Canada - The True Home of Freedom!

[rmcrobertson]

1. The claims about "homosexual," behavior occurring only as rare aberrations in nature are both ludicrous and unsubstantiated--unless, of course, you happen to think that Mickey and Minnie, Uncle Donald, Goofy and the rest are actual animals.

2. You've also provided no evidence whatsoever for the contention that "incest," in Nature, is so sufficiently immoral as to result in the extinction of a species. (Incidentally, you might want to check into what selective breeding of domestic animals means. And you might want to check into the actual problem of incest among families in this country--still predominantly the province of grown, "heterosexual," men.) Again, these ungrounded fantasies are symptoms of personal disgust, not attestations of aspects of reality--and personal disgust, one would argue, remains a poor ground for denying human beings legal and religious rights.

3. Gay people--those who wanna get married, that is--are asking for the simple right to a) get married in the church they attend, by a pastor who sees nothing wrong with their marriage b) have their marriage recognized by the State as a binding union, c) have the same legal/financial rights and responsibilities in their unions as everybody else. You know...just like those, "normal," people we keep hearing so much about...though if Dan Quayle and Jimmy Swaggart and J. Edgar Hoover are normal, I'm a persimmon.

4. It's very simple to leave "marriages," with dogs and 3-year-olds out of the question. Dogs and three year olds are not capable of conscious legal and moral choice in this regard or any other, and therefore not capable of entering into such unions. it's the same reasons we don't let them vote, drive, buy beer...nothing mysterious, though one does note the reiterated, commonplace attempt to link being gay to child molestation and perversion.

5. When gay people panic straights--and this is panic, not reason--they do so not because of what they're up to, but because they tend to leave panicked people panicked about their own, "normalcy." As anybody with any sense knows, sex ain't ever normal. And as has often been noted, it ain't clean either--not if you're doing it right.

6. Fascinating that many of the folks opposed to gay marriage also want to bring corporal punishment back to public schools--you know, the idea of middle-aged men taking paddles and spanking kids and teenagers on the butt, pants down?

 

[BlackCatBonz]

6. Fascinating that many of the folks opposed to gay marriage also want to bring corporal punishment back to public schools--you know, the idea of middle-aged men taking paddles and spanking kids and teenagers on the butt, pants down?

ouch!

 

[Kane]

I cannot imagine why people are so threatened by something which is completely natural to a certain segment of the population. My male cousin is gay; his two sisters, one older and one younger, are unabashedly hetero. Does that make the entire family unnatural? No. His taste in partners notwithstanding, I love him as much as I did when he was a little boy and not a homosexual (or rather, not discovered his homosexuality as yet). He doesn't look any different than anyone else, nor does he "act" gay. He has a paying job, pays his taxes and rent in a timely manner. He votes. He and his partner are committed to each other - in fact moreso than a few hetero married couples I know. What do you find wrong with this, other than he chooses a partner of the same sex? He's completely inoffensive. You'd never know he's gay unless he told you. So, how can you make a judgment about an entire group based upon a few more vocal members of it?

Oh yes. His father has had more dysfunctional marriages and relationships than one person should. The son's relationship with his partner has lasted longer than any of his father's. What does that say?

Yes but you are missing the point. What I am saying is if we legalize gay marriage it is not going to end there. Believe it or not there are probably more people in the world attracted to animals than humans. So why can't we give it to them. When do we ever stop? Of course to even someone like you or anyone else who is for gay marriage would be oppose to a ridiculous union between man and animal yet how do you know whether our next generation will think so? I mean because they are brought up with the idea that marriage can be flexed so much I am sure they would think that a union between humans and animals would be okay. So then where is it going to end? If we can't stand up for anything right now who says are kids are going to stand up for anything.


I personally don't mind if gays get married again as long as they call it something else than marriage. Many straight people are offended by the idea of a gay union being the same as their union. I don't care if they get all their economical benefits straight couples do. There are obvious differences between a union between a man and woman and a union between the same genders, so why not just call it another word?


Believe it or not I have a close male friend that is bisexual. I would go so far to say I love him. We actually lived together for a few months. However just because I love him or lived with him for sometime doesn't mean I am going to get married to him.

 

[Shu2jack]

I was content to just lurk on this thread and let you guys duke it out, but the previous post....

What I am saying is if we legalize gay marriage it is not going to end there.

Really? I suppose sheep and dogs will be getting their right to vote and other legal rights now that other minorites (such as american americans and women) have been given them.

Believe it or not there are probably more people in the world attracted to animals than humans.

I am sorry, but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard, espeically when taken into context with the rest of the paragraph...

So why can't we give it to them. When do we ever stop? Of course to even someone like you or anyone else who is for gay marriage would be oppose to a ridiculous union between man and animal yet how do you know whether our next generation will think so? I mean because they are brought up with the idea that marriage can be flexed so much I am sure they would think that a union between humans and animals would be okay. So then where is it going to end? If we can't stand up for anything right now who says are kids are going to stand up for anything.

We are making a stand. We are fighting against those in some 8 states who voted this past election to deny U.S. citizen's their rights. People are making a stand against a majority. The arguement that we would allow people to marry animals if we allow gays to marry is again by far the stupidest reason I heard against gay marriage. You want to deny people one of their most basic rights because you are afraid A man will have sex with another man and so someone from the next generation will have sex with a goat and they will legalize it because of that homosexuality.....please.

I personally don't mind if gays get married again as long as they call it something else than marriage. Many straight people are offended by the idea of a gay union being the same as their union. I don't care if they get all their economical benefits straight couples do. There are obvious differences between a union between a man and woman and a union between the same genders, so why not just call it another word?

Some time ago the Supreme Court mentioned something about the idea of "Seperate, but equal" not working in practice. If nothing else, the dividing of people in such a way or implying that your love is not equal or different to another's love is detrimental not only to the minority, but to society as well.

If straight couples are offended by the idea of a gay union being the same as their union....that is their problem. My marriage is not defined or effected by what others do. In this country I am still allowed to express myself, regardless if it offends somebody, barring some restrictions due to safty/other issues.

Believe it or not I have a close male friend that is bisexual. I would go so far to say I love him. We actually lived together for a few months. However just because I love him or lived with him for sometime doesn't mean I am going to get married to him.

And that is your choice. As for others, they would like their right to marry.

 

[shesulsa]

Believe it or not I have a close male friend that is bisexual. I would go so far to say I love him. We actually lived together for a few months. However just because I love him or lived with him for sometime doesn't mean I am going to get married to him.

Now this is an example of a narrow scope of "love." You can love a friend, but not love in the way you would love a spouse. You love a spouse or a life partner in a way you love no other. This act of love is what two people share regardless of their sexual orientation, when they are partners in life. This is what marriage is all about. It is a ceremony that legally and publicly recognizes and reinforces the bond that two people share. Since most of us are not gay, it is very obvious when an opposing-gendered couple join together. It's more popular.

But the love for your father, brother, best friend, high school football coach is not - IS NOT - the same love two homosexual men who are committed to each other share. The committed love you feel for a female partner is what they feel for each other - and not for all males, mind you. Just because you're a male, it doesn't mean all homosexual men want to sleep with you or want to marry you.

Perhaps this is what people think? They think that homosexual relationships are all about two men or two women bumping uglies regardless of their mutual affiliation? Like a mother and her daughter just because they are both lesbian decide to rub each other the right way because they are so-called "sexual deviants"?????"

I am slack-jawed. It just floors me that this is the way gay couples are thought of - by anybody. Maybe this is why so many rail against gay marriage - it is thought of as such a deviance that it is little more than killing a fly or having sex with an animal, or incest or molestation. GOOD GAWD, PEOPLE! These are people are in love!

 

[Raewyn]

Hi all, I have read every post here, and I dont normally post on these topics but I think...... well......... why not. We have just passed in parilment over here a civil union bill that allows gay couples as well as de-facto couples the same rights that married couples have. I'm not really happening with the gay thing, as they wern't really quite made to fit(if you know what I mean). But when you get right down to the nitty gritty it doesnt really affect me and the way I want to run my life. More power to them, they can rock on with their bad selves as much as they want. You can blame the politicans or the religious groups or whatever but at the end of the day it does'nt really affect how we live our own lives. Im not big on big words, and sometimes I have insightful moments and sometimes I dont. But if a country passes a bill that allows gays to marry, well good on them, it doesnt make them a better country or it doesnt make america a facist country, I for one dont really care as long as everyone is getting what they want out of life!!!!!

 

[michaeledward]

I'm not really happening with the gay thing, as they wern't really quite made to fit(if you know what I mean).

Well .... I think I know what you mean .... and let me say this about that ...

In many of the ways gay couples might 'fit', my wife and I also 'fit'. In fact, we like 'fitting' in the many of the ways gay couples might 'fit'. As I think about it, of all the different ways gay lovers can 'fit', I think there is, perhaps only one way in which they don't 'fit'.

Hmmmm..

michaeledward - striving to keep this thread rated 'G'.

 

[Flatlander]

Yikes. :0

 

[kenpo tiger]

Yes but you are missing the point. What I am saying is if we legalize gay marriage it is not going to end there. Believe it or not there are probably more people in the world attracted to animals than humans. So why can't we give it to them. When do we ever stop? Of course to even someone like you or anyone else who is for gay marriage would be oppose to a ridiculous union between man and animal yet how do you know whether our next generation will think so? I mean because they are brought up with the idea that marriage can be flexed so much I am sure they would think that a union between humans and animals would be okay. So then where is it going to end? If we can't stand up for anything right now who says are kids are going to stand up for anything.


I personally don't mind if gays get married again as long as they call it something else than marriage. Many straight people are offended by the idea of a gay union being the same as their union. I don't care if they get all their economical benefits straight couples do. There are obvious differences between a union between a man and woman and a union between the same genders, so why not just call it another word?


Believe it or not I have a close male friend that is bisexual. I would go so far to say I love him. We actually lived together for a few months. However just because I love him or lived with him for sometime doesn't mean I am going to get married to him.

Sigh.

I believe it's you who is missing the point. As my little kumquat pointed out upthread, it's heterosexual males who are the ones with the problems concerning children and animals. You and one other keep bringing animals up. Personally, I didn't think there were too many left who found that an alternative.

Raisin also makes a great point (you go girl!) that if it makes people happy and they keep their preference to themselves (I believe I made this point as well much further upthread) who cares?

It's those who are so close-minded and feel so threatened who need to be happy.

 

[pete]

there are specific places in my home that suit specific items, and putting them elsewhere would be inappropriate in my home... for example, my grand piano does not go in the garage! liberace may disagree, and i really dont care, as long as it ain't in my home or my garage. is that g-rated enough!

 

[KenpoTess]

Mod Note

We realize this issue is a heated one, and can be very personal to those debating it. Please keep the debate professional and respectable.
Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

~Tess
-MT S. Mod-

 

[Melissa426]

. Just because you're a male, it doesn't mean all homosexual men want to sleep with you or want to marry you.

Unless you're Brad Pitt.

(just kidding, it's a joke, and probably one in bad taste.)

Very interesting and informative thread, for the most part.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. What makes you think that all gay men even find Brad Pitt attractive? Why would this even be likely?

2. Still waiting for an explanation of why it's OK to deny the church down the street its right to teach that being gay is OK, that gay marriage is OK, that marrying members of its congregation is OK.

3. Wondering why it's considered OK to tell the folks down the street that they aren't entitled to stick their grand piano out in the back yard and use it for a doghouse.

 

[Raewyn]

Well .... I think I know what you mean .... and let me say this about that ...

In many of the ways gay couples might 'fit', my wife and I also 'fit'. In fact, we like 'fitting' in the many of the ways gay couples might 'fit'. As I think about it, of all the different ways gay lovers can 'fit', I think there is, perhaps only one way in which they don't 'fit'.

Hmmmm..

michaeledward - striving to keep this thread rated 'G'.

Sorry, I did not mean to try and make this x-rated. I have a bit of difficulty trying to write down what I am actually thinking. I portrayed it all wrong. Especially that sentence, but really.............who am I to judge!!!

 

[BlackCatBonz]

i think its kind of funny that this is even an issue. denying a group of people the same rights that are afforded the rest of the population. i guess some people have a view of canadians as a bunch of pot smoking, hockey watching, coat tail riding, gay loving libertarians.
nobody is asking to marry their dog or cat or sheep....they just want to have the recognition of a legal union.
are canadians maybe a little more forward thinking than other parts of the world? i think if you were to ask most canadians, the answer would be yes. its just not a subject that requires superfluous dissecting.
maybe we canadians are just a bunch of hippy communist libertarians that actually believe in the equality of ALL people without discrimination against sexual orientation, religion, free speech, and all that other junk we take for granted.
you can quote all the bible malarky, psychological studies and profiles, and speak of all your insecurities and fears all you want............the fact is, on this planet, time moves forward, and with that comes change......some you may like, some you might not.
but until you can build yourself a time machine and go back to an era when things were good and pure (maybe ancient rome or greece), its time to deal with it.

shawn

 

[shesulsa]

Sorry, I did not mean to try and make this x-rated. I have a bit of difficulty trying to write down what I am actually thinking. I portrayed it all wrong. Especially that sentence, but really.............who am I to judge!!!

I don't think you were trying to make this thread X-rated. Michael Edward is just trying very hard to not speak of private parts wandering into the backdoor entrances of nether regions, vocal areas or by means of manual transport. These all are indeed ways males and females express love, not just same-gendered engagements of affection.

And I really like the last five words of your post. Testify!

 

[kenpo tiger]

i think its kind of funny that this is even an issue. denying a group of people the same rights that are afforded the rest of the population. i guess some people have a view of canadians as a bunch of pot smoking, hockey watching, coat tail riding, gay loving libertarians.
nobody is asking to marry their dog or cat or sheep....they just want to have the recognition of a legal union.
are canadians maybe a little more forward thinking than other parts of the world? i think if you were to ask most canadians, the answer would be yes. its just not a subject that requires superfluous dissecting.
maybe we canadians are just a bunch of hippy communist libertarians that actually believe in the equality of ALL people without discrimination against sexual orientation, religion, free speech, and all that other junk we take for granted.
you can quote all the bible malarky, psychological studies and profiles, and speak of all your insecurities and fears all you want............the fact is, on this planet, time moves forward, and with that comes change......some you may like, some you might not.
but until you can build yourself a time machine and go back to an era when things were good and pure (maybe ancient rome or greece), its time to deal with it.

shawn

Now you've done it. Now they'll all know that the Ancient Romans and Greeks viewed homosexuality as -- okay.

By the way, so did the samurai.

So are some of you quitting martial arts because the samurai were bisexual and condoned same-sex relations? Of course not. Then why should sexual preference EVER be an issue?

Oh -- and the ancients also had a wife plus concubines plus male lovers. I've got a headache now. Thanks.

(Pete - I think it's grand what you've done with the piano and the garage...)

 

[Melissa426]

1. What makes you think that all gay men even find Brad Pitt attractive? Why would this even be likely?

2. Still waiting for an explanation of why it's OK to deny the church down the street its right to teach that being gay is OK, that gay marriage is OK, that marrying members of its congregation is OK.

3. Wondering why it's considered OK to tell the folks down the street that they aren't entitled to stick their grand piano out in the back yard and use it for a doghouse.

a. what don't you understand about the word "Joke" and is it conceivable that the entire world doesn't share your or my sense of humor, or lack thereof?

b. waiting for explanation of why it OK to deny the church down the street the right to teach its members that the Bible that they believe is the word of God states homosexuality is immoral and therefore members should not support gay marriage? If the other church down the other street says the opposite, then you have the individual choice to affiliate with that church, if you desire. Churches disagree on a lot of issues, besides homosexuality, ie. abortion or capital punishment. Why do you think a church can or should only claim the point of view that agrees with yours?

c. it's probably against zoning laws.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[rmcrobertson]

Unfortunately, that isn't even remotely a response to the central question. One hasn't argued for prohibiting any form of marriage, or religious worship, or civil relation (nor would one)--your side has, insisting that a) Homosexuality Is Wrong, b) Homosexuality is Unnatural, c) Homosexuality Is Against God's Plan, d) Homosexuality should be kept hidden, e) Gay Marriage Is Wrong and Should Never Be Allowed.

One has explicitly argued--repeatedly--that everyone has the absolute right to believe, teach and promulgate whatever doctrines and beliefs one wishes, with perhaps the exception of specifically believing in, teaching and promulgating open violence as a way to settle problems.

It's related to the pro-choice argument, and not because both are immoral, but because both insist that such decisions must be left to individuals, to families, to loved ones.

Sorry, Melissa, but you and others are explicitly arguing that a minority whose lives you disapprove of should be denied the rights that, "normal," people enjoy. You are basing this claim upon religious principles first of all, and secondarily on some notions ("notions," because it appears impossible to substantiate them in any way) about "nature," and "biology," and "history." OK, we're asking about religious beliefs and religious liberty, and letting the factual stuff go for the moment.

To be blunt: why do you believe that you have the right to deny religious freedom to gay people who want to get married and whose church approves the marriage, when nobody is willing to deny YOU the right to worship, to marry, to live, to teach your kids, as you see fit?

That's the question now asked six or seven times, and to which no answer has been forthcoming. One suspects that there will BE no answer, because the question exposes a fundamental problem: denial of the right of adults to worship as they see fit, and the right of their church, synagogue or whatever to carry out marriages as their church, synagogue or whatever sees fit, is absolutely incompatible with our traditions of religious liberties.

One also suspects that there will be no answer because these sorts of questions bump up against some fundamental ideological problems--most notably in the case, "gay marriage," bumps up against the issue of what's happening to the family relations that we often think (without much evidence) are traditional: they're changing, probably forever, for reasons that have very little to do with gay people--who do serve as a convenient scapegoat.

Your problem is the marketplace, consumerism, capitalism, the demands of work in a society that wants more and more productivity out of its members every year. That's the sort of stuff that is imperilling your family and your Church's beliefs, not gay people, who have never done you and yours any harm.

So--again, and for the last time: why do you think it's OK to tell grown adults that they cannot read the Bible, attend church, worship, get married and start families, raise their kids, as their understanding of God leads them to believe is right and as their pastor and their congregation see fit?

 

[Bester]

Mellisa,
Some of the folks here couldn't tell a joke if it showed up on their doorstep, wearing an outfit with the word JOKE on all those places people look, holding a sign that said "JOKE", while the door man announced "The Joke is Here". I think it is easy to tell who those people are.


People here are fighting over an idea, a concept, and a word.


Those effected by this argument are fighting over love and rights.


It took a war, and over a hundred years of violence and bigotry to give black men voting rights in the US. It took longer to give women those same rights. Even today, the violence and bigotry are still with us. I look forward to the day when the "Gay Rights War" or Riots break out in the US. Maybe a few thousand dead, tens of thousands of lives destroyed and a few Billion $$$ in damage will be enough for people to open their eyes.

It can always be done less painfully. Unfortunately, all too often, people are too ****ing dumb.


Oh, in other news, I kissed a guy today. But, like any true Shepard, my heart remains with Flossie.
Take that George Bush and your Christian Gestapo! Thhhwifpt!