Canada - The True Home of Freedom!

[ghostdog2]

By the way, Canada's too cold and they worship figure skaters. It may be the only country on earth where Brian Boitano and the Queen are both front page news.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Or--just a wacky, un-American thought here--we could try staying the hell out of other people's private lives and religious beliefs.

One would have thought that martial arts students--much like people who've done a bit of reading and thinking?--would've learned how to see through some of their own little knots. For example, the knots that have to do with tizzing because other people think differently? The ones that have to do with the head spinning around three times, widdershins, because some folks read their Bible differently? The ones that have to do with macho posturing and hating people we don't know anything about? Or the knots that have to do with flipping out because somewhere, sometime, somebody gay might a) exist, b) be getting some, c) (worst of all, it seems) fall in love? Or the one that has to do with self-confidence--about one's own faith, ideas, sexuality--so we don't get all fussed about other people's quite so often?

It's like Roy Blount, Jr., always says--gay people have revealed their evil plan...it's called, "marriage."

Loved the bit about Brian Boitano and Queen, though. One trusts that next time y'all are at a ball game and they put on "We Are the Champions," or, "YMCA," you'll be throwing a good public tantrum. One that everybody can recognize.

 

[GAB]

Hi,

I have a Dictionary in front of me Webster's, New Twentieth Century...

States that the word "Big'ot" comes from, the spanish. Meaning "a man with a Mustache" Also a narrow minded person, intolerant towards issue's, stern regarding owns party or thoughts etc. etc. etc.

Above is paraphrased.

So which are you, if male?

A man with a mustache, or a narrow minded person?
Or a person who has their thoughts, states them, and sticks by them come hell or high water?

Which by the way, as I recall we have that right also...

Regards, Gary

 

[shesulsa]

8. Change the law in your state if you don't agree with it.

That has been attempted, but money (a.k.a. republicans) most often wins. Funny how no one seems to be so upset about that.

Expanding the Constitution to create new "rights" will require judicial activism unlikely to come from the present S.C. or an amending process that probably won't suceed.

New rights? All men are created equal - that means you should have the same rights as a gay man and vice versa - and they are endowed by their creator (guess what? there's no gay God) with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the government is now upending the foundation on which the country was constructed by denying gays their pursuit of happiness. End of story. Anything else is nothing but convenient, mamby-pamby bible thumping to help homophobes feel a little better about their NOT being gay. Feel better? I hope to hell so.

A thought: enter a binding contract giving your partner the equivalent of marital rights, throw a party, call it a Reception and tell everybody you got married. Who'll know? Who'll care?

Oh, I dunno - one's conscience, maybe? Oh, that's right - one would have to have a conscience that includes all humans for that to apply.

 

[GAB]

That has been attempted, but money (a.k.a. republicans) most often wins. Funny how no one seems to be so upset about that.

New rights? All men are created equal - that means you should have the same rights as a gay man and vice versa - and they are endowed by their creator (guess what? there's no gay God) with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the government is now upending the foundation on which the country was constructed by denying gays their pursuit of happiness. End of story. Anything else is nothing but convenient, mamby-pamby bible thumping to help homophobes feel a little better about their NOT being gay. Feel better? I hope to hell so.

Oh, I dunno - one's conscience, maybe? Oh, that's right - one would have to have a conscience that includes all humans for that to apply.

Hi,

It is a perfect world? No.

Interesting post, but still one can have an opinion. The rules may change when it gets into the courts hands.

Because one thinks it is wrong or right is not the discussion. It is who has the best human rights? America or Canada?

My vote is for America.

Regards, Gary

 

[shesulsa]

With all due respect, Gary, I do believe, upon re-reading the origininating post by Bester, that the thread was intended to point out that Canada has indicated the intestinal fortitude to afford gay couples the same rights to marriage as straight couples. To debate whether the U.S. or Canada is the greater champion of human rights would indicate the need for much more information on a much broader spectrum.

Also, I'm not saying that anyone is not entitled to an opinion. I LOVE the fact we can disagree so openly and blatantly and state our opinions no matter how justified or villified. But we must take care when we enact laws which support our OPINIONS - especially when they violate a human right.

I like that the "Gay rights" issue was lumped into the phrase "Human rights" by Bester, because they really are human rights and it could be easily argued that we, the human rights champions of the world, the U.S.A., ought to be setting a finer example, doncha think?

 

[Bester]

Pass a law banning gay marriage.
Law is overturned as being unconstitutional.
Amend the State Constitution to allow it.
Law is reissues.
Homophobes and Bigots cheer.
Law goes infront of Federal Judges.
Judges declare law against national constitution.
Homophobes and bigots boo. President Doofass demands Constitutional Amendment declaring gays second class citizens.
Homophobes and bigots wet pants in anticipation of legalized fag-bashing.
Congress moves into high speed inaction
President decries "Activist Judges" who were doing their job, of protecting America from itself.
Supreme Court decides not to decide and tosses rullings back to State Level.

Gays in South are left confused, wondering what all that noice was back in the 1860's about the Federal Penis outweighing the State Penis. Blacks and Liberals demand gays stop abusing their issues....

Women try to start gay-rights march, but give up when they realize the only way Conservative Males will pay attention to them is if they wore floss and could speak from their breasts. Liberal men are of course offended, but too busy watching "Queer Eye" to mention it.


What is the big deal about gay marriage? It's not like they can reproduce, and they increase the chances of you scoring......Tell you what...Lets ask Jesus.

Jesus, is it wrong for Gays to marry?
Sure, I'll hold...............................................................................................
....................................................
.....................................................
.......................................................
...........................................................

Hmm....doesn't look like he is gonna answer....damn "Activist Judge"...passing the decision back down to a lower court.

 

[Bester]

With all due respect, Gary, I do believe, upon re-reading the origininating post by Bester, that the thread was intended to point out that Canada has indicated the intestinal fortitude to afford gay couples the same rights to marriage as straight couples. To debate whether the U.S. or Canada is the greater champion of human rights would indicate the need for much more information on a much broader spectrum.

Also, I'm not saying that anyone is not entitled to an opinion. I LOVE the fact we can disagree so openly and blatantly and state our opinions no matter how justified or villified. But we must take care when we enact laws which support our OPINIONS - especially when they violate a human right.

I like that the "Gay rights" issue was lumped into the phrase "Human rights" by Bester, because they really are human rights and it could be easily argued that we, the human rights champions of the world, the U.S.A., ought to be setting a finer example, doncha think?

:wavey:

By Odin, I think she got it.

:wavey:

**sends note to guy with the bad hair to give her a payraise.....**

 

[shesulsa]

Jesus, is it wrong for Gays to marry?

Oh I like it. How about this one? Jesus, why did God make gay people?

What? Ask the homophobes, okay..... hey, you who oppose gay marriage the gay "lifestyle" - why did God make gay people?

 

[Bester]

But see they will insist that Gays are the "Devils Creation". One rather arrogent pastor said that to me once. So I asked him, "Since when can the Devil Create? I thought only God could create?".

The resulting sputtering was interesting.

 

[Makalakumu]

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! WIN A DAMN ELECTION!

The RNC showed in 2000 and 2004 that they are willing to break laws, disenfranchise large segments of voters, intimidate, and/or trick people in order to "win" elections.

Who gives a ****!

This is the response on the Right when the above is pointed out.

MOVE TO CANADA!

Where the rule of law prevails and democracy exists.

 

[shesulsa]

But see they will insist that Gays are the "Devils Creation". One rather arrogent pastor said that to me once. So I asked him, "Since when can the Devil Create? I thought only God could create?".

The resulting sputtering was interesting.

Indeed. Satan was cast down because he thought that since we are all created in the eyes of God and in His image that we should all be able to create and wanted that power, thus God shunned him.

So, then the argument would be that Satan tempts the flesh, so my next question would be if animals have souls. The good Christian will tell you that no, they do not. If not, then the devil would have no purpose in tempting animal flesh, correct? If Satan has no purpose in tempting animals, they why is it that when approximately 10% of the human population is homosexual that approximately 10% of the animal population is also gay. Did satan create the animals? No. Would he tempt them to do his bidding? if so, what would be the purpose of making animals fornicate in a homosexual fashion? It makes no sense. Nor do other things, really.

 

[michaeledward]

I have a Dictionary in front of me Webster's, New Twentieth Century...

States that the word "Big'ot" comes from, the spanish. Meaning "a man with a Mustache" Also a narrow minded person, intolerant towards issue's, stern regarding owns party or thoughts etc. etc. etc.

Above is paraphrased.

So which are you, if male?

A man with a mustache, or a narrow minded person?
Or a person who has their thoughts, states them, and sticks by them come hell or high water?

Which by the way, as I recall we have that right also...

Regards, Gary

Gary,
I am male. I no longer have a moustache, although, I did from 17 years old to 40 years old.

Yes, everyone has the 'right' to their thoughts: and to stick by them come hell or high water. How a person exercises their right to their thoughs, and the fervor with which they stick by them does say an awful lot about a person, don't you think?

My question to Sapper6 is why he thinks less of Canadians?
Or, more specifically, why he thinks Canadians are less than Americans?
Conversly, why he thinks Americans are superior to Canadians?

Although, this is the argument he started with his statement "lets try and model ourselves after the canadians! tell me again what's made them unique? who's backs are they riding...?".

I really think Sapper6 does not mean Canadians are of less value than Americans, but that is what he is saying. Until we can clearly define what it is that he is saying, it is difficult to have a discussion about it.

You see, if we can not discuss what it is that he believes, and what he means when he makes the statements he does, he is behaving as a, how did you put it, 'narrow minded person, intolerant towards issue's, stern regarding owns party or thoughts'.


Mike

 

[raedyn]

It seems a bit of an overstatement to say that the U.S. is a fascist state because our Constitution doesn't address same sex marriages

You're right, it's probably overstatement. Please don't be fooled into thinking that everyone who celebreates these judgements thinks the US is becoming a fascist state.

and Canada is the new Eden because its constitution does.

That's only one of a host of reasons I think Canada is Eden. But I'm 8th generation Canadian, so I'm horribly biased. =)

A thought: enter a binding contract giving your partner the equivalent of marital rights,

People do try and do this. The problem is, there are many rights and responsibilities that will not be extended to your same-sex partner no matter what contract you have signed together.
Examples;
1)In many workplaces, health benefits extend to your legally married spouse and your biological or adopted children. They will not apply to your same-sex partner unless you can marry him/her.
2)Adoption agencies prefer to (and some only will) adopt children out to married couples. They won't recognize any contract as a marriage unless the State says it is.
3) When a person is terminally ill & in the hospital, their next of kin gets to make choices about their care, and life-support (or not) etc - and when the time comes, they make funeral arrangements. If you are legally married, your spouse will be empowered to make these choices, even if other family objects, or totally hates the spouse. In the case of a gay couple, even if they've signed a contract that says "I give all power to my lover" contracts can be challenged, and sometimes wills are ignored. The same-sex partner will have to luck out to find a hospital that will honour the agreement and empower the partner over tha family.
4) When a same-sex couple splits, there isn't the same protection and responsibilties as there is with a straight couple - unless the gay couple can get married, too. If a same-sex couple has children together (adoption, artificial insemination, one person's kid from outside the union they choose to raise together) shouldn't they have the same obligation to child support and the same rights to visitation as a straight parent would? They're still parents regardless of their orientation.

This isn't an exhaustive list. But these are some things that even a contract couldn't remedy. Marriage is the only way we currently have to garuntee these rights and responsibilties.

throw a party, call it a Reception and tell everybody you got married.

People already do this. I've personally attended a few of these committment ceremonies & celebrations.

Who'll know? Who'll care?

The family and friends of the people involved. Obviously. Who cares when there's a straight wedding? The friends and family of the people invovled. It's the same thing.

 

[raedyn]

By the way, Canada's too cold and they worship figure skaters. It may be the only country on earth where Brian Boitano and the Queen are both front page news.

Well that is a completely ludicrous statement - not at all reflective of my country, and completely unrelated to the subject matter. But you know, it really helps your arguements to throw-in inaccurate and superfluous tidbits to belittle someone you disagree with. Like "don't listen to him, he's fat" (even though he isn't) is very very convincing.

Thanks for coming out.

 

[Melissa426]

Or--just a wacky, un-American thought here--we could try staying the hell out of other people's private lives and religious beliefs.

For the sake of argument, (hint, hint, don't flame me ) I would like to throw out a point or two.

1. There are many people who would be happy, in fact thrilled, to stay out of your private life if you quit throwing it in their face.

2. I will not interfere with your religious beliefs if you don't interfere with mine, which, with all due respect to your beliefs, forbids homosexual marriage.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[MisterMike]

Too bad Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan were not more successful.

 

[shesulsa]

For the sake of argument, (hint, hint, don't flame me ) I would like to throw out a point or two.

1. There are many people who would be happy, in fact thrilled, to stay out of your private life if you quit throwing it in their face.

2. I will not interfere with your religious beliefs if you don't interfere with mine, which, with all due respect to your beliefs, forbids homosexual marriage.

Peace,
Melissa

On your first point, may I ask (hint, hint, don't flame me either), how exactly in your opinion is homosexuality thrown in anyone's face? (except for the fighting for equal rights, of course, which is very similar to the suffrage movement where women marched in the streets, were arrested, and fought dearly for their simple right to vote - I don't really see homosexuals doing much different than women or african americans have done to ensure their basic human rights)

On your second point, if one's religious beliefs are reinforced by law, then those religious beliefs are, indeed, interfering with anyone else's that do not coincide with said beliefs, which are by definition not supposed to interfere with human rights or Americanism. So again, may I ask, how homosexuality is interfering with your religious beliefs? I can see where your beliefs do not condone homosexuality or approve of the lifestyle, but how exactly is it stopping you from practicing your religious beliefs? I think some people see it as the other way around - most JudeoChristian belief systems are interfering with homosexuals practicing their right to the pursuit of happiness?

 

[rmcrobertson]

One expects this won't have the slightest effect, Melissa, but could you explain just who it is that has tried to force YOU to marry a woman, your Church to teach that homosexuality is OK or to sanction gay marriage? Just who is it, please, who went to court to take YOUR kids away because you're straight, or to deny YOU spousal benefits for that reaon? Who exactly was it?

Answer: nobody. Your idea of being, "forced," apparently, is that you saw a couple things on the news you didn't like. Or maybe, some goofy 16-year-old showed up at your kids' school with a, "Gay pride," t-shirt. Well, sorry, but boo-hoo. If that's the worst thing anybody could possibly see on the news or at school, boy, would THIS be a better world.

One realizes that for you, the appearance of gay people is more or less the appearance of the Antichrist. You know--moral decline, the collapse of civilization, dogs and cats, living together...but those are religious beliefs. Fine. You're perfectly entitled to them; you're entitled to learn it in school, teach your kids the same, etc., etc.

What you are NOT entitled to do is to go around and demand that everybody believe as you believe, learn as you've learned, teach as you teach. What you are not entitled to do, in fact, is meddle with other people's Constitutitonally-protected rights of worship and speech. It's a question that keeps getting asked: skip all the agnostics and satanists, what if down the street from your church there's a church whose pastor and whose congregation genuinely believes that Christianity extends marriage to everybody? Will you be marching in, avec les cops, and busting them up?

Such an idea can only be based on the idea that you, and only you, have a Direct Pipeline to God's Truth, and get to use the State to make sure that everybody else believes the same. Sorry, we don't do that in America. Or in Canada.

Here're two more ideas: a) have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, your "side," with its hundreds of thousands of churches, advertising, jokes, ideas, fashion, etc., is the one that's doing the forcing down the throats, enforcing what Adrienne Rich calls, "compulsory heterosexuality?" b) has it ever occurred that you're being played by the wealthy Bible-thumpers like Swaggert and Falwell and Robertson, who make their millions and earn their fancy houses by telling the Big Lie: people who really only want to be left alone are your enemy.

They're not your enemy.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Awww, c'mon, Robert, you're being insensitive! Surely somone forced a remote control into Melissa's hand and made her watch a sitcom with a stereotypical gay character, thereby throwing homosexuality into her face!

Heck, some gay couple probably had the audacity to maybe hold hands in public *in her presence*!

Heavens to murgatroid!