Same sex marriage considered legal?
 

On the news this morning was the history making story of two Ontario men whose same sex marriage has been legally recognized.

The premier of Alberta (normally a pretty level headed guy) has taken quite the strong stand against it.

I think that if two people are in love and are living together as a couple they should be allowed to marry regardless of their sex. Times have changed, families are not your stereotypical Mom, Dad and two kids ideal anymore.

Here is the full story from the newspaper....I'd like to hear what you think - should this union be recognized just as a "regular" one would? I think so.


Klein will block same-sex unions
Gays celebrate Ontario court ruling

Tom Olsen and Kerry Williamson
Calgary Herald

Wednesday, June 11, 2003

Premier Ralph Klein has come out with his strongest comments yet against same-sex marriages.

Just hours after two Ontario men became Canada's first wedded gay couple, Klein reaffirmed Alberta will invoke the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' notwithstanding clause to prevent gay marriages.

The Tories will also urge Ottawa to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal decision that legalizes same-sex unions, and will seek a stay of the ruling so no more same-sex marriages can occur before the case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The federal government is reviewing the Ontario decision and has not decided whether it will appeal.

"The law in Alberta is clear," Klein told reporters at the Western Premiers Conference in Kelowna, B.C. "It's as clear as crystal. And that is, if there is any move to sanctify and legalize same-sex marriages, we will use the notwithstanding clause -- period."

The clause allows Ottawa and the provinces to declare a law does not apply to them.

"There might be some people who don't like it, but the simple fact is, if they try to sanctify gay marriage, we will use the notwithstanding clause," said Klein.

The premier said his comments reflect the position of his Tory caucus and of most Albertans. If there is a movement in caucus toward embracing gay marriage, the premier said he would reconsider.

"I haven't seen that movement take place at all," he added.

Klein's comments came as Toronto men Michael Leshner and Michael Stark exchanged vows in a civil ceremony Tuesday afternoon, just hours after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled same-sex marriages are legal, deeming Canadian law on traditional marriage unconstitutional.

The court demanded Ottawa change the definition of marriage from "one man and one woman" to "two persons," ordering city clerks to immediately begin issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples.

The ruling was celebrated by gays and lesbians across Canada, including Calgary, where the decision was lauded as a major victory for human rights.

"This is a very big step in the right direction," said Bill Bickham, a Calgary man who says he has been married to his partner, Bruce Beal, for close to a decade. "A marriage is a marriage between two souls, not a man and a woman. And I think Alberta is ready for that."

The ruling means gay and lesbian couples can legally marry in Ontario, although their marriages will not be recognized in other provinces. It is the first time same-sex marriages have been legal in Canada.

Bickham says he would leap at the chance to be legally married if he could. He said that dream is now much closer.

"We had our commitment ceremony nine years ago, but we've never been recognized legally," said Bickham. "Both our employers recognize our marriage, all of our friends recognize it -- but the government doesn't.

"If we could get married legally, just like everyone else, we would have done it years ago. It's time. I think Alberta will follow suit, it might just take a little longer. This province isn't as redneck as people think. It really isn't."

Bickham said the biggest thing standing in the way of legal same-sex marriages in Alberta is the premier.

"As long as we have Ralph Klein, then we won't see it, but I think with any other premier, we would.

"I think more people will be happy about this decision than Premier Ralph Klein thinks. Klein has got to wake up, he's got to get himself out of his cave."

Calgary's Stephen Lock, regional representative for Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, urged the federal government to act on the Ontario decision and draft legislation that will apply to the entire country.

"If the federal government doesn't appeal this, and there is some indication that they aren't, it would come into effect across Canada, but as it stands, Ontario is the only province that recognizes same-sex marriages," said Lock. "Now, two people who are legally married in Ontario wouldn't have that marriage recognized in Alberta. That's really quite peculiar. The federal government needs to state categorically one way or the other."

Lock was not surprised by Klein's comments.

"Every time this comes up, he starts flipping around saying Alberta isn't going to be forced by the feds. But that remains to be seen," he said.

"Equality is about having equal rights. Whether me and my partner decide to get married is up to us, it's not up to the government to say you can't do that because we say so."

Last July, Klein said he supports gays' rights to pensions, inheritance and protection under the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Act, but his government would not allow homosexual marriage and would invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to prevent it.

"It's the only circumstance under which the notwithstanding clause would be used without a referendum," he said. "And it would be automatic."

i think its a good thing... why shouldnt gay/lesbian couples be able to get married? the only reasons i have ever heard were based completely on religious feelings... which in my opinion arnt valid reasons...

here in texas, they've passed legislation that makes it so that texas does NOT recognize gay marriages.

did you know that it is even illegal to have sex between two consentual adults of the same sex in texas?

somebody got busted doing that in their bedroom, and the case is now at the supreme court (sodomy laws).

this is life in the bible belt.

The_Dude is right...

thats one thing that really blows me away about texas... its so so closed minded... but gradually the rest of the world is opening up... Texas will have to follow suit eventually...

Personally I believe that sex really shouldn't be regarded in marriage. Taking vows in a certain way may introduce the religious aspect of it, but then it is up to that religious organization whether or not they will perform the ceromony, but the only thing the government does is give a little license that allows you to get tax breaks in certain cases and new taxes in others..

I see no reason why two people, who feel they are in love, should not be able to get married if they wish.

this is just silly.. and all of the anti-sodomy and anti-oral laws that permeate (spelling?) the south are ridiculous. The only reason they exist is so that if they break in on a gay couple performing sexual activities then they can bust them on another charge.

it is absolutely ridiculous, especially considering the large number of straight people that perform those very same acts.

Re: Same sex marriage considered legal?
 

It's about damn time that we recognize same sex marriage.

It is easy to hate and fear the unknown and faceless.

Once "they" have a face, it is harder to do.


(God Bless John and Mark.)

To quote Kids In The Hall in a gay skit:

- "Aren't we just fighting to be trapped in loveless marriages? I just believe that gays were meant to live in sin."

- "Yeah, it's hotter that way."

Obviously, this is to be taken in jest. I support gay marriage wholeheartedly. Love should be the base of marriage, not sex (the act or state of being). More power and a happy life to the new couple!

Not much better to your North. There are still small towns here that would probably tar and feather an openly gay couple.

A friend of mine died a year or so ago from AIDs. His brother never told me he was in the hospital because he didn't want to tell me he was gay.

I already knew.

I have just this to day:

W00T CANADA!! :D stick w/ it, guys.

I think you should be able to be married if you want to.

But I don't understand why its so important. Isn't a marriage a public declaration of love to friends, loved ones, and community? Can't this be accomplished without a "legal" ceremony? Are these folks ties to one another any stronger cause they are "recognized?"

I guess its an equal access issue and I am probably not being sensitive to those who are different then me. But I feel that if you really care for someone, you can celebrate with that person and those around you.

That said, I'm happy for those who really want this, even if I don't quite get why.

I am not going to bash the bible belt when California passed a Constitutional Initiative that specifically states that marriage is the union better a man and a woman. This was passed by popular vote, not legislative action.

My concern with this issue is not in the legal recognition of gay relationships. It is with the entire definition of marriage. From a legal and governmental definition, I think we need to use some other term than marriage. Marriage is a religiously charged term for a recognised joining of a couple. The majority of religions do not recognise marriages between individuals of the same sex.

I would rather see a clear definition of the legal binding of 2 individuals that does not carry the religious connotation. Then we can deal with all the legal ramifications, such as community property vs. common law states, rights to inheritance, rights to make medical decisions, rights to insurance coverages, Social Security rights, etc. With the religious connotations attached to marriage, those legal issues just get ignored in the self-righteous arguments.

I know that I am asking people to act in a logical fashion, which is illogical. See my signature statement.

I agree with Minx on this one. Times have changed. We are all trying to live in a world that does not discriminate against race so why should we discriminate against sexual preference. "To Each Your Own". I may not agree with the practice but just because I don't agree with it does not make it wrong.....

I see your point here in that the actual piece of paper that says you are married shouldn't be that important. What should be important is how you feel inside, not what the public is willing to accept. And of course there is no doubt at all that same sex couples have the same emotional ties as any other couples. But, having said that....I would think that anyone in this situation would feel very strongly that they have just as much right to have their relationship legalized and recognized. I know if I were to be in this situation I would certainly want to have the same rights as two other people in love.

I think the reason that it is important is that the piece of paper entitles you to different rights and frequently different benefits than 2 single people (gay or straight). This ends up being an economic issue when a company now has to provide medical benefits, for example, or 401k beneficiaries change (by law your spouse is your 401k beneficiary in the event of your death unless specific paperwork is filed.)

Of course, on the other hand, the piece of paper entitles you to pay more taxes (in the US) under some circumstances.

None of the economic factors outweigh the pure human factor that two people who love each other and are willing to make the legal and binding commitment should be able to do so, no matter their respective genders.

I am glad to know that I work for a company that treats gay partners the same as married people if they request it... even if though it is "unfair" because they do not have the same legal bindings that my wife and I do.

I wasn't thinking about economic reasons. You make a good point here.

It would be nice if our politicians took the time to run their respective countries instead of trying to limit peoples pursuits of happiness.

No one is being hurt by this marriage. Give them a frellin' break.

G_Whiz about your idea of creating a second word for just homosexual "marriages", it sounds good and all but I could see that term, whatever it maybe, come to be considered a second class term. Homosexuals weren’t good enough to be married so they got “Insert term here”. Before long it could be come just another derogatory term for homosexual couples in the eyes of the “bible toting public”. If homosexual couples want equal treatment by the masses and for them to have respectability, at least legally, they are going to have to be able to say that they are married. Anything else would seem like a downgraded knock off of the term marriage for straight or “regular” people. Of course before that is going to happen, society as a whole needs to change the way we view things regarding sexual preference. Needless to say I don’t see that happening, especially in the South, anytime time soon.

Agreed to all your points... except the last ones.

My wife and I lived together for a couple of years before we were married and she had no access to benefits. Yet, the two companies that we both worked for recognized Domestic Partners (same sex partners) yet did not recognized committed people who were living together but not married.

I believe that it rushed us to getting married. I'm happy to have married her, but our plan was to wed in Iceland. Since my benefits were going to lapse, she and I wanted to make sure that my healthcare was covered. Good thing too because I was hospitalized 3 times. But had we just been living together it would have been unfair that we had to get married and the domestic partners were covered.

*MEEEEPP!!!* Marriage has been recogniced in every culture, it has most likely been there before religions! It is NOT a religious thing. It is a social and cultural institution and religion has no monopoly on it. It also has no monopoly on other values the modern societies make so why the heck should it have it with this one. It isn't "just the matter of being in love". We are cultural and social animals, living in societies where it counts every day if you are married or not - it affects how people perceive you. I think people would stop believing gay and lesbian peopleare irresponsible sexmaniacs sleeping around and hanging in the bars to pick up new partners if it was recognised that they have families and live normal lives. And it's not just the economy of the family and health insurances and stuff, it's also their for the best for their kids. If the couple should divorce, the child whould have a legal right to a non-biological parent she/he has been living with and this parent to her/his child to meet them and seek joint custody.

So you think laws concerning sexual practices or preferences usually are fair and rational and work in effect?

Sodomy laws have been repealed—or are ignored—in most states, but not Georgia, where a man was sentenced not long ago to five years in prison for engaging in oral sex. With his wife. With her consent. In their home. His predicament has apparently been a source of considerable amusement to other inmates.

In the state of Washington there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night).

As recently as 1990, these states had laws against heterosexual fellatio, cunnilingus, anal sex and the use of dildos: Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Washington D.C.

In Mississippi, S & M is against the law. Specifically, "The depiction or description of flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or in undergarments or in a bizarre or revealing costume for the purpose of sexual gratification."

http://www.dribbleglass.com/subpages...ge/sexlaws.htm

Yeah, that's how it works atm in Finland and it haven't developed into being demeaning, atleast yet, but it has sort of second class ring to it: "registered". "I got an invitation to registering party!" Huh?? Pretty romantic, nooot. I think they have the same right to act stupidly about gigantic princess or prince weddings with all the traditions and marryment involved with it and not forgetting the romantic part stressing the eternal love, even if this day and age it has been in somewhat downward course in the society.

And the thing is: Heterosexuals can't get registered, they are always married. So cut the crap about religious shit. I am an agnostic and don't belong to any religion or church, but if I marry a man, I get married. If I marry a woman, I get registered. If this is not a clear sign of what is considered normal than what is.

suviko, if your talking to me then personally I can't cut the "religious shit". I was born and raised in the Bible belt of the United States. It’s something that I've lived with my whole childhood. I went to church every Sunday as a kid. One thing I've come to recognize about the Bible belt is that people around here take the Bible very seriously. So it doesn't matter if it’s on the books or not, people are still going to treat it(homosexual marriages) according to there faith and beliefs. That in turn is going to change how they want to pass laws. Also, when you live in a place where people bring God into almost everything you can't escape the fact that you have to deal with people’s beliefs when you address their point of view. Also, every marriage I've been to was done by a minister, never by a judge. Thus God was always used, and marriage was mentioned as the union of a man and woman in accord with the God word. So what I guess I’m saying is where you live marriage may have nothing to do with religion but around here it does.

Also, all cultures form a religion when the culture is being made. Can you name one country on Earth that doesn’t have any type of religion that is worshipped by the people in that country? Or can you name a country where the majority of the people do not follow any religion? Religion and culture go hand in hand.
But anyway back to the topic at hand....

Prophecy:

I was talking to everybody.

People used to beat up their kids, and husbands had the right to trteat their wives as they wanted, rape or hit. It's not that long from the days when homosexuality was treated as mental ilness. The attitudes can be changed it the legistlation and the law enforcement address the issue, it won't go over night tho.

I can't name a country without religion, but there has been atheistic sects and cults already from the ancient times (like in Greece) and not all religions worship the same fundamental codes by every practitioner or even have any truely supernatural beliefs.

In Finland or in Japan, folks are secularized so that religion has not much to do with political stuff and how laws are made. So it is up to people wanting to change things where you live or not. Personally, I have always found it funny that Jesus preached about accepting the sinners like prostitutes, lepers, beggars etc. and no doubt he would have been the friend of gay people too, and then the christians condemn them. I read from anthropology book that most likely the part in the Book which condemns homosexual practices refers to babylonian religious practices, priests fucking eachother in the altar to worship and ask for fertility from the gods.

glad to see that we're all agreeing on something

I'd like to really oversimplify this.....I believe that two people (be they the same sex or not) who are in love and who want to commit themselves to each other should be able to do so. They should enjoy the same rights as other married couples. I think it's cruel to say their union isn't "right" or "proper".
This whole "registering" instead of "marrying" to me seems demeaning in a way. They are still differentiating between the two.
Just my opinion.

Anyone who has been following my contributions on TFP will know what I think about this.
For those who haven't: Thank God another blow has been made against the state stupidly and unnecessarily interfering in people's lives.

What I find really interesting though is that a hundred years ago, in fact even fifty years ago, this thread would have been awash with "disgusting, shame on them" comments. Whereas now everyone - from lefties like me to TFP's fervant conservatives - is behind these guys and would think it odd if anyone said that they shouldn't get married. Even the christians amongst us seem to be okay with this now.

--------------
PS:
To all my unveiled driving friends: Where is everyone with their....

... "Tough Shit" ... "marriage is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT"...
... "The law is the law, and no one is above the law"
... "marriage is between a man and woman. that's just how it works" ....
... "Many people are very lucky to be in America.They should at least adapt to the culture rather than trying to change it."...
... "If the law states that two men should not marry then they ARE asking to break the law"...
... "Last I checked, "marriage" is not protected by any amendments to the constitution. It is not a right, it is a priviledge."...
... "this isn't rocket science... but then again, the lawyers are really running the show here aren't they?"...
... "Rule are rules, you don't follow them, you don't get married" ...
... "this world is full of rules, some of them don't seem "Fair", i say - GROW UP and GET OVER IT."...

*** Names have been left out to protect the identity of the innocent (you know who you are :p) ***

I guess I did not make my point clearly enough. I am NOT talking about a second word for homosexual "marriages". I am suggesting that we come up with a new term for ALL "marriages".

Religious groups can continue to have the rites of matrimony, i.e. marriage. But for legal and governmental purposes, there would be a new term for the binding of two individuals which provides the economic and legal guarantees that is currently only available to those heterosexual couples who go through a marriage.

Basically, I think we need a practical solution to a problem that keeps getting wrapped up in religious or moral opinions and not on the needs of the couples involved.

G_Whiz:

Yeah, been thinking the same thing.

Yikes...this is just wrong...in my opinion. Marriage/weddings take place for a MAN and a WOMAN. Two women shouldn't get married...neither should two guys. I still haven't figured out why a guy would only want a guy anyways. We're made to want a woman. If I ever gave up that need, I would openly ask to be shot. Same sex marriage requests should be denied, and sodomy charges pressed.

Dei:

Why? Can you explain what is wrong with that and how is it out from you somehow that some other people and their kids can be happy?

Wow, I wasn't expecting anyone to actually take up my challenge, but DEl37 seems willing to.

But wait a minute. I don't remember seeing him in the driving licence thread....

... So what's he doing? ....

Oh my God, I think he might just be serious :eek:

No problem with same sex marriages. It all comes down to personal freedom. I may not personally agree with what they are doing but I'll defend their freedom to do it. These people getting married has no harmful effect on anyone so why shouldn't it be allowed?

This story was actually being discussed on the radio when I went to pick up my brother this afternoon. One of the main arguements against this is that it would force business owners who did not agree with gay marriage for religous reasons to pay marriage benefits to gays. Interesting point, but my solution would be to either get over it or not hire gays, simple as that.

so, law should be re-written to suit religion?

i think it should be the other way around. religious groups can call it whatever they want, but under law a marriage is a marriage.

i really dont care about whether this offends religious groups, but i dont think we should come up w/ a new word just cuz it would piss off religious groups.

wow, i was waiting for that.


and 4thtimelucky, he does meet and pass some of the stereotypes you listed!

you hit the mark, congrats!

Don't say that. Please don't say that.

What if the business owners didn't want to pay towards marriage benefits for blacks or for Muslims or for disabled people. Would you then say "get over it or not hire blacks"? That makes it sound like not hiring gays because you don't like homosexuality is an acceptable option. To me it isn't. That would be pure and blatant homophobia and discrimination.

If you don't want to hire gay people because they may marry then give yourself a good hard slap and get over your prejudices.

***
The_Dude

Maybe you didn't pick up on my point with those quotes.

They were not stereotypes.
Each of the quotes was taken directly fom posts on the Muslim Woman Cannot Wear Veil on Driving Licence thread from the last two days.

The only alterations were the replacement of "marriage" for "driving" where necessary.

Take heart, your own post did not make the list of shame.
Though I might ask you: If religion cannot be used to override the law, then why should sexuality be allowed to?
{Hint: You may wish to reconsider whether the people in either case really have any desire to override the law}

Please note that I personally don't hold these biases (I'm for the gay marriage).

I believe a privately owned and run business should be able to hire whoever it wants to hire with no intervention from the government. A good businessman will hire the most qualified person, not everyone is like this but oh well, nothing you can do about it.

But a private business like a private club should be allowed to hire or "admit" whoever it feels like. Sure it might be wrong to say "we're not going to let you in because you are black, white, hispanic, etc" but that's the individual group's choice.

I agree 100% but it should not be the government's job to administer the slap.

Again, I think my point was missed. It is not to rewrite law to suit religion. It is to remove religion from the equation.

Let me state this in another way. Words have power. The word "marriage" has meanings to most religious or moral groups. If we create a different word for the legal bond between two individuals, we can then deal with only the issues of what the legal rights of the individuals are.

In most cases this would not require major rewrites of the laws in the United States. It is a substitution of one clear legal concept for one that has become unclear due to interpretations outside the legal realm. Legislatures take this kind of action all the time. Once the concept is entered into law, it can automatically apply to all benefits, etc.

This concept also does not preclude governments from recognizing marriage as meeting the conditions for the initiation of the legal bond. It is just that marriage in a religious setting isn't only one way of entering into that bond.

(I hang around too many lawyers and legislators. Now I sound like I'm writing the bill and arguing it in committee.)

I can't pass up the opportunity to make a cut here-

Further proof that conservatives want smaller government- just small enough to fit in your bedroom.

Gay marriages rock! It sucks they have to hide behind the 'civil union' thing to get the same rights as us straight folk (not to mention having to go to Vermont of all places to get it!)

hmm, i guess that changes my reply...
Anyway, I'm still of the mind that people in the south are never going to allow same sex marriages to pass into law. It would cause a very serious up roar. Good or bad, I don't see it happening.

Re: Re: Same sex marriage considered legal?
 

took the words right out of my mouth...

so, you are saying that we should use a different word to please religious and moral groups?

or am i getting you wrong again? if so, sry.

Here I may seem to be a contradictory in my beliefs.
roothorick came up with the following great statement about me....
... but I do think that the government should intervene to prevent discrimination.
Maybe this is philosophically inconsistent. I hope its not, but its a tricky issue.

My belief is that the government should try and protect the freedoms of everyone, so that everyone is able to lead a happy and worthwhile life.

In the veiled driving licence case I felt that no one would be harmed by the government giving her a little slack, so they should.

In the "businessman refuses to employ black people/gays/disabled people" case I think that that the businessman is contributing to an atmosphere of racist prejudice. As such an atmosphere does hinder people living "happy and worthwhile lives" - in fact in can end in lynchings and race riots - so I think that the government has the right to intervene.

The government should create a level playingfield for everyone.
@ That means that the Muslim lady should be as equally able to drive (provided she is not a hazard to other motorists and pedestrians) as anyone else.
@ That means that the black/gay/disabled person should be as equally able to find employment (provided they are able to do the functions of the job) as anyone else.
@ That means that two homosexual people should be equally able to marry (provided they are willing to commit to the marriage vows) as anyone else.

Whoa...I think I missed something. What's this about the drivers' license thread...and stereotypes that I meet/pass? And, yes...I am serious. When it comes to serious matters, I know not how to goof off.

Well said! I concur.

it's another thread about a muslim woman's right to put a viel on for the driver's license photo.

OMG...please say you aren't really serious???

I'm sorry...while I appreciate that everyone can have their own opinion I can't help but comment on this. Who are you to say that all men are made to want women. Obviously this is not the case.
Just because you disagree with their lifestyle, what gives you the right to deny them marriage? Are they personally harming you in the process? Is it hurting your job, your relationships with other people, your health? I think not.
Do not put your own personal views, ideals and morals upon other people. Just because you do not think it is right....doesn't mean that is the case. They have just as many rights (as HUMAN BEINGS) as anyone else.

This is causing a big stir up here in Ontario.My feelings are that gays are equal citizens with everyone else and not subordinate,inferior or diseased.I think alot of people think that though.Such ignorance.And then the nerve of the Catholic church to continually condemn and chastise gays for their lifestyle choices,yet then ignore and cover up thousands of priests fucking little boys.Very nice not to mention the blind eye put forth by the Vatican.But I digress.

This is todays ed-op in the Ottawa Sun


Marriage

The Ontario Court of Appeal wasn't stating a preference in ruling in favour of gay marriage. It was merely acknowledging an obvious fact : That under our Constitution all Canadians, no matter what their sexual persuasion, have the same rights, and that therefore government has a responsibility to recognize gay marriages in the same manner it recognizes heterosexual marriages.

Frankly, we're not sure why government even remains in the marriage business. Why should Big Brother be the one to pass judgment on the legitimacy of a relationship between two individuals? And, come to think of it, why should government or anyone have a say on how others choose to live and love?

To us, this isn't a "gay" issue at all. It's an issue of individual liberty.

We are free people -- all of us. We are free to live and to love. We are free to choose how to lead our lives and whom to live our lives with, so long as we don't intrude on the rights and freedoms of others.

Frankly, the furor triggered by this week's court ruling baffles us. Gays have been living in openly gay relationships for years. They enjoy spousal benefits, they exchange birthday gifts, they celebrate anniversaries together and pay the utility bills. They worry when one is late getting home from work, they fret over who does the groceries and they plan their retirements together. Sound familiar?

Who cares if two gay individuals choose to have their commitment to each other legally recognized by the state?

No doubt, the notion offends some Canadians, although we find it somewhat odd that, in this day and age, it can generate any serious opposition. It's simple, folks: Your neighbours have no business telling you how to live, so stop having an opinion on their lifestyle choices.

The Chretien government finds itself torn between accepting the verdict and appealing the decision to the Surpeme Court. There are even calls in some quarters, including the government of Alberta, to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to block gay marriages.

It's time government got out of the marriage business entirely. Let individuals decide the legitimacy of their lifestyle choices. They're big boys and girls.

http://www.fyiottawa.com/ottsun.shtml

wouldnt that apply here too? or shouldnt it?


arent they guarenteed equal protection under the law (14th), but i dont think has been incorporated, but i dont see the need and the pursuit of happiness?

I agree almost completely! If you have the desire to have sex with the same sex, then go ahead but keep it to yourself. I don't want to see it, hear it, hear about it, know about it, or whatever. It goes against nature, God, and all that is right. If you don't agree, then something is wrong with you, not me. Furthermore, absolutely no same-sex marriages should be allowed or honored in any way. Personally, I refuse to recognize any same-sex marriage whether you like it or not. Two men or two women cannot be "married". They're simply disturbed and need emotional help, and society pretending that they're married is of no help to them at all.

The only thing I disagree with in DE137's post is that charges should be filed. People should be able to screw anyone they want in any way they want without the government getting involved.

If you think I'm kidding or trolling, then you don't know me very well. I'm completely serious.

people have said this before, you dont think it's right for them to do this, but just because you dont think something is right doesnt make it wrong.

we're talking about recognizing them legally, not religiously, so it doesnt really matter what god/pope/clergy/preist/whatever religious official thinks about this.

you said

who defined this nature?

according to you maybe.


just because 2 consensual adults do something that you dont like/understand doesnt make them "disturbed and need emotional help"

And just because someone thinks something is right doesn't make it right.

A quick note, most politicians are religious. Look at the President, one of the things he did during 9/11 and the aftermath was call on God to help America. At one point he even called this war a crusade. Separating politics from religion is very, very hard. If it wasn't we wouldn't be having the problem presented in this thread, the driver’s license thread or others.
Example: Senator A gets voted into office because he's a good man and his views are the same as the people who put him in office. It just so happens that the views that got him into office are Christian. Odds are if Senator A wants to stay in office he's going to vote the way of the people who put in office want him to. Also this guy is never going to vote to recognize homosexuals legally if he doesn't in his religion.

Again this is the grand United States of America and sometimes you can't talk law with religion. Lobbyists hold lots of sway.


That's another problem; some people don't consider homosexuals as human beings. Same thing was true with lepers hundreds of years ago. Also, mentally retarded people don't always have rights depending on how bad the retardation is.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gibber71
[B]
We are free people -- all of us. We are free to live and to love. We are free to choose how to lead our lives and whom to live our lives with, so long as we don't intrude on the rights and freedoms of others.

Frankly, the furor triggered by this week's court ruling baffles us. Gays have been living in openly gay relationships for years. They enjoy spousal benefits, they exchange birthday gifts, they celebrate anniversaries together and pay the utility bills. They worry when one is late getting home from work, they fret over who does the groceries and they plan their retirements together. Sound familiar?

No doubt, the notion offends some Canadians, although we find it somewhat odd that, in this day and age, it can generate any serious opposition. It's simple, folks: Your neighbours have no business telling you how to live, so stop having an opinion on their lifestyle choices.


Clap clap clap clap clap. I agree wholeheartedly.

I sorta get a chuckle outta the "It says in the bible..." arguments. If you can look me in the eye, and with a straight face tell me you have never, ever broken one of the Ten Commandments, no ambiguity whatsoever, I will listen to you. Otherwise, fix yerself, before you impose your belief on someone else.

I think the real importance of this is the stricly legal one. You work and pay your taxes like everyone else, you deserve the same rights, privileges, and protections as everyone else.

The Christian faith isn't based on the fact that you never break the laws laid out by God, it’s based on the fact that you can repent and make amends for "sins" once you stop committing them. Also the faith does say you should love everyone and treat them fair, but at the same time teach them the error of their ways. As for imposing your beliefs on others, the Christian faith also says you should try to convert other people to Christianity.

Thus all Christians are supposed to help their follow man. And in the eyes of Christian that believes homosexuality is a sin, then letting them "marry" wouldn't do anything to help them "reform". I think that was similar to what BoCo was saying...

Again, till you remove Christians from public office I doubt same sex marriages will be legal in the US or Canada.

i'm not saying there is a "right answer" to this.

people should be treated fairly under the law, and this is not treating them fairly

We haven't removed them from offices in Europe, yet many (protestant) countries have changed the laws in recent years. I think the change is coming. Like with women's right to vote, it might take some time to become a globally accepted part pf human rights.

Nature defined it dood. Nature made a dick to go into a pussy. End of discussion. It was made that way so life would continue. It sure as hell can't continue if only chics fuck each other and a bunch of hairy guys are bangin now can it?

My take on this topic. Marry whoever the fuck you want. I don't care. Same sex marriages should never be allowed to raise children. It takes a man and a woman to have a kid. I think it's a fucked up situation to put a kid in. 85% of heterosexuals shouldn't be having kids either so don't think I'm a gay basher.

Then we agree

Change may be coming but it will definitely be slower coming across the ocean. Europe for one has a much more relaxed public view of sex in general than America.
I'm just waiting for the KKK or some other hate group to burst on the scene again if this becomes law. Even after women, Hispanics, African Americans and other minorities received equal treatment under Federal law they weren't truly protected for a long time. And to a certain extent they aren't full protected today in some places. If homosexuals demand equal treatment and civil rights protection than well I can see another violent civil rights movement in the future. Maybe it won’t be as extreme as the ones in the past but violent none the less. There are fewer homosexuals then there were woman, blacks, etc. And look at the stuff they had to go through to get where they are today. It’s not just a race of people against another or men against women, its a nation of people against a minority.

Of course maybe I'm just the token pessimist :(

I am sad to see such mis-informed and prejudicial "crap" in this thread...

i really hoped that the majority of the TFP members were above such judgement and such narrow mindedness...

there is so much pain in this world... if two people want to love one another... who are we to judge?

the whole world has not gone gay!.
only a small percentage of the population is gay, so there are more than enough heterosexuals to keep the world going.

and since you wanted to mention about nature continuing, how about if homosexuality is a way to control population? i know it sounds stupid, but i had to throw it in.

bad parents doesnt necessarily mean bad kids. i have friends that have parents and they lead a good life.

as for gay adoptions, if i was ever put in a situation where i could have no parents or 2 parents of the same sex, i know what i'd choose.

If you argue the purpose of nature is the only way to go, we can stop kissing and hugging each other all together. How is anal sex different from those? And anyway, talking about nature and what is natural is kinda silly when it comes to humans. Everything we do has to do with culture and the norms of human civilisation that make us think kissing is somehow more natural than anal sex. It's just the moral codes that make it seem so.

Here's my take on it. I don't give a shit who marries who. If two people want to get married, I don't care, let 'em.

Here's my take on this. Don't tell someone that they're wrong for thinking something is wrong, otherwise you're just as bad as you say they are. If a person is morally against gay marriages then it's just plain ignorant to expect them to sit by and not care what other people do. I'm morally against stealing and killing, so if I see those in progress or someone who does those things, I will do what I can to effect the situation in the way I see morally fit. Likewise, if I think same sex marriages are morally wrong, I have an obligation to my beliefs (religious or non) to stand up for them. Of course, if they're not politically correct, liberal beliefs, apparently people don't have the right to stand up for them.

I think it all comes down to wanting to cheer for the underdog to be perfectly honest. Gay pride parades occur and no one makes a big deal out of it, but if a bunch of Christians or any other religion that is against homosexuality decided to have a parade expressing their belief that homosexuality is a sin, it's a terrible thing and they're terrible people. That's pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

You say to people who are against gay marriages that just because they think something is so doesn't make it so, well look in the mirror. Last time I checked none of us was Supreme Ruler of the Human Race (TM) and therefore your opinion of the rightness of gay marriages is no more definitely right or wrong than sixates, or BoCo's, or suviko's, or anyones.

If you support gay marriages, great. Do what you can to support them then.

If you're against gay marriages, that's fine too! Do what you can to prevent them.

And neither group has the right to complain about the other being pompous because that is the nature of truly believing in something. If you're not pompous about something you hold true, then you have no right to call it a belief of yours.

My opinion on the matter has been left out. I'll vote for politicians who suport it and that's all that matters. Whether people who disagree with me know my opinion doesn't matter to me because it does nothing to promote the result which I would like to see.


EDIT: heh. Spec and I started our posts the same way :p

Neener neener neeener...I said it first. :p

4thtimelucky:

I agree that government intervention in cases of discrimination are very tricky. On one side of it, you've got a business owner with malicous intent towards one group that morall should not be allowed. On the other side of things you've got a businessman with no malicous intent being sued because he choose a person of one group over another simply because he personally felt one was more qualified than the other.

I feel for both sides of the issue. I just hate the idea of government forcing someone to do something. Allowing private businesses to hire whomever they wish to hire seems like the least amount of forcing from the government.

This is a real grey area though. I mean people defend a gay person's right to be with other gays as a personal preference yet people do not defend a person's personal preference when it comes to hatred/discrimination. Like you said it is a tricky issue.

Everyone has the right to life, libery, and happiness. I will defend these rights to the end, even if I don't agree with the method personally as long as it doesn't infringe upon another person's same rights. So, does discrimination at the job level really affect someone's right to happiness? I really can't say.

Re: Same sex marriage considered legal?
 

I'd like to comment on Ralph being level headed....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/klei..._timeline.html

contains the following amongst others...

Dec. 12, 2001: Klein visits a homeless shelter at one a.m. and gets into a shouting match with one of the residents about why he didn't have a job. Shelter staff says Klein threw money on the floor before his driver escorted him out.

Dec 18, 2001: Klein admits to having an alcohol problem and says he hopes to stop drinking.

Then I hear him on the Radio couple of weeks ago wondering if someone who had voiced an opinion differeing from his own drank too much. I had a great laugh over that one since Ralph has been such a great example of handling alcohol for us Albertans for so long now.

As for the marraige thing.....

Call it whatever you want...any two poeple who are sharing everything in a relationship should be entitled to equal status as any other two people regardless of gender.

God did.

By the way, I've already said before that I have nothing against gay people, I just have a problem with homosexuality in general because it isn't right. What defines it as "right" you ask? Both God and nature, which are one in the same. Things were made to work in a certain way, and anything outside those rules is wrong. Now go ahead and stick it in some dude's ass, but don't give me a speach about how I--the straight guy who's never experimented with homosexuality, drugs, alcohol, etc.--am somehow the wrong one. My brain isn't screwed up (although many choose to throw "narrow minded" at me as a cheap shot) so when I have an opinion, it's about as pure an opinion as you're going to find around here. I suppose I could dope myself up for a few years and perhaps my opinions would be skewed afterwards in the same direction as yours, but for the time being I am right and you are wrong. Oh, yeah.... and gay marriage is also wrong. It's just one more attempt by the devil to destroy humanity. Hmpf. :o

Everyone that posted in this thread is absolutely correct.

And every single one of you that posted in this thread is completely and utterly wrong.

Confused? You shouldn't be.

This is one of those topics that rides a very dangerous line. The longer it goes on, the closer we get to flaming each other. And when we flame, intentional or not, we hurt each other.

I stand by what I posted earler. That is what the Truth is to me. However, its mine and mine alone. Your truth is different in a variety of ways even if you think you agree with me.

So what's the solution then? We are the world after all, we should be able to make this right somehow, shouldn't we?

Maybe the best solution is to do away with marriage as a legal state all together. Live with as many people as you want, leave when you want and put the divorce lawyers out of business. Have all children bear their mother's last name instead of their fathers, so paternity is never a question.

But tthat's not the answer either is it?

The truth is that there is never one answer that will make everyone happy. If BoCo's god made the laws, I would be miserable. If my gods made the laws, he would be. THere just isn't a happy medium.

BoCo:

I don't care what the bible says. The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, but they've existed. Same with homosexuality. It doesn't matter what the bible says, it's here to stay. And these people are every bit as much entitled to happiness as straight people are.

There are two options here:
- either you claim these people are inferior to you, and therefor have no right to be married, whereas you do. In this case, you are prejudiced. Shut up.
- you don't claim they are inferior to you, and therefor have every bit as much the right to marry as you do. In this case, you should have shut up, and never posted in this thread at all.

titsmurf:

Please don't tell users to shut up.

Anyway, again, let me point out how interesting I find it that you feel that you have the right to tell BoCo he is "wrong" and should "shut up," yet he, apparently, has no right to express his belief that you are "wrong."

As BoCo points out, people call him "narrow minded," yet what's so different about his "narrow mindedness" in believing that homosexuality is definitely wrong and your "narrow mindedness" in believing that homosexuality is definitely OK?

Once again (and I don't know why this is such a hard thing to grasp), no one here is the final authority on any subject matter. We all have our beliefs and we all have our reasons for those beliefs. The fact that some of us are in the majority and others are in the minority does not make any one more "prejudiced" than the other. You can say BoCo is prejudiced against homosexuals, and he can say you're prejudiced towards homosexuals. Both apply. So, if prejudice is a reason that people should "shut up" perhaps we should all heed your advice, including yourself, and not even discuss the matter?

Live your life according to your ideals and do what you can to support those ideals rather than just try to knock down people who disagree with you.

Should you think that you're right and people who disagree with you are wrong? Absolutely! Should you tell them to "shut up" because you think that? Absolutely not. They are no more required to shut up on the subject than you are.

I find it particularly humorous that some people who would be so quick to tell someone like BoCo to shut up because he disagrees with them are the same people who would cry foul if they were told to shut up when criticizing something like the US's actions on the world stage. Free speech and free opinion goes both ways.

IM cheese and im here to say being gay is Otay!

True. I'm sorry, BoCo. I disagree with your opinion, but I should have shown more respect for it. Live and learn.

I'm not used to dealing with extreme opinions, and I guess I got carried away. In my country, homosexual marriage has been legalised without any real opposition at all. The only on-going debate over here is on whether or not they should be allowed to adopt children.

virFighter

Thanks for a good post.
I think the tricky part comes down to the fact that (a) any action to protect the life, liberty and happiness of one person will affect the life, liberty and happiness of another, and (b) libertarians such as myself believe in a being tolerant, but as the condundrum goes: should the totally tolerant person be tolerant of intolerance?

titsmurf
I think you'll need to sharpen up those posts a bit to have an impact around here (especially on this thread!).

You: I don't care what the bible says
Me: You should care, because religion and the bible is central to this thread and being ignorant of what it says won't help you.

You: The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, but they've existed. Same with homosexuality.
Me: How the same? The bible doesn't mention homosexuals, buy they still existed? In fact the Bible mentions homosexuals a few times - and not in a very positive light - hence the presence of Christianity in this debate.

//EDIT// Thanks Antagony, I had indeed misinterpreted it.

You: And these people are every bit as much entitled to happiness as straight people are.
Me: Goodness, I think we finally agree on something. Of course, others might not. If homosexuality is a sin then why should sinners be entitled to happiness?

You: either you claim these people are inferior to you... in this case you are prejudiced.... or you don't claim they are inferior to you
Me: Two points here.
Firstly, you will have to convince the other side of why thinking someone is inferior is prejudice. Prejudice is an unfair bias against someone. The other side is arguing that it is perfectly fair to think that sinners (i.e. murderers, thieves, rapists, practicing homosexuals) have done something that makes them (morally) inferior.
Secondly, the issue may not be about inferiority and so those are not really the two main options. The issue could well be: homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal but different. And so the other side might argue that this difference should be reflected in the fact that homosexuals cannot get married. Another example: A person with poor eyesight and a person with 20/20 vision are equal but different. One of them should be allowed to become a jet fighter pilot, the other should not.

When the only option you lay open to the other side is to "shut up", you can be pretty sure that you have missed something and that it is you who are now verging on the unreasonably intolerant.

EDIT:> This post took me a while. SecretMethod got in there before me. Great minds... erm whatever.

By the way Secret, did you notice your quote up there on the list of shame? ;)

4thTimeLucky

In reference to your 3rd response to titsmurf, I just wanted to save titsmurf the effort and mention that I'm sure that he meant homosexuality was here to stay.

Marriages are recognized by the state, not just the church. Now, since the two are supposed to be separate entities, Christianity should not even come into the conversation when it comes to the STATE legalizing gay marriages. That said, the state has no right to say right or wrong - a marriage is a vow between two people and if they want to sign papers that says their incomes are now combined, so be it.

I think the states should be all for it in fact, because they get more tax money from it all.

Hal wins. We should close this thread now.

Wait...so I'm not a great mind?...or is it you?...now I'm confused :confused: :p ;) :lol:

heh yeah, and it actually still applies here. Note that one must obtain a "marriage license" to be married just like they must obtain a "driver's license" to drive. Driver's licenses are just much harder to get because it's a greater risk to the community at large to allow just anyone to drive. Still, it is perfectly within the government's right to deny a marriage license to a couple - hetero OR homosexual. It just doesn't really ever happen - at least on the heterosexual side.

Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing that change. Let's get some requirements for marriage licenses - mandatory pre-marriage counseling and such. It'd help the divorce rate a ton.

Of course, I also think that something should be done so that people aren't allowed to vote unless they can show knowledge of at least 3 of the major candidates in a race and some of the main issues which are being debated. Not discrimination based on race, sex, or creed - just discrimination based on ignorance. Ignorant people should not be voting in political matters, they should be voting on the next M&M color.

Whether I agree with homosexual marriage or not, we have a representative democracy in place which allows for the majority, in most cases, to vote the people in office that represent their beliefs. If the majority believes that homosexual marriages are wrong, then so be it. If I disagree I'll keep voting for someone who believes they're right and will work to change that in hopes more people will do the same.

No way, BIRTHING LICENSES are much further ahead on the list than this.

Seriously though, I think that idea would be counter-productive. Not only are you slapping more rules onto people and reducing their freedom, but people will likely just avoid marriage. Have children outside of marriages and get "divorced" outside of marriages.

SM, required marriage counseling is a whole other monster completely...

I'm not ignorant of what it says. I just don't consider what the bible says to be relevant in this issue. If you wish to argue with me on this, prove to me that what the bible says is relevant. I consider this discussion to be highly opinionated.

I was trying to give an example of how the bible is no authority on everything. It goes back to me not considering what it says relevant in this debate.

I indeed meanth that homosexuality, sin or no sin, exists. There are those who feel they don't deserve to live. I disagree with them. There is no way to 'straighten out' homosexuals.

Everybody is entitled to happiness. Personal opinion. Let god punish those who have sinned up in heaven. Let the law punish those who have broken the law down here. And let the two stick to their area of expertise. Personal opinion, again.

Homosexuality is not a crime. Murder, thefth, rape, are. I don't think it's at good thing to consider them all equally wrong. As I said, if homosexuality is a sin - let God punish them up in heaven.

Very well. To me, legal marriage has nothing to do with God. And as being homosexual is not against the law, these people should be allowed to do so. I can understand why the church would not allow homosexuals to be married in a church.

I am not intolerant. My words were. I hadn't thought them through.

i agree... please... somebody close this thread...

some states require pre marriage counselling, and there are some states that require blood tests and have denied people's marriage licenses based on medical reasoning.

shocking, but has happened to heterosexual couples.

IMHO a thread shouldn't be closed just because some people are saying things we disagree with.

you are right... and i agree...
i was hoping the thread would close due to the volatile nature of the topic and the general tone of the posts and replies at this point.
it's a loaded issue... certainly not one that will be resolved in any way shape or form here in the TFP...
when i continue to see personal slams, bible quoting, insults and judgements about what is "natural" and what isn't... it makes me sad... and it's not what i come to the TFP for...

i'll just remove myself from the thread at this point...

I don't have a problem with gays getting married. I don't see what the big deal is. What do the nay sayers care what two other people do? I don't think people should fret about what other people do in the privacy of their own home. If you believe in God, let him/her/it deal with them when they die.

I say, let gay people deal with a shitty marriages, just like the rest of us.

Us Canadians have freedoms you yanks can only dream about.

Now with de-criminalized pot and same-sex marriages.

If only we could buy beer in the 24-hour corner grocery, like in Quebec.

Don't go away from the thread. Many threads here are like discussions in real life, sometimes they get heated. The thread will be closed if it degrades into nothing more than insult trading. As long as there is still discussion, the thread will remain open. Hopefully, our members will continue to be respectful of each other and their views so we won't have to go to the extreme of closing the thread.

A few others and I have been trying to point out that the Bible(or any other religious text that speaks against homosexuality) is relevant in this issue. The Bible is the basis of some people's belief and views. To quote SecretMethod:

So in essence if the majority doesn't agree with homosexual marriages they will put someone in office that thinks the same way.

What about people who say that, "I've found God and I know my previous life style was wrong. Homosexual is a sin and I've changed". I've seen a couple of shows like that in the past on Rikki Lake and Sally Jessie Raphael.


Agreed, but I've never thought the issue would be solved here anyway :) . I personally just see this thread as a way to express opinons and views. And also as a way to explain those opinons and views.

Spec is right.. sometimes a good debate ruffles some feathers and sometimes it helps someone see a different point of view that they would have not ever considered.

Until the thread degrades into moronic flaming it should be left open...

Prophecy: This is what, I think, lies at the roots of this debate. It's my opinion that the Bible is not relevant in this issue. I'm not saying it's not relevant to this debate - I'm saying that it's my opinion that the bible is not relevant in whether or not homosexual people should be allowed to get maried.

I don't think there is a foolproof answer to this dilemma, as to some - the Bible is relevant. And they are every bit as much right as I am. As long as this status-quo remains, there is no right and wrong side to this argument.

I've just stated my personal opinion. I never meanth for this to turn into a debate on my opinion, and I hardly think that's the point of this thread. So let's adress the issue - in as far that's still necesary, as to me, it's pretty much been nailed already.

I doubt seriously that many people would choose to live a gay life style in this society, especially in the more conservative areas of the country. The life is hard, and people are brutal to those who live it. This implies to me, perhaps wrongly, that there is little choice in the matter, at least in most cases. I think the vast majority of people will make rational choices when given a choice and the rational choice in this society is clearly to be straight. Where is there any economic, social, or political benefit in being gay?

If you agree with the nature position, it is hard to argue that gay people (like other minority groups) should not be protected from discrimination, even if that discrimination is based on strong religious belief. Religion has been twisted in many ways to argue against (and for) many things, including racisim, slavery, women's right to vote, prohibition of alcohol, etc. Racist viewpoints are generally regarded as "wrong" at least by most of society, but not many years ago, racism was taught from the pulpit as something the Bible endorsed. I think this is something that will change over time, just as very few churches now would condone the racist sermons of the civil rights or slavery eras.

Institutions and people will adapt... Racism is still present, but much different than it was 100 or even 50 years ago. I think the negative feelings on homosexuals will fade over time.. but it may be generational time.

All of this being said, I respect that religious feelings are truly and deeply felt. I also don't intend to imply that they are wrong, I just think they will change and evolve over time as a realization that people who have no choice in the way they are should not be "punished" for being. Especially when no harm to society is caused by their actions (I suspect this is where this position may be most forcefully argued, but I have a hard time recognizing the harm.)

In the interest of full disclosure, I have an immediate relative who is gay and I've watched them struggle with the societal challenges presented. This has certainly colored my thinking in this area.

Regards,

Nearly my entire school here in Nova Scotia is celebrating the descision. I wasn't aware that it only applied to Ontario, I bet very few people are aware of it....

i don't mean to "bail"... i truly believe that we are all entitled to our own opinions... and for those who see this thread as a learning tool... i do agree...

i've been feeling really crappy the last week or so... and the intensity of the conversation as well as what i perceive to be the judgemental statements of some (i repeat, SOME)... just feels like "too much" for me right now...

there is so much unrest, and violence, and hatred, and judgements out in the "big bad world" right now... i think i'm more in need of a respite, than a heated conversation...

nothing personal... just where i need to be right now...

treat each other well... *soft smile*

I've yet to see someone actually argue against my point.

it doesnt matter what the majority thinks.

the bill of rights was written to protect minority views and minority opinion. the founders knew that overwhelming majority was dangerous.

Oh boy, I'm going to have to learn to be quicker getting my opinions down or else I'll seem like I'm just echoing everything you say, Six.

You've summed up my feelings on the morality of homosexuality nicely in the first paragraph. I'm not out to hurt anyones feelings but I feel it's a mental disorder rather then a preference. I sound like I'm trolling I know, but that's not my intention. It's off topic here but I'll discuss if anyone wants to make a new thread.

Marriage between gays is fine, if my government can profit from this then that's allright by me. That's not saying I want my government to condone it, they're going to be gay no matter what the government denies them, so they might as well give the homosexuals things we can profit from.

Also, I'm glad Six here brought up alternate lifestyle people adopting children and raising them. This disturbs me, in contrast to our social state now to 50-70 years ago, we're all insane. I think we're going to have serious problems in another 50 years if we don't turn things around. I see it much more likely America will fall under the hand of social/economic ruin rather then military might, gays raising children raises a red flag to me in this context, we need both mentally and physically healthy Americans to pull their weight if we want to remain as powerful as we are now.

There are a lot of things I'd like to believe, what the PC nazis have drilled into me since I've started public school among them, that you should accept anything and everything wrong about a person and only then can we all go dance under a rainbow and sing folk songs, refuse and you're a biggot, a racist, or a naive prick from the KKK out to crucify Jesus and punch a nun. This is easily one of the most irritating things ever.

-Dave!

MENTAL DISORDER?????????


come on dude...........

just because you dont understand it doesnt mean that they have mental disorders!

compare this to the women's rights movenments of the 1910's or the civil rights movements of the 1960's.

the minority groups in those examples were opposed to the status quo, but they had to fight to change it.

people did stand up against those movements, cuz they thought it was morally wrong, but we're past those days and we look back and see how wrong they were.

I understand it fine, crystal clear vision of what's going down. There's not much to get actually, however, can you prove it's not a mental disorder?

Phaenx

It sounds like your trying to breed some sort of pure American super race to take on the world!

Its not a competition. For Americans to live happy prosperous lives you don't need to crush everyone else.

As for the 'give them their freedoms if it means we can make money from them' idea, it sounds like you think they are animals that you give some comforts to so that you can get more production out of them!

I'm sure that's not what you think or meant, but it sure does sound like you've got some pretty extreme ideas germinating in your head.