnic groups not mentioned, boo hoo, you can have your month too, but this is the main Canadian demography that I have experienced so yeah, see I can be PC too)! The point is to remain autonomous and authentic, while in solidarity.

Originally Posted by acidic_liquid

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?

Marriage has long been defined the union of Man and Woman. For those that hold this belief dear, it matters because it's disrespectful as it catagorizes the emotional bonds between man and woman as being the same as though it were between a man and man or woman and woman. All these types of love our different, as I'm sure you can attest. In tramples on faiths as in many religions the homosexual act is immoral, and to mix it's defintion with something as sacred as marriage is absurd. It HAS to be a religious issue BECAUSE IT WAS A RELIGIOUS ISSUE FIRST! Yes I agree, religions shouldn't force the choices of how we are to express ourselves, but this is exactly what the homosexual movement is doing to the heterosexuals out there that feel passionate about their bond to the opposite sex. I am one of them. I have no problem with you being gay, go do that and enjoy yourself, but you have no right to take away our expression of this vow. I'm all for you to have the same legal rights, but with this you push your morals on us, and to think you claim to have a problem with the church as you push your dogmas on this society much as they do.

Why can't I live on the west end, listen to deep house, watch Will and Grace, and spongebob, and talk in a lisp without being view as gay huh? You guys took purple too!

Originally Posted by acidic_liquid

If gay marriages were to be legalized, it's not as if gay people would take away from the heterosexual enjoyment of marriage.

Actually it does that to many people, you may consider them old fashioned, but still, they have a right to feel that way as you do to feel gay.

Originally Posted by acidic_liquid

This is like the kid who has everything not wanting to share with the kid who has nothing.

Bullshit, this is like the kid that went through highschool being a dork, became a cop, and had a huge ego trip thereafter.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by galaxie

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?

Okay it was kinda funny to point out, granted.

Originally Posted by galaxie

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.

You claim ME to be DULL!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

X 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999

Yes it has been STATED to be hypocritical but NOT PROVED! I made a fantastic rebutal on the point and Jay auto proceeded with the fallacy of circular arguing by reiterating his point, while ignoring *mine.

Originally Posted by galaxie

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.

Automatic proved shit. He tried a weak arguement of saying what about impotence and seniors. I say that was an *issue-of-disability, he has yet to comment on that so as far as any reasonable critic would follow I have won the debate. Therefore you are contradicting yourself and quite the hypocrite to not even comment on this issue yourself but trying to get auto, who although may be better educated and better engaged in debate than you, to do it for you, automatically. His flaw is your flaw, how perfectly ironic.

[wum]

Maybe this whole discussion can be framed a whole different way. I for one consider it an issue of Freedom of Association. In the same way that arguments of 'racism' can easily be debunked when people try to get their foot in the door of a prosperous society, objecting to white people having their own living space, it seems to me that this is a case of homos wanting a piece of something that's not theirs'? If someone doesn't want to associate with you, what else can be said?

Although I suppose the question is, who actually "owns" this institution of marriage... which is another can o' worms.

[Rytalin]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

Marriage has long been defined the union of Man and Woman. For those that hold this belief dear, it matters because it's disrespectful as it catagorizes the emotional bonds between man and woman as being the same as though it were between a man and man or woman and woman.

You say that as though a gay couple's bond can never be as good as a straight couple's bond.

Granted, gay couples don't create life like straight couples do, but as I said before, don't you think the planet could do for a slowdown on the population growth anyways?


All these types of love our different, as I'm sure you can attest. In tramples on faiths as in many religions the homosexual act is immoral, and to
mix it's defintion with something as sacred as marriage is absurd.

Religions are trampling all over the gay community, holding them back from accessing various legal and financial benefits of being legally married.

And if marriage is so sacred, then why is there divorce?


It HAS to be a religious issue BECAUSE IT WAS A RELIGIOUS ISSUE FIRST!


It was only a religious issue first because some dude wrote down his opinion on homosexuality back in the day, and his writing was later seen fit to be added to a holy book. Just cos the book says it, doesn't mean make it direct from god. You know this.



Yes I agree, religions shouldn't force the choices of how we are to express ourselves, but this is exactly what the homosexual movement is doing to the heterosexuals out there that feel passionate about their bond to the opposite sex. I am one of them. I have no problem with you being gay, go do that and enjoy yourself, but you have no right to take away our expression of this vow.


I go in circle.

'Til death do you part'
That's part of the vow right?
the sacred holy vow of marriage?

I think, with the advent of divorce, this vow became not so sacred and holy. You no longer are bonding with this person for the rest of your life. You can always cop out if the going gets tough, with the added bonus of getting half their assets.

How's that for sacred and holy?



I guess what I'm trying to say is if gay marriages are not allowed, then neither should divorce.

[Goat]

Sit back and imagine for a second, a world where everyone shut the fuck up and minded their own business.

[vancityview]

donkey punches ...much more interesting :D

[lou_belle]

I believe that people through time should create new words for things that have changed, instead of just pretending that it was always like that. A new word would be a memorable mark in history, presenting to future generations the leap our country made in the equality of homosexuals. To call it "gay" marriage, when really, it hasn't been used in that sense for thousands or years or something, is to me disacknowledging the "cold shoulder" the the gay population recieved for the last thousand or so years. If they are to really be equal, they should create more communties based on being gay to acknowledge their abilty to sustain themselves as common citizens. The gay "love" scene in our parks, doesn't convey the respect that these people should demand. To work on their image by claiming accountibilty for the definition of their new word would say a lot more for them, than claiming an already sacred word used by many before them.

[lou_belle]

Originally Posted by galaxie

PS: G-Unit is a freaking rap group. Get with the times, man!

PaHAhahHAAa;P

[Ragga_Wh0re]

^okay so like lets make a new word for every word i just fucking typed here because at some point in time in history something magical happened and things changed.

fuck while we`re at it,why dont we just re-write and re-word every god damned word in every fucking language!
And that will go to show how many times heteros,homos,rapists,drug addicts,molestors,victims,lifers,childre n,aunts.uncles,dogs,donkey fuckers...have gotten the cold shoulder.
cuz like all these words r super scared and stuff so we might as well just remake all words because at some point in time all these words we say on a day to day basis changed history....right?

[Ragga_Wh0re]

...and in case you missed my point

let queers be queers for fuck sakes and stfu you god fearing god fearers!

i thank you.

[lou_belle]

^^you ARE fuuuuuuuuck.....

[mugsy]

hang on.
how is it that people of two different religious beliefes can be married, can take vows, in fact even have two seperate weddings, each with its own sacred ceremony, but gays cant get married at all?
its offensive that the christain religion will allow murders and rapiest into their heaven if the commiters of the crime apologize, and accept christ. this high and mighty god can forgive someone for brutally murdering a child, yet wouldnt allow love to be sanctified?
sounds fucked up to me.

[galaxie]

Originally Posted by mugsy

hang on.
how is it that people of two different religious beliefes can be married, can take vows, in fact even have two seperate weddings, each with its own sacred ceremony, but gays cant get married at all?
its offensive that the christain religion will allow murders and rapiest into their heaven if the commiters of the crime apologize, and accept christ. this high and mighty god can forgive someone for brutally murdering a child, yet wouldnt allow love to be sanctified?
sounds fucked up to me.

Which is why the bible is CLEARLY fiction.
But that is another discussion all on it's own.

Mark, instead of picking each post apart bit by bit and commenting on our debating style, how about you actually DEBATE? If you are such a skilled debater, you should know that it's about the TOPIC and not how it's discussed. And FYI, this ENTIRE discussion/argument/debate is always just going to go around in circles until someone gives in - and I guarantee it won't be those in favour of same-sex marriages. As it has already been stated, over time society as a whole has become more and more accepting of the right to vote, the right to marry inter-racially and inter-religiously, the right to be gay, etc.. It's only a matter of time before the general consensus of Canadians in favour of same-sex marriages rises from 65% upward. Granted, there will always be the ignorant fools who think it's wrong (probably because they are closet cases themselves...ever seen American Beauty? Prime example, while supposedly fictional, this kind of thing happens all the time - usually minus the killing, though.), but eventually it will be regarded on the same level as inter-racial dating and marriage. But you wouldn't understand because you're probably against that, too.