Gay Marriage is a Constitutional right in Canada! - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

filtherton · 10-19-2003, 04:39 PM

Flip a coin. If they are truly identical than it doesn't matter.

Ustwo · 10-19-2003, 04:44 PM

That’s where I think its wrong, they are not identical, having a mother and father is a good thing, and its better for the child development to have a male and female role model.

An interesting side note is how STABLE are homosexual marriages/unions. A quick google search seems to point to 'not very' as a rule. Should this be considered as well?

Kadath · 10-19-2003, 05:12 PM

Heh.
All right then. Let's talk about stability. What's the divorce rate in the US? Near 50%, isn't it? Should we consider stability of straight marriages when a straight couple wants to adopt?
As to a child having a male and female role model, well, I don't know. Is is possible for a child to have role models aside from his or her parents?

Finally, why am I answering your questions? You couldn't be bothered to respond to mine.

Food Eater Lad · 10-19-2003, 05:14 PM

In a time when most marriages end in divorce, I think its great that some one is still interested in getting married at all.

filtherton · 10-19-2003, 05:31 PM

Quote:

That’s where I think its wrong, they are not identical, having a mother and father is a good thing, and its better for the child development to have a male and female role model.

Can you find it in your heart to back this comment up with something. I always thought having healthy, caring, and functional parents was actually more important than having parents with a penis and a vagina.

seretogis · 10-20-2003, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
In a time when most marriages end in divorce, I think its great that some one is still interested in getting married at all.

This is the most sensible thing that I've seen you post for a while. I completely agree.

One thing that makes me laugh is when some "conservatives", including Limbaugh, talk about how gay couples getting married would somehow taint the institution of marriage, as if an over-50% divorce rate hadn't already done so. But, again, the definition of marriage should be left up to society (or perhaps the states, if for some reason it is absolutely necessary), not the federal government.

KnifeMissile · 10-20-2003, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
That’s where I think its wrong, they are not identical, having a mother and father is a good thing, and its better for the child development to have a male and female role model.

An interesting side note is how STABLE are homosexual marriages/unions. A quick google search seems to point to 'not very' as a rule. Should this be considered as well?

How about deciding whether a particular couple can adopt a child based on their individual merits rather than the merits of a subset of people to which they happen to belong? If that was too hard for you to parrse, here's a concrete example. Would you automatically refuse a black couple adoption because most black people have a low income? No, you would look at their income and decide, right? How about doing the same with homosexual couples?

Sadly, this is beside the point. It seems obvious to me that you have already decided you don't want homosexual people to raise children and are looking for reasons to back up a conclusion you've already made. This is called "rationalization" and it occurs far too much in society.

Oh yeah, one other thing. You once mentioned how not allowing homosexual parents was politically incorrect. I think we can all agree that the vast majority of the US is against homosexual rights of any kind, considering what a Bible thumping nation it is. How can an idea that the nation agrees on be considered politically incorrect?

Ustwo · 10-20-2003, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle

Sadly, this is beside the point. It seems obvious to me that you have already decided you don't want homosexual people to raise children and are looking for reasons to back up a conclusion you've already made. This is called "rationalization" and it occurs far too much in society.

Not at all, my point is I think there is a BENEFIT to having parents of the opposite sex. I am sorry but two, men, even gay men, do not equal a female influence on a child nor do two women equal a male.

As such it would be BETTER for children to be in heterosexual homes. I didn't say that being in a gay household would be horrible, or turn them 'gay', or anything like that. I'm simply stating, in plain English, that when there is a choice between parents it is in the best interest of the child that the parents be straight.

I'm sure you could have loving homosexual parents and I would say that such an arrangement would be better then being a ward of the state.

I think the core of this is that I feel there is a benefit to the traditional family, that some of you either think is false or are to PC to admit to yourself.

filtherton · 10-20-2003, 07:55 PM

Quote:

from ustwo
Not at all, my point is I think there is a BENEFIT to having parents of the opposite sex. I am sorry but two, men, even gay men, do not equal a female influence on a child nor do two women equal a male.

As such it would be BETTER for children to be in heterosexual homes. I didn't say that being in a gay household would be horrible, or turn them 'gay', or anything like that. I'm simply stating, in plain English, that when there is a choice between parents it is in the best interest of the child that the parents be straight.

I have yet to hear any proof from anywhere that children who grow up in families with parents of the same gender are at any kind of emotional or developmental disadvantage compared to children who grow up in heterosexually headed households.

Quote:

I think the core of this is that I feel there is a benefit to the traditional family, that some of you either think is false or are to PC to admit to yourself.

There is no such thing as a traditional family anymore. Unless you refer to the new traditional single parent family, or the traditional both-parents-work-forty-plus-hours-a-week-to-put-food-on-the-table family.

KnifeMissile · 10-20-2003, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Not at all, my point is I think there is a BENEFIT to having parents of the opposite sex. I am sorry but two, men, even gay men, do not equal a female influence on a child nor do two women equal a male.

As such it would be BETTER for children to be in heterosexual homes. I didn't say that being in a gay household would be horrible, or turn them 'gay', or anything like that. I'm simply stating, in plain English, that when there is a choice between parents it is in the best interest of the child that the parents be straight.

Yes, I think that there is a benefit to being raised by a male and female role model because I believe that there is a benefit to diversity. What does a man, gay or not, know about women?
Note that I didn't mention this issue in my post? Please consider some of the other things that you've said, in other posts.

"When you leave the gene pool, you sort of give up that right in my book." What does this mean? There are plenty of heterosexual couples who desire children but have "left the gene pool." Shouldn't they raise children? Homosexual couples can choose to bear their own children so they haven't really left the gene pool, have they? Do you still think they "give up that right?"

When you say things like you wish for the "hierarchy of adoptions was straight > gay," and that you "think the best interest of the child is served having a mother and 8father and that interest is what must be thought of first," and that it is simply "BETTER for children to be in heterosexual homes," you imply that it is so important that all other factors need not be considered, like being raised by heterosexual serial killers. While you do say, as part of a post that the last quote is from, that being in a good homosexual home is better than being a ward of the state (which isn't all bad, really), all these quotes have been unqualified and have not been taken out of context. I'm not Michael Moore, go back and read them, if you like.

"There is some wisdom to be found in religion, otherwise we wouldn't keep them." First of all, there being wisdom is not why they are still around. Obviously (I would hope that this is obvious) not all that is religious is wise. After all, there are a lot of disagreements among the different religions. They can't all be right?
You know, there is wisdom to be found in thought. Otherwise, we wouldn't keep thinking.

You say that you "have all of human recorded history which tends to favor a male/female set up in the family." This may be presumptuous but I suspect that you've never read any piece of history that has even mentioned homosexual couples raising a child. If so, how can it favour heterosexual parents?
Or, do you mean that, because parents in the recorded past have been heterosexual, that this must be what makes the best parents? You're pretty hung up on this "past" thing, aren't you? If you can't see that what was done in the past isn't always a good thing and that things can improve over time, I fear I'm debating this with the wrong person. As it is, I think my words are falling on deaf ears, and I've shown you why, already.

These really sound like rationalizations. Combine this with some of the pious things that you've said or implied and I get the impression that you're really objectioning on religious grounds. Of course, you can't just come out and say this so you try to back up your position with some kind of evidence. The same thing happened when it became legal for women to be topless in public. Many people objected and made up some ridiculous arguments. They were so bad that I can only assume they were objectioning based on reasons they didn't feel would withstand debate, like their religious beliefs (although, to my knowledge, there's nothing in the bible against nudity).

prosequence · 10-21-2003, 11:31 AM

I believe marriage is a religious blessing.
Forcing a religion to change what it believes is wrong.
The benefits in both provinces that gay marriage is legal (British Columbia and Ontario) are there for same sex couples WITHOUT having to be married.
Is it OK for governments to take over a religous ceremony?
To add in what they think is fair and right? Are they not supposed to be representing the "people", doesnit not matter that the majority of the people are against it, for may different reasons?

KnifeMissile · 10-21-2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by prosequence
I believe marriage is a religious blessing.
Forcing a religion to change what it believes is wrong.
The benefits in both provinces that gay marriage is legal (British Columbia and Ontario) are there for same sex couples WITHOUT having to be married.
Is it OK for governments to take over a religous ceremony?
To add in what they think is fair and right? Are they not supposed to be representing the "people", doesnit not matter that the majority of the people are against it, for may different reasons?

First of all, the Canadian government has explicitly stated that no religioin will be forced to perform marriages that are against their faith. This is a compromise between freedom of religion and freedom to equal rights. Obviously, homosexual marriages will be performed by the crown.

Second of all, yes, the government is supposed to represent the people, no colloquial quotes needed. In fact, they are supposed to represent the rights of all people, not just the majority. Does it make any sense to ask the majority what rights the minority should have?
Consider this. Suppose you were to hold a US referendum on whether black people should be slaves or not. If all the white people said "yes" and all the black people said "no" then they would be slaves and that's all there is to it. The majority has spoken! Pretty fair, eh? Then again, you can just hold another referendum on whether black people should vote at all and you'd never have to hear from them again! Justice has been served....
This is called the "tyranny of the majority." Again, it doesn't make sense to ask the majority what rights the minority should have, which is why some laws are determined by the people and other laws are determined by the government (individuals, basically).

DukeLeto · 10-21-2003, 01:16 PM

The only fair way to make such a decision is the child's own preference. If the child is too young to register an opinion, or if such a meeting is impossible, the ethical thing to do would be to let chance decide. That's the one truly disinterested method of making decisions, and as such, no matter <i>what</i> kind of pair the prospective parents are, it is the correct choice for resolving your dilemma.

By the by, I am in the situation described by Conclamo Ludus, only it was my mother who came out, when I was 14. I feel that, though the initial experience was traumatic, the resulting friendships, events and experiences from then up until the present more than make up for the shock. I am fiercely proud of having two sets of loving parents, who are happy in their new partnerships (my father remarried). No complaints whatsoever.

DukeLeto · 10-21-2003, 01:19 PM

All of the above was directed toward Ustwo.

prosequence · 10-21-2003, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Does it make any sense to ask the majority what rights the minority should have?

I can understand where you are coming from, but why does the government have the right to perform a religious ceremony?

And as far as the minority arguement, no offence but it lacks...

Let's say the minority of people are crack heads, we hold a referendum on building more crack houses, most the people say no, but to the "medical addiciton" of the crackheads, the government declares it is in the best interest.

I'm not saying it's all black and white but once in a while, the majority should rule.

KnifeMissile · 10-21-2003, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by prosequence
I can understand where you are coming from, but why does the government have the right to perform a religious ceremony?

And as far as the minority arguement, no offence but it lacks...

Let's say the minority of people are crack heads, we hold a referendum on building more crack houses, most the people say no, but to the "medical addiciton" of the crackheads, the government declares it is in the best interest.

I'm not saying it's all black and white but once in a while, the majority should rule.

First, what are you really complaining about when you question why "the government have the right to perform a religious ceremony?"
I would be happy if there was no legal definition of marriage and it was something only recognized by the church. However, for whatever reasons, there are legal consequences to be married. As long as the law recognizes marriages, the law must be fair and allow anyone the right to marry.

Secondly, I will take offense to your ridiculous claim that my minority argument "lacks." This is such typical reactionary rhetoric that is all too prevalent in debates today and in the past.
At least you recognize that it's not all "black and white." Yes, often the majority does rule and I never said otherwise. Unless you mean that, sometimes, the majority should rule over the minority. I vehemently disagree (and, thank God, so does our government!) for reasons already stated.
Your example of the minority "crack heads" as a retort is specious. It relies on our current opinion of crack heads as unsympathetic characters in order to make their government sanction seem proposterous. What's the point of this, that if the government protects the rights of the minority then the majority might disagree? Yes, this can happen and we've already been over this.
If the government thinks it's in our best interest then the hope is that it is! If it's not then surely there will be a party you can elect that will introduce new policy more popular with the people. It's not a perfect system but, nothing is, and it's better than letting the majority rule with prejudice and triviality.

This is off topic but there is already plenty of legislature that is unpopular with the people but are upheld, nonetheless, because the government feels it's in our best interest. This is especially true when it comes to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Do you honestly protest this?

TrogDor · 10-21-2003, 09:06 PM

C) Allow homosexual people to get married, as well.

Simple. Who the FUCK are "we" to say who and who cannot get married. People should not be persecuted for doing something differently. Its just not fucking right.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-21-2003, 09:13 PM

Just grant them civil unions giving them the same rights under the law as those married by a Church. Christianity (and thats the issue here) has the right to refuse to marry gay people, the government really has no grounds to refuse rights and such to the same people though.

KnifeMissile · 10-21-2003, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Just grant them civil unions giving them the same rights under the law as those married by a Church. Christianity (and thats the issue here) has the right to refuse to marry gay people, the government really has no grounds to refuse rights and such to the same people though.

I'm sorry, what are you saying here?
Given the previous sentence, when you say that "Christianity has the right to refuse to marry gay people," it's hard to tell whether this is an assertion or an opinion. As stated before, even though gay marriage is legal in Canada the church is not compelled to perform said marriages.
I simply cannot parse the sentence "the government really has no grounds to refuse rights and such to the same people though." To whom are you refering when you say "the same people."

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-21-2003, 10:17 PM

I'm saying that like in Canada, Churches have the right to refuse to marry its both an assertion and an opinion. The government doesn't have the rights to refuse to gays the benefits of being married, so just grant civil unions and let them be seen as "married" under the law. Does that clear things up?

KnifeMissile · 10-21-2003, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I'm saying that like in Canada, Churches have the right to refuse to marry its both an assertion and an opinion. The government doesn't have the rights to refuse to gays the benefits of being married, so just grant civil unions and let them be seen as "married" under the law. Does that clear things up?

Mostly. I'm now confused by your use of the word "like." I mean, we're not talking about someplace like Canada, we are talking about Canada. Unless that was just a valley-girl use of the word "like," which is fine.

Yes, we're trying to just let them get married but there is still opposition by a bunch of bible thumping bigots who don't believe in freedom. Why do people like this exist!

prosequence · 10-22-2003, 12:09 PM

Bible thumping bigots?
Interesting. You think only bible thumping bigots oppose the missuse of their ceremony? What about homophobic rednecks who can't read so don't even own a bible. What about the corporations and insurance companies that would rather sidestep the extra cash they'll have to spend on benefits. What about the insane citizens who don't see any benefit the "unions" will make to the country. What about.....
Oh hell, yeah, those old bible thumping bigots. Got to hate them for standing up for what they believe in.

KnifeMissile · 10-22-2003, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by prosequence
Oh hell, yeah, those old bible thumping bigots. Got to hate them for standing up for what they believe in.

Yes, there are other people, besides bible thumpers, who dislike this new law. However, the ones in Parliament and going to court are, well, the bible thumpers...

Sure, they can believe what they want, they just shouldn't be able to enforce their beliefs onto others. Here, in Canada, we believe in freedom!

prosequence · 10-22-2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle
Yes, there are other people, besides bible thumpers, who dislike this new law. However, the ones in Parliament and going to court are, well, the bible thumpers...

Sure, they can believe what they want, they just shouldn't be able to enforce their beliefs onto others.

But it's OK for advocates of same sex marriages? Interesting.

As far as a free country.... sorry to burst everyones bubble, it doesn't truly exist. Please do not CONFUSE RIGHTS with FREEDOM.

eple · 10-22-2003, 01:58 PM

To love whoever you want is a freedom, not a right?

And are homosexuals really enforcing any beliefs? Are you saying that homosexuality is a belief and not a sexual orientation?

On behalf of one of my best friends and her girlfriend: Fuck that.

KnifeMissile · 10-22-2003, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by prosequence
But it's OK for advocates of same sex marriages? Interesting.

As far as a free country.... sorry to burst everyones bubble, it doesn't truly exist. Please do not CONFUSE RIGHTS with FREEDOM.

Ah, the pointless rhetoric continues...

Same sex advocates are not forcing their beliefs onto anyone. In what possible manner do you think this?

I'm sorry, I have no bubble to burst. If you're going to go on about how "we can't all have total freedom" because actions from one's freedom can infringe upon the freedoms of others, I'm sorry that I assumed we were all already over that. Yes, this is true so we try to give each and every one of us an equal amount of freedom. Your freedom to swing your arms about wildly ends at my nose.
What freedom of Christianity was robbed by allowing homosexual marriages?

Now, does anyone have anythng real to say or have all the reasonable people left this thread already?

prosequence · 10-22-2003, 05:27 PM

I think all the reasonable ones left, just you and me now.

eple · 10-23-2003, 01:38 AM

Don't flatter yourself prosequence, try responding to questions instead.

prosequence · 10-23-2003, 05:33 PM

Well this is to satisfy EPLE....

Quote:

Originally posted by KnifeMissle

Same sex advocates are not forcing their beliefs onto anyone. In what possible manner do you think this?

They are lobying the governement to make them accept the change THEY want in a religious ceremony. Hence the lobyists, marches, debates etc.

Quote:

What freedom of Christianity was robbed by allowing homosexual marriages?

The sacred meaning of marriage. Not just Christianity either, for all religions who use marriage as a blessing from God.

Quote:

Now, does anyone have anythng real to say or have all the reasonable people left this thread already?

And Eple I'm sorry I left you out and didn't mention you.

splck · 10-23-2003, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by prosequence

Quote:

They are lobying the governement to make them accept the change THEY want in a religious ceremony. Hence the lobyists, marches, debates etc.

Civil marriages have nothing to do with religion. The Canadian government is not going to demand any church perform same sex marriages. It's not lobbying the government that brought about this change, but rather a Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge. The supreme court made the ruling.

Quote:

The sacred meaning of marriage. Not just Christianity either, for all religions who use marriage as a blessing from God.

Again it's a civil marriage, not a church marriage with a blessing from god.

I don't see marriage as a religious ceremony, but that's just me.

filtherton · 10-24-2003, 06:44 AM

Quote:

They are lobying the governement to make them accept the change THEY want in a religious ceremony. Hence the lobyists, marches, debates etc.

The fact that the procedure of marriage sometimes takes place in a church doesn't change the fact that it is a legal procedure. Ever heard of a marriage licence? The religious proceedings involved in getting married are pure ritual and independent of actually getting married in any legal sense.

Quote:

The sacred meaning of marriage. Not just Christianity either, for all religions who use marriage as a blessing from God.

So a marriage would somehow be less sacred if two men could do it too? How so? All you have to do is look at the divorce rate(around 50% last i heard) to see how "sacred" christian marriages are.

prosequence · 10-24-2003, 05:04 PM

Although I don't agree that "marriage" is not a religious ceremony, no fees (taxgrab) was mandatory centuries ago. However I do think homosexuals should have their own "union", "Blessing", or whatever. If they would just stop using the term "same sex marriges" I think that some (not all ) of the resistence would go away. Churches and their communities feel that it's imposing on their beliefs, keep it away from the church and the resistence will lessen.

eple · 10-28-2003, 05:28 AM

Are we feeling pedantic today? Bickering over a name? Who cares if they call it marriage or union or blessing or flabmax? This is about Homosexual's right to earn the official status as married. Noone will force any homophobe priest into blessing gay people if taht is a great problem to him. It is possible to marry outside the church, you know. Or should my parents change their status to "union" or "blessing" because they aren't christian and didn't have a church wedding?

Kadath · 10-28-2003, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Are we feeling pedantic today? Bickering over a name? Who cares if they call it marriage or union or blessing or flabmax?

Two names lends itself to "separate but equal," which never is. As much as I'd love to see "Gary Franklin and Steve Watanabe were flabmaxed on Thursday"....

10-19-2003, 04:44 PM	#42 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	That’s where I think its wrong, they are not identical, having a mother and father is a good thing, and its better for the child development to have a male and female role model. An interesting side note is how STABLE are homosexual marriages/unions. A quick google search seems to point to 'not very' as a rule. Should this be considered as well? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 10-19-2003 at 04:51 PM..

10-19-2003, 05:12 PM	#43 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Heh. All right then. Let's talk about stability. What's the divorce rate in the US? Near 50%, isn't it? Should we consider stability of straight marriages when a straight couple wants to adopt? As to a child having a male and female role model, well, I don't know. Is is possible for a child to have role models aside from his or her parents? Finally, why am I answering your questions? You couldn't be bothered to respond to mine. __________________ it's quiet in here Last edited by Kadath; 10-19-2003 at 05:14 PM..

10-21-2003, 11:31 AM	#51 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	I believe marriage is a religious blessing. Forcing a religion to change what it believes is wrong. The benefits in both provinces that gay marriage is legal (British Columbia and Ontario) are there for same sex couples WITHOUT having to be married. Is it OK for governments to take over a religous ceremony? To add in what they think is fair and right? Are they not supposed to be representing the "people", doesnit not matter that the majority of the people are against it, for may different reasons? __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

10-21-2003, 01:16 PM	#53 (permalink)
DukeLeto Upright Location: Minneapolis	The only fair way to make such a decision is the child's own preference. If the child is too young to register an opinion, or if such a meeting is impossible, the ethical thing to do would be to let chance decide. That's the one truly disinterested method of making decisions, and as such, no matter <i>what</i> kind of pair the prospective parents are, it is the correct choice for resolving your dilemma. By the by, I am in the situation described by Conclamo Ludus, only it was my mother who came out, when I was 14. I feel that, though the initial experience was traumatic, the resulting friendships, events and experiences from then up until the present more than make up for the shock. I am fiercely proud of having two sets of loving parents, who are happy in their new partnerships (my father remarried). No complaints whatsoever. __________________ "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." -- Thomas Paine

10-21-2003, 01:19 PM	#54 (permalink)
DukeLeto Upright Location: Minneapolis	All of the above was directed toward Ustwo. __________________ "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." -- Thomas Paine

10-19-2003, 04:39 PM	#41 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Flip a coin. If they are truly identical than it doesn't matter.

10-19-2003, 05:14 PM	#44 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	In a time when most marriages end in divorce, I think its great that some one is still interested in getting married at all.

10-21-2003, 09:06 PM	#57 (permalink)
TrogDor Tilted	C) Allow homosexual people to get married, as well. Simple. Who the FUCK are "we" to say who and who cannot get married. People should not be persecuted for doing something differently. Its just not fucking right.

10-21-2003, 09:13 PM	#58 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Just grant them civil unions giving them the same rights under the law as those married by a Church. Christianity (and thats the issue here) has the right to refuse to marry gay people, the government really has no grounds to refuse rights and such to the same people though. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-21-2003, 10:17 PM	#60 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I'm saying that like in Canada, Churches have the right to refuse to marry its both an assertion and an opinion. The government doesn't have the rights to refuse to gays the benefits of being married, so just grant civil unions and let them be seen as "married" under the law. Does that clear things up? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-22-2003, 12:09 PM	#62 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	Bible thumping bigots? Interesting. You think only bible thumping bigots oppose the missuse of their ceremony? What about homophobic rednecks who can't read so don't even own a bible. What about the corporations and insurance companies that would rather sidestep the extra cash they'll have to spend on benefits. What about the insane citizens who don't see any benefit the "unions" will make to the country. What about..... Oh hell, yeah, those old bible thumping bigots. Got to hate them for standing up for what they believe in. __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

10-22-2003, 01:58 PM	#65 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	To love whoever you want is a freedom, not a right? And are homosexuals really enforcing any beliefs? Are you saying that homosexuality is a belief and not a sexual orientation? On behalf of one of my best friends and her girlfriend: Fuck that.

10-22-2003, 05:27 PM	#67 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	I think all the reasonable ones left, just you and me now. __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

10-23-2003, 01:38 AM	#68 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Don't flatter yourself prosequence, try responding to questions instead.

10-24-2003, 05:04 PM	#72 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	Although I don't agree that "marriage" is not a religious ceremony, no fees (taxgrab) was mandatory centuries ago. However I do think homosexuals should have their own "union", "Blessing", or whatever. If they would just stop using the term "same sex marriges" I think that some (not all ) of the resistence would go away. Churches and their communities feel that it's imposing on their beliefs, keep it away from the church and the resistence will lessen. __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

10-28-2003, 05:28 AM	#73 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Are we feeling pedantic today? Bickering over a name? Who cares if they call it marriage or union or blessing or flabmax? This is about Homosexual's right to earn the official status as married. Noone will force any homophobe priest into blessing gay people if taht is a great problem to him. It is possible to marry outside the church, you know. Or should my parents change their status to "union" or "blessing" because they aren't christian and didn't have a church wedding?