Are you for or against same sex marriage?
- Thread starter McRocket
- Start date
superfly2 said:
Hahaha!!! not trying to make you type lots of letters....
I asked about problems exclusive to Homosexual relationships because My Gf and I have quite a few Gay friends who are in relationships and in the ten or so years that I have known them, I have never witnessed an "exclusive homosexual problem"...... In fact I have shared in their triumph's, problems and grief associated to every day living and relationships.... and as far as I can tell, the only difference to me is the fact that they have same sex partners.
One of the couples I know, have children and have raised them from birth... One boy and one girl... both in their teens, and both aware of their Father and his partners sexuality.... The young girl is a school captain and an A+ student... She likes boys, the latest music and is a clothes Horse like most girls her age. Her brother is a 2nd year University Student who is studying Engineering... He plays Rugby Union on the Weekends and has Gf who is studying to be a doctor..... she is a little Hottie too
I have known these kids since they were young children and IMO, they are as normal as the next kid.
And I didn't say that I knew little or nothing, I said that I knew nothing for sure.
Happy now?My brain hurts...
Ok, you got me on that one!!!
these are just my experiences... But in saying that, they are good ones.
Last edited:
Dirty Sanchez
Banned
LetoII said:
Nice that you purposely left out the part of my post that asks a valid question.
Since you "missed" it, I'll ask again. If We (as in a corrupt government desperate to stay in power who unanimously voted against same sex marriage 6 years ago) can change the legal definition on marriage to include gay couples, then why can't they change the laws and allow a man (or woman) to be married to more then one person at the same time. If it's love, then why can't I marry my two girlfriends, and have them be married to each other?
The legal definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. Plain and simple. Of you are a man, and you are in love with another man, do what you want. Get all your rights as a couple, but by legal definition, you can not marry, because you do not fit what the legal definition is!!! Call it a union. Call it an arraignment. But, in no fucking way, is it a marriage!!!!
mcrocket said:
The way our idiotic government went about passing the bill. Look into some of ways this lie-beral government has handled the situation (The Toronto Sun, should help.
First, they teamed up with a party (the NDP) they say would bankrupt the country if they ever got in power, in order to pass the budget. Then, they slammed the Conservatives for "working" with the Bloc because both were set to oppose the budget. Low and behold, guess who Martin bought off to get their support for the gay bill? The evil Bloc party, and the incompetent NDP. On top of that, the Fiberals promised open debate on the floor about this bill, and said they would give every MP a chance to talk to their constituents before calling a vote. Guess what, that didn't happen.
The job of the government is to work for the voters. This issue should have been dealt with by a referendum, or atleast, more talk and discussion from the voter before being rushed through so our politicians could go on summer holidays.
BNF
Ex-SuperMod
It will come.
The fact it is even being discussed shows the progress that is being made. IMO It is not very different than the struggle for equal rights in the USA. There were huge groups of "convservatives" that believed the African American to be inferior or a whole slew(sp?) of other deviant, "less than us" race.
Trying to tie up an arguement with "legal definitions" is about as effective as trying to keep an entire part of any population back. The rule of law is an idea that is a crutch because they have not learned to mistrust words. Any lawmaker knows the value of words as law - the value that they are flexible and interpretable.
Many of the things that "conservatives" accept as normal now, were fought against tooth and nail by conservative grandparents.
The human race expands and changes, occasionally shrinks back, but seldom as far as the expansion was. The fact that this board exisits, that there are the pictures and distribution is not thanks to conservatives... The "I am" arguement wins everytime over the "you are not" - everytime...
The fact it is even being discussed shows the progress that is being made. IMO It is not very different than the struggle for equal rights in the USA. There were huge groups of "convservatives" that believed the African American to be inferior or a whole slew(sp?) of other deviant, "less than us" race.
Trying to tie up an arguement with "legal definitions" is about as effective as trying to keep an entire part of any population back. The rule of law is an idea that is a crutch because they have not learned to mistrust words. Any lawmaker knows the value of words as law - the value that they are flexible and interpretable.
Many of the things that "conservatives" accept as normal now, were fought against tooth and nail by conservative grandparents.
The human race expands and changes, occasionally shrinks back, but seldom as far as the expansion was. The fact that this board exisits, that there are the pictures and distribution is not thanks to conservatives... The "I am" arguement wins everytime over the "you are not" - everytime...
member2686
Banned
Nice post, BNF. We're taking baby steps towards progress. We'd (society) be taking leaps ahead if it were not for social conservatives and so-called "Christians." :ban:
Just lovely... lol
For you Americans out there, remember the "Pledge of Allegiance" we all said in school as kids? "...with liberty and justice for ALL." :thumbsup: :2 cents:
Just lovely... lol
For you Americans out there, remember the "Pledge of Allegiance" we all said in school as kids? "...with liberty and justice for ALL." :thumbsup: :2 cents:
Dirty Sanchez said:
So you are pissed at the Liberals for the way they passed it? Okay fine. Politicians cannot be trusted - ever. Only now you are seeing this?
Politics - the way it is set up now - attracts liars and people that seek power above all else. Even those that get into power for good reasons can often become quickly corrupted by power and political pressure.
They make deals for their own reasons. Sometimes they help the masses, sometimes they do not. But they ALWAYS help the politicians; or else why would they knowingly pass it (except in those extremely rare cases where the public makes them pass certain bills - unchanged)?
A few words of advice. You had better stop trusting politicians completely are you are going to (figuretively) blow a gasket. Always assume politicians are lieing. Always. No matter what their party. And leave the onus up to them to prove they are not.
Last edited:
Nightfly said:
Well put, as usual.
But it is all about evolution (like you said - baby steps). As I type this the vote in this thread is 22 for and 18 against. Do this poll 10 years ago and it would probably be 32 to 8. 10 years from now? About 28 to 12; and so on.
People will eventually come around. It takes a long time to teach those that are ignorant - on a WHOLE host of issues.
It is just too bad that it is taking SO long. And I am a white heterosexual male. I have had it the easiest in the world. Imagine if I was a black, lesbian female? Or male? 40 years ago? Yikes! As bad as the world can be now - for every 50 years or so you go back in time it was probably exponentially worse.
member2686
Banned
Well said, mcrocket. I'll rep you for that, and I usually don't rep you! lmao
Evolving takes time, but it will happen. If the issue is pressed well and hard enough, perhaps it can be accelerated, though. Look what happened in the 1960s in the USA with race and civil rights!!! It CAN happen...
It's just unfortunate that we have so many ignorant, knuckledragging mouthbreathers in the world. LOL! :eek: :thefinger
Evolving takes time, but it will happen. If the issue is pressed well and hard enough, perhaps it can be accelerated, though. Look what happened in the 1960s in the USA with race and civil rights!!! It CAN happen...
It's just unfortunate that we have so many ignorant, knuckledragging mouthbreathers in the world. LOL! :eek: :thefinger
Last edited:
mcrocket said:
As I predicted, this thread has gotten a lot of the above. If you aren't for it, you are ignorant or a bigot or whatever. I do wonder how mcrocket and the others became so enlightened.
I also notice that none of the pro forces has bothered to address the point I and then dirty sanchez made: Polygamy should be legal!
Don't give me b.s that there isn't a great demand it. Give it time. There wasn't a great demand for homosexual marriage 50 years ago.
And while we are at it, let us lower the age of consent too. I know plenty of 15 year olds who are more mature then 30 year olds. If they are ready for marriage, who are we to stop them?
As someone wrote, gay marriage will happen. I agree. Western Civilization is moribund and the preposterous idea of gay "marriage" will just be another nail in its coffin.
member2686
Banned
I still see absolutely no link between polygamy and same sex marriage. :wtf: are you talking about, The Fog? Marriage is a committed, exclusive, monogamous (at least, this is the intent...), loving joining of two people in the eyes of society and the law. Simply because archaic laws "on the books" say "between a man and a woman" doesn't mean we cannot expand and progress, evolve...
People fear change and difference. They fear that with which they are unfamiliar.
As to how some of us became enlightened -- we were fortunate enough to have been raised and nurtured by intelligent and open-minded parents and we were also exposed to many facets of life while growing up. We were not secluded and isolated and kept in the proverbial "dark" by oppressive xenophobes.
Life isn't worth living with blinders on. Too many people live that way. They feel themselves cast in a mold and don't dare to look outside of the realm of security/ignorance into which they've been placed by whatever influences in their lives - parents, church, peers. They're like racehorses...all they want to do is follow the path laid out before them and to "go to Heaven."
It's absurd to me. I've said it before and I will say it again: Ignorance is NOT bliss. Try living and learning. You'll find that, straight, gay, or bisexual -- people are all the same the world over. We all want to be free, respected, and treated equally.
People fear change and difference. They fear that with which they are unfamiliar.
As to how some of us became enlightened -- we were fortunate enough to have been raised and nurtured by intelligent and open-minded parents and we were also exposed to many facets of life while growing up. We were not secluded and isolated and kept in the proverbial "dark" by oppressive xenophobes.
Life isn't worth living with blinders on. Too many people live that way. They feel themselves cast in a mold and don't dare to look outside of the realm of security/ignorance into which they've been placed by whatever influences in their lives - parents, church, peers. They're like racehorses...all they want to do is follow the path laid out before them and to "go to Heaven."
It's absurd to me. I've said it before and I will say it again: Ignorance is NOT bliss. Try living and learning. You'll find that, straight, gay, or bisexual -- people are all the same the world over. We all want to be free, respected, and treated equally.
Nightfly said:
Nightfly, I sincerely do not want to insult you. Honestly!
However, you seem to be having a problem with elementary logic.
Marriage has for centuries been defined as being between a man and a woman. You and the others now want to change that definition.
Therefore, I again ask by what right or logic would you deny me or whomever the right to demand that it be changed further? Why should it only be between two people? It used to be only between man and woman but we now realize that is Christian, close-minded and bigoted so we are in the process of changing it. Who are you to say it can't be changed even more.
Again, give me reasons. Don't just say it is between two people. It used to be just between a man and a woman. If we can change it to man and man and woman and woman, we can change it to three (or more) people.
Nightfly said:
Yeah, it's got me too there. What does poligamy have to do with same sex marriage? And why are these subjects so vivid on the minds of the two persons that mentioned them. Nothing wrong with it - I just wonder why.
I have 6 divorces in my immediate family alone. No way any of them were in love - not by my standards anyway.
To me, marriage is just a piece of paper - nothing more. You do not have to be in love to get married. You do not even have to say you are. You just have to want to get married. But I see your point.
I agree with you there 100%.
Not me. My parents were unhappy and/or emotionally somewhat disturbed individuals you left a lot of misery in there wake (and I have a dead brother to prove it). Assuming they would have never evolved any more in their lives then they had by the time they died - then I am glad they are both dead.
My mother taught me the basics (though failed to observe them herself) and I learned most of it on my own.
So I don't know how the fuck I learned it. And judging by my past - I haven't learned all THAT much.
But I do believe that all people are equal - whether they are dickheads or 'saints'. And if another guy wants to fuck another guy (that wants to be fucked) then go ahead. And if they then fall in love (we express love for cars and other inaniment objects - why do people have problems when it is expressed for another human being of the same sex?) and want to spend the rest of their lives together? Why not? Who the fuck's business is it of mine anyway?
I really like that paragraph. Cool. Unfortunetly, many who have blinders on are not aware they even have them on.
Another very well thought out and expressed post by Nightfly - imo.
Last edited:
member2686
Banned
I know you don't mean to insult me, The Fog ( :thumbsup: ), but I think we're bickering over petty semantics. :tongue: Marriage is joining two things, and yes, TRADITIONALLY it has been a man and a woman.
Don't worry, no one is upset here. And also, something I meant to say earlier...don't be insulted over the use of the term ignorant. Ignorant and stupid are two different things entirely. Ignorance is simply not knowing. Stupidity is knowing but not caring...lol
Look up the actual definition of "marry" or "marriage." Nevermind. Here it is, from Merriam-Webster...
"Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>"
Don't worry, no one is upset here. And also, something I meant to say earlier...don't be insulted over the use of the term ignorant. Ignorant and stupid are two different things entirely. Ignorance is simply not knowing. Stupidity is knowing but not caring...lol
Look up the actual definition of "marry" or "marriage." Nevermind. Here it is, from Merriam-Webster...
"Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>"
Frankily, I think that if a person is allowed to have sex at 14 (which they are in Canada), then they certainly should be allowed to get married at 14.
I am not saying it would be a good marriage. But...
Frankily, I think the world would be a better place if no one got married before 30 OR could have kids...not that it is realistically posible.
And I once again have no problem with marrying more then one person. Though I question the intelligence and/or self esteem of anyone that would agree to share their spouse with another.
Could it work? Yes, sure. But I think it basically panders to the strong minded trying to control the weak minded.
But if they want to do it...go ahead.
I am not saying it would be a good marriage. But...
Frankily, I think the world would be a better place if no one got married before 30 OR could have kids...not that it is realistically posible.
And I once again have no problem with marrying more then one person. Though I question the intelligence and/or self esteem of anyone that would agree to share their spouse with another.
Could it work? Yes, sure. But I think it basically panders to the strong minded trying to control the weak minded.
But if they want to do it...go ahead.
Nightfly said:
I believe that a wide definition of marriage is found at the wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
It is interesting that in the Wikipedia definition you can find included the issue about polygamy, in fact I believe it is a complete article that can enrich this thread :thumbsup:
Dirty Sanchez said:
i didn't miss it at all, Dirty Sanchez ! but i figured it wasn't worth answering to your question anymore, given the very ignorant and insulting remarks that came along with it, which reflected nothing else but your personal and very obvious disgust towards these people - and that certainly shouldn't be part of our debate here.
as i've already mentioned, i have a homosexual relative, and also a couple of friends of the same kind, and i will most definitely defend them, whenever someone calls them "malfunctioning" or "chemically imbalanced".
i suggest that, next time you wanna make a reasonable statement, and expect people to reasonably reply to it, you do so without spouting your mouth off.
but fine, let's get back to your original question.
i will explain to you (and everyone else) why i believe that polygamy (as a form of marriage) is a morality issue, and why the marriage between two people of the same gender is not.
gay or lesbian couples certainly love one another (despite what you believe in this matter) - that i can assure you. and the christian definition of a marriage is that of two individuals, who want to spend the rest of their lives together - based on their equal feelings for one another.
polygamy is something different entirely. how can you possibly love two, or even more women the same way or with the same intensity? i won't say that it doesn't exist, but i'm pretty sure it's extremely rare - especially on a long term base. and now look at the nations that favour and practise polygamy. the women's status in those countries is equal to zero ! they're less valuable than a horse or a fucking camel !
the women in our western society already had to fight hard for their rights (and they're still fighting - fortunately), even though they were, by definition of christianity, equal to their husbands. and i sure wouldn't want to destroy all their efforts by passing a law, which says that a man can have as many women as he wants - because it would result in the debasement of a woman's societal status.
now i can't see any of those problems ocurring with the socially accepted marriage between homosexuals. that's why i believe that your comparison is not valid.
Dirty Sanchez
Banned
mcrocket said:
Well, you asked why it sickened me, so I told you. The fact is, this issue should have been dealt with in either the courts, or by the public, not by a corrupt government who only a few years ago vowed to uphold the traditional term of marriage.
I would also like to add that years ago, the majority of the population thought homos were deviant. Now, apparently, that life style is perfectly fine.
So what's next? What other sexual behavior that we as a public think is wrong and deviant, will be allowed and accepted because more and more people practice it? Think about that.
Think about that the next time Micheal Jackson's name comes up. Think about that the next time you hear of some young boy being molested, or some your girl being abducted by a stranger.
Think about how the court system put Mary Kay Leturno in jail for sleeping with one of her students, and now she is marrying the kid (now an adult). Say those two stay together forever. What right did we as a public (or the court) have in keeping them apart? They were in love, so why did we say it was wrong?
Why is it wrong that a grown man, like MJ, touches young boys. I would personally say MJ has the metal capacity of a 12 year old, so why can't he show his love for some one he cares about?
In certian cases in the judicial system, young offenders can be charged as adults because of the severity of the crime, or the actions taken by the accused. So what's to stop me from saying the 15 year old I'm in love with from proving she is really an adult, and should be allowed to make her own adult decisions, by marrying me?
You think this doesn't relate, fine. But just remember what the vast majority thought of gays years ago, and how it's now changed. It's a slippery slope.
Listen, if you want to be gay, go right ahead. But, the legal definition of marriage, is between a man and a woman. Leave it alone, because what homosexuals have, is NOT MARRIAGE!!!!
Nightfly said:
You were right to use all caps for traditionally! That is a pretty big tradition. However, I would change your sentence to Marriage is a joining of a man and a woman. Go back X number of years and if you were to say I (a man) am married to another man, people would have looked at you like you were from outer space or, more to the point, they would have taken what you said in the same way they would if you said 2+2=5. That is, wtf (!!!!!!!!!) are you talking about?????
Traditions can change. Man and woman can become man and man. Besides, there already is some polygamy in the world. Why would you be against more?
MAN..that is ALOT of subjects. ANd I am not exactly sure whaat you are protesting.
One; I am not gay. So I started this thread not for personal gain.
Two; how is it your business what a gay union is called? people get into arranged marriages with no love at all.
Why are you so hung up on the word marriage? Who cares what it's called? WHy do you care so much?
Most of your other points (that I understood) I have little problem with - I think.
One; I am not gay. So I started this thread not for personal gain.
Two; how is it your business what a gay union is called? people get into arranged marriages with no love at all.
Why are you so hung up on the word marriage? Who cares what it's called? WHy do you care so much?
Most of your other points (that I understood) I have little problem with - I think.
Similar threads
