Same sex marriages:what's your opinion?

[RatherBeFlyin]

Just wondering what everyone's opinions are

[sgt4life]

I suspect this is more of an Inl't Issues type thread... :D

[Lil Lightnin]

Your poll doesn't make sense to me. There should be 3 answers: Yes, No, Undecided

[RatherBeFlyin]

Your poll doesn't make sense to me. There should be 3 answers: Yes, No, Undecided


I like to call it being creative.

[Pirate]

there are still grey areas when it comes to sexuality, not always a YES, NO or UNDECIDED question...

[Tomtom]

I suspect this is more of an Inl't Issues type thread... :D

Gungod is free to move it over. This is the second thread I've seen in the general CW population that would probably be better suited in II.

[RatherBeFlyin]

Gungod is free to move it over. This is the second thread I've seen in the general CW population that would probably be better suited in II.

If I knew how to move it, I would.

[Tomtom]

I have a problem with some of your poll options.

What does the option "As long as they don't hit on you, it's all good..." have ANYTHING to do with same sex marriages? WHY would they be hitting on YOU, if they were marrying their partner?

Very distasteful if you ask me.

[Cheryl Tucker]

I have a problem with some of your poll options.

What does the option "As long as they don't hit on you, it's all good..." have ANYTHING to do with same sex marriages? WHY would they be hitting on YOU, if they were marrying their partner?

Very distasteful if you ask me.I actually think its a valid option. A person can be fine with any marriage as long as the people involved dont make you unconfortable and you can argue whether or not homosextuals make you unconfortable or not but if somebody straight or homosextual hit on you when they were married wouldn't you be unconfortable or against their marriage??

Does that make sence?

[RatherBeFlyin]

I have a problem with some of your poll options.

What does the option "As long as they don't hit on you, it's all good..." have ANYTHING to do with same sex marriages? WHY would they be hitting on YOU, if they were marrying their partner?

Very distasteful if you ask me. Some people that lead those sorts of lifestyles are very spontaneous and open-minded if you get my drift. Certian things appeal to them and they like to experiment. Therefore some people may say that they're ok with it as long as they don't throw themeselves at you. If you're still confused as to what I mean, feel free to private message me, however Cheryl pretty much sumed it up.

[Little Cadet]

Some people that lead those sorts of lifestyles are very spontaneous and open-minded if you get my drift. Certian things appeal to them and they like to experiment. Therefore some people may say that they're ok with it as long as they don't throw themeselves at you. If you're still confused as to what I mean, feel free to private message me, however Cheryl pretty much sumed it up.

Yes, I completely agree with the way Cheryl presented it; however, you don't seem to be thinking on the same path as she is...

Umm....throw themselves at you. If anything, like I said before, they are rather quiet about it. Okay some are proud, but yeah. You seem to think they're just...obssessed or something abnormal, while they're not. I've seen loads of straight guys and girls who "throw" themselves out at others, but it's funny how nobody says anything....

[jgoguen]

I've seen loads of straight guys and girls who "throw" themselves out at others, but it's funny how nobody says anything.... Isn't it funny how straight people can be "players" or whatever and hardly anyone complains (except the people being played of course...) and the rest of the straight people aren't labelled as "players". But as soon as one single homosexual throws themselves at someone else, the whole homosexual community is like that...think about it for a minute ;)

[Bos'n101]

Unfortunately jgoguen, in the world we live in, people are quick to stereotype anything, and anyone who is in the slightest bit different from our social dogma.

[RatherBeFlyin]

You seem to think they're just...obssessed or something abnormal, while they're not. .[/QUOTE]


I don't think that at all..

[Little Cadet]

Maybe your choice of words wasn't the best. Saying that they're are throwing themselves out at you...etc...but thanks for clearing it up! You're allowed to think whatever you want! I seriously couldn't care less!


Unfortunately jgoguen, in the world we live in, people are quick to stereotype anything, and anyone who is in the slightest bit different from our social dogma.

I think we noticed that! LOL he was just pointing it out

[aduff]

Marriage is the union of a man and woman therefore same sex marriages are rightly not allowed.

[lord_rupert]

But do they not have the right to formally seal their commitment to one another??

ROO :D

[Chief Hoult]

Marriage is the union of a man and woman therefore same sex marriages are rightly not allowed.

Says who? I don't really see the problem...some cultures allow one man and several women, so what's the problem with one man and another man? How do we decide which one is the 'right' way for someone to 'marry'?

[jhunter]

I think what he's tring to say is marriage is defined through a long history of religious orders which involve a man and a woman, and in the defination as I know in the Roman Catholic church, it also includes the reationship with God/Christ/Holy Spirit between that man and woman. Edited point added: while the concept of marriage between gay couples is a modern idea based on equality before the law and not necissarily between a gay couple and God, although there has been a few exceptions. End of edited point.

Redefining marriage is looked down upon by several world and minor religions. In many cases, it's not a question of if the two men or two women love each other, it's a matter of the special relationship God, or other supreme powers/forces, has with those people. For instance, in the RC faith, the relationship afforded through a married couple can not extend to between two men or two women. To call a civil union for a gay couple a marriage not only *******izes the meaning of the word to many Catholics, but diminishes the true marriages in society.

[Pirate]

A lot of the issues that are coming up in this thread relate to "sexual orientation and silly bartenders"
and as for marriage, a lot of people, gay or straight see marriage as the ultimate symbol of showing your love for one another, some people don't see it as nessicary, but if people do see marriage as the ultimate gesture, shouldn't they be able to express their love for one another? Love, oh no, isn't that what we are all trying to achieve for in some aspect?

[Little Cadet]

To call a civil union for a gay couple a marriage not only *******izes the meaning of the word to many Catholics, but diminishes the true marriages in society.

How is a gay mariage not true? What is more true? A gay mariage where they love each other or a "true" mariage where they are unhappy because they don't love each other?

[marek]

My opinion is basically what handisak posted not too long ago about a homosexual couple getting ranted in a public place due to making out. Everyone has rights, it has been prooven that there are about 80% instances where there are biological reasons for attraction to the same sex. So yes they have the right to be attracted to the same sex, so therefore they should be able to marry. Your insurance drops quite alot once you get your full licsence here in Ontario, as well as when you turn 25, and when you get married. So if a male or female is homosexual and want to marry, but cant because it is illegal then that is discrimination. Yes the bible says that it is wrong, but not everyone is christian or catholic or whatever religion that is from. Im personally a catholic athiest, and yes they do exist. But also someone said why is the 'as logn as they dont hit on me' option distasteful, well its not! Maybe its worded poorly, but it has a good point behind it. If a homosexual person were to 'hit on me' knowing I am purely heterosexual I would seriously get mad. If we have to respect their choice for being homosexual, they have to respect our choice for being heterosexual. Also another point is that if they are proud to be homosexual that doesnt mean they have to kiss their partner every 2 minutes in public, and give a huge display for everyone to see the same gender kiss. I dont go in public and kiss my girlfriend every 2 minutes just to proove im proud. Thats all I have to say.

[Pirate]

But also someone said why is the 'as logn as they dont hit on me' option distasteful, well its not! Maybe its worded poorly, but it has a good point behind it. If a homosexual person were to 'hit on me' knowing I am purely heterosexual I would seriously get mad. If we have to respect their choice for being homosexual, they have to respect our choice for being heterosexual. Also .

What is there to be mad about, they may not know, not everybody walks around wearing their "I'm purely heterosexual" sign everday, I could understand if they forced themselves on you, I'd be pretty angry if anybody tried to do that to me. I just hope people who detest being hit on don't go nuts when it happens, I say..respectful shoot down is the appropriate response.. I mean what else could you do about it?

[CKeenan]

I find that the thought is gross and discusting... i don't know why they are letting it happen.

[Ching]

If a homosexual person were to 'hit on me' knowing I am purely heterosexual I would seriously get mad. If we have to respect their choice for being homosexual, they have to respect our choice for being heterosexual. Also another point is that if they are proud to be homosexual that doesnt mean they have to kiss their partner every 2 minutes in public, and give a huge display for everyone to see the same gender kiss. I dont go in public and kiss my girlfriend every 2 minutes just to proove im proud. Thats all I have to say.
Yes, and if an ugly guy were to hit on me, I would seriously get mad. Obviously they know I'm not attracted to them! Wait... maybe they don't. It's not always that obvious. And I wouldn't get mad, I'd be flattered, just the same as if a hot guy, or even a girl, hit on me. Do you get mad when ugly girls hit on you? No? Then you shouldn't if a guy does.
Also... ahem... I think maybe either a), you don't know many gay couples, and you're assuming that all gay people make out all the time to get attention, or b), you just don't notice all the many, many heterosexual PDAs there are going on out IN YOUR COMMUNITY! Yes, right now, somewhere not far from where you're sitting, a guy is kissing a girl RIGHT IN PLAIN VIEW OF THE PUBLIC!! I mean, heck, hands up if you've never made out in a theatre, or kissed your significant other while walking through the mall, or even in the hall at school! (don't actually put up your hand, I don't care that much. I'm just proving my point that lots of people do it, but nobody cares.)

[Pirate]

I find that the thought is gross and discusting... i don't know why they are letting it happen.
..because we can't take away people's rights, and being gay/straight/black/white etc etc, doesn't give you the right to take away a person's rights as a human being.

..but then again, everybody is entitled to their opinion

[Ching]

What is there to be mad about, they may not know, not everybody walks around wearing their "I'm purely heterosexual" sign everday, I could understand if they forced themselves on you, I'd be pretty angry if anybody tried to do that to me. I just hope people who detest being hit on don't go nuts when it happens, I say..respectful shoot down is the appropriate response.. I mean what else could you do about it?
Refrain from shopping at The Gap, Old Navy or American Eagle, for starters... :p Don't highlight your hair, or gel it, for that matter. Wear football jerseys everywhere, they're manly. The more often you wear the same jersey without washing it, the manlier.
No cologne. Heck, forget even wearing deodorant! Keep your hair really short. And, for the love of God, ADJUST YOURSELF IN PUBLIC! If that's not the manliest thing you can think of, I don't know what is.

*disclaimer: may repel girls, as well.*

[Ching]

I find that the thought is gross and discusting... i don't know why they are letting it happen.
You probably think that kissing ugly girls is gross and disgusting, too...
Not a single one... ok, one... of the guys I've dated has been because he was a looker. Heck, only one of them has BEEN a real looker! I find that guys who lack in the looks department make up for it in others.
My point is not that you should go kiss a guy, or even an ugly girl. I'm saying that it's not repulsive. To each his own.

[Pirate]

Refrain from shopping at The Gap, Old Navy or American Eagle, for starters... :p Don't highlight your hair, or gel it, for that matter. Wear football jerseys everywhere, they're manly. The more often you wear the same jersey without washing it, the manlier.
No cologne. Heck, forget even wearing deodorant! Keep your hair really short. And, for the love of God, ADJUST YOURSELF IN PUBLIC! If that's not the manliest thing you can think of, I don't know what is.

*disclaimer: may repel girls, as well.*

oh and ladies, never cut your hair short, stop shaving, be any sort of femminist or wear comfortable shoes like burkenstocks...
:rolleyes:
jebus!

[CKeenan]

..because we can't take away people's rights, and being gay/straight/black/white etc etc, doesn't give you the right to take away a person's rights as a human being.

..but then again, everybody is entitled to their opinion

i guess... but still, all what i'm saying is that they shouldn't get married. it's okay if they stay together in the same house or something like that, but if the church wanted these people to get married, they would have been allowing this for hundreds of years already

[Ching]

It's not up to the church. It's up to the government. And the government is non religious.

[CKeenan]

*bleh* my bad. alright then, if the governement accepted it then they would have been doing it for hundreds of years

[Little Cadet]

they would have been allowing this for hundreds of years already

It's called changing morals and values, society evolves.

[Ching]

Hooray for evolution and progress!

[CKeenan]

meh, whatever... maybe i'm a traditional kind of guy. oh, well everyone has the right to their opinion...

[katielloyd]

I'm a little bit mixed on same-sex marriage. I don't really feel comfortable with the thought of these weddings taking place in a church because of religious views, but other than that, it's their decision. If they truly love the other person, and they want to spend the rest of their lives with them, there's no reason for them not to be legally married.

[marek]

Yes, and if an ugly guy were to hit on me, I would seriously get mad. Obviously they know I'm not attracted to them! Wait... maybe they don't. It's not always that obvious. And I wouldn't get mad, I'd be flattered, just the same as if a hot guy, or even a girl, hit on me. Do you get mad when ugly girls hit on you? No? Then you shouldn't if a guy does.
Also... ahem... I think maybe either a), you don't know many gay couples, and you're assuming that all gay people make out all the time to get attention, or b), you just don't notice all the many, many heterosexual PDAs there are going on out IN YOUR COMMUNITY! Yes, right now, somewhere not far from where you're sitting, a guy is kissing a girl RIGHT IN PLAIN VIEW OF THE PUBLIC!! I mean, heck, hands up if you've never made out in a theatre, or kissed your significant other while walking through the mall, or even in the hall at school! (don't actually put up your hand, I don't care that much. I'm just proving my point that lots of people do it, but nobody cares.)

Well im not exactly saying every gay guy hits on me... and Im also not saying I know many. I know two people who are openly 'gay'. One of them is a really good guy to talk to and I spent an entire summer with him. Also, one I work with. The one I work with did hit on me, and he KNEW i was strait. I literally flipped. THATS what my problem is. I dont care who hits on who, but if they KNOW im strait, and if they know that homosexuals hitting on me bothers me, and they do it.. thats what gets me aggravated. And also the friend from summer, if he were to hit on me sexually... he wouldnt be my friend anymore because he would have crossed that line.

1st bolded comment- Me personally I cant tell if someone is hitting on me or being nice. I am a nice guy and I talk to everyone, but if someone knew (hot or not) that I was not interested, and they would force themselves up on me, I would get mad. Depends on circumstance.

2nd bolded comment- And I actually dont know any gay couples.. but my entire post, as I mentioned in the first line was a summary that HANDISAK wrote from an article in which he got 'post of day' a few weeks ago... go read that article he wrote... youll know what Im talking about then... http://www.cadet-world.com/cwforums/showpost.php?p=15611&postcount=1

[jgoguen]

Unfortunately jgoguen, in the world we live in, people are quick to stereotype anything, and anyone who is in the slightest bit different from our social dogma. Trust me Chief, I'm well aware of that. Just putting out something for people to think about.


the concept of marriage between gay couples is a modern idea based on equality before the law and not necissarily between a gay couple and God Just something I've noticed with a number of people I know probably (hopefully!) not true in general. It seems that more straight couples are marrying not for love, but for the tax benefits and other legal benefits. Not to say they don't love each other dearly, but some of them have said they wouldn't have spent the large amount of money they had to get married if they could have the same benefits without marriage. Fewer straight couples cite love as their primary reason for marrying. It seems to me (read: my personal opinion) that homosexual couples are the opposite -- the primary reason for most homosexual couples wanting to marry is to be able to express their love for each other publicly in the same way only heterosexual couples (traditionally) could. Few homosexual couples look primarily for whatever benefits. I'm sure a few people know a few cases where the exact opposite is true. Also, it seems to me that homosexual couples with children tend to show more affection for their children than most heterosexual couples I know (note: I don't mean this is true all over, just among heterosexual and homosexual couples I personally know...I'm sure someone knows couples where the opposite is true).

[Dick]

I think the point is, a lot of guys don't want to be hanging around another guy who's is going to be overly flamboyant and touchy-feely with them.

I don't care if a guy is gay or not, if he's touchy-feely and flamboyant, I probably wouldn't be able to stand their presence.

As for the marriage thing, I dont care. Let them be happy. All I know is that my poop-chute is exit only :)

[katielloyd]

If gays and lesbions want to be married, arn't they following a stright thing?

I thought they were different from the strights?

Does not make sence to me.

I have never met a homosexua who has claimed to be different than "straight" people. In fact, they make a point to protest that they are no different than anybody else.

[Lil Lightnin]

there are still grey areas when it comes to sexuality, not always a YES, NO or UNDECIDED question...

but if you look at the six options in the poll...they can each be put into one of those 3 categories.

Doesn't bother me - FOR
The bible says it's supposed to be bewteen one man and one woman - AGAINST
Just as long as they don't display affection and public - FOR (and then it gets kinda sketchy :rolleyes: )
I'm homosexual/les/bi myself atcually, and proud! - This doesn't seem to address the question, but I'll take it as they're in favour of.
They have just as much right as the next person - FOR
As long as they don't hit on me, it's all good - FOR

...see what I mean?

I can't think of too many issues right now that don't have grey area of some sort. However, for the sake of intelligent (I'll probably be sorry I used that word) debate, choices should be limited. Many people will agree or disagree to certain extents, unfortunately, a poll would 3456 options isn't very effective.

[katielloyd]

Different from the point that they share their selfs with same sex.

That doesn't make them any less human. People like to show their affection for one another and declaring somebody your life partner is the best way to do it (besides fabulously expensive gifts ;) jk). Marriage is in no way a "straight thing" any more than Queer Eye is a "gay thing".

[Pirate]

I love that show! :D

[katielloyd]

It will always be.

Except, you know, in New York and all those other places who are finally coming around. And I highly doubt that Canada, being as pro-equality as it is, will be very long in joining the trend.

[katielloyd]

Marriage is between man and woman. Gays and Lesbions even when they do get married they are not married. It is a wonderfull word called tradition and reason.Which gays and lesbions do not understand.

Your idea of marriage and somebody else's are not necessarily the same. From your opinions, I assume you are taking a religious standpoint (I apologise if I'm wrong). Marriage is not only about unifying teo people in front of God, there are also many legal benefits. For example; if somebody should happen to die without a will, their personal belongings will most likely go to their families whether or not they are in a living arrangement with their signifigant other. Also, it is harder for unmarried people to adopt children, an homosexuals obviously can't have their own.

[The Blue Tory]

Your poll doesn't make sense to me. There should be 3 answers: Yes, No, Undecided
Exactly...

It should be Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

You have 1 NO compared to 5 yes answers

And your NO answer is mild... the Bible answer doesn't express how STRONGLY I DISAGREE with it

[Lil Lightnin]

And there can be people (like myself) who disagree with it for non-religious reasons.

[CONtroversial_subject]

Your idea of marriage and somebody else's are not necessarily the same. From your opinions, I assume you are taking a religious standpoint (I apologise if I'm wrong). Marriage is not only about unifying teo people in front of God, there are also many legal benefits. For example; if somebody should happen to die without a will, their personal belongings will most likely go to their families whether or not they are in a living arrangement with their signifigant other. Also, it is harder for unmarried people to adopt children, an homosexuals obviously can't have their own.


I dont think homo-sexuals should be allowed to adopt children. Lets make it a fad to be gay, maybe eventually the whole world will love their own gender and then we'll be doomed to extinction. You're either helping the race or you aint, homosexuals definately aint.

[The Blue Tory]

its like the Federal Government asking you who you will support?

a. the government in place now
b. the Conservatives
c. Paul Martin's Party
d. the Liberals

Just like this poll's question I believe this question has only 1 true answer, and what a coincidence I believe the correct answer is b in both

[jgoguen]

You know it is still ilegal to get married to same sex. It will always be. Is that why it's been declared legal in the vast majority of North America (I believe all of Canada, correct me if I'm wrong someone please)? Is it illegal for homosexuals to marry because two lesbians were married in a legal ceremony on the steps of City Hall in New York? Is that why large numbers of homosexual couples rushed to be married as soon as the Supremem Court of Canada ruled that homosexual marriages were legal? So tell me...if the Supreme Court says it's prefectly legal for homosexuals to marry but let individual priests decide if they will perform such ceremonies, and you say it's illegal...who's decision do we follow? Do we follow your decision and continue to deny homosexual couples this venue of expressing their love for each other, or do we go with the Supreme Court (the organization that just so happens to be able to make laws not even the Prime Minister can go against) and say homosexuals are allowed to marry? I find your comment to be highly biased, discriminatory, and offensive.


Marriage is between man and woman. Or between man and man. Or between woman and woman. So says the law.


Gays and Lesbions even when they do get married they are not married First off, that's a contradiction (how can you be married if you didn't get married when you got married:confused: ). Second, as I've already said, the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriages are legal. Therefore, homosexual couples actually do get married when they go to get married.


It is a wonderfull word called tradition and reason.Which gays and lesbions do not understand. How is it unreasonable for homosexuals to get married? Granted, it's not "tradition", but there are some circumstances when tradition just has to be forgotten about. Like this. Shouldn't even be an issue, but there's some closed-minded people out there who just don't understand that juat maybe homosexuals are capable of feeling love just like heterosexuals, and that love can be directed at a member of the same sex. And I don't blame the kids for being like this (although it is their fault for not even trying to change their views) I blame closed-minded parents who actually teach their kids that homosexuals are evil and nasty and dirty and whatever else they say. Your stereotypical homosexual male would be the kind of person to hit on every guy he meets. Well guess what...more heterosexual people do that than homosexual people, and hardly anyone says a word about it. I've been hit on by both homosexuals and heterosexuals, and I have to say the homosexuals were much more understanding when I just said "I'm sorry, I'm not interested". There was one girl, heterosexual, who hit on every guy she met for as long as I knew her (until I got tired of telling her to back off) even when told outright her "flirting" (read: blatent advances) was completely unwelcome. A couple homosexuals hit on me, I didn't even have to say I was heterosexual, I just had to say "I'm not interested" and they backed right off. One of them happened to become a rather good friend of mine. Another person I know is questioning. Aside from my girlfriend, she is without question the best friend I have ever had. Only my girlfriend knows as much about me as this person does, and it's really only with them I feel comfortable opening up and letting them know what's really going on. In the years I've known my questioning friend, I've never known her to hit on anyone, but I'm sure you'd say she's homosexual just because she's not for certain heterosexual :rolleyes:


It should be Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree No matter how you slice it, there's going to be someone who has another option. Like me. What about people like me, who want to say we totally support homosexual marriages despite disagreeing with homosexuality? No option for us that covers the whole range of our opinion.


ts like the Federal Government asking you who you will support?..... What if I happen to support neither? Don't I get a say? Not very democratic now, are we ;)


Lets make it a fad to be gay, maybe eventually the whole world will love their own gender and then we'll be doomed to extinction And while we're at it, let's make it a fad to discriminate against those who think differently than ourselves! We can all be one mindless mass of humanity with no individual thoughts, cause we all think the same!


You're either helping the race or you aint, homosexuals definately aint. And that of course makes it perfectly acceptable to deny them the right to express their love for each other and to dscriminate against them. {!}




I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it.

[Tomtom]

You know it is still ilegal to get married to same sex. It will always be.

uh.... how do you figure?


It is legal in most provinces in Canada and quickly becoming legal in a large amount of States in the USA.

I can't believe how discriminatory some of you people are.

[Oakleys Stud]

I too have always questioned whether or not gays and lesbians should be able to get married or not and in the beginning I was not for it. But over the years my attitude has change towards the matter. In the past few years I have become a more or less outreach peer counselor at my school and one of the biggest issues that tends to regularly pop up when teens are talking to me is the whole gay, straight issue and marriage and stuff. Today sadly enough most of us live in a very judge mental world. Many people are not open to new (and forgive my wording) beliefs sorta speak. And when it comes to an issue like gay/ lesbian marriage many people close the door and don’t want it to happen. But the fact is no matter how much or a judgmental world we live in many things are changing and the way we view gays and lesbians for one is changing drastically. The fact is though we have to acknowledge that people white or black, gay or straight must all share equal rights and not face discrimination.


On the issue of gay marriage gays and lesbians are no different than anyone else. They breathe the same are we do, they eat at the same places as us and they live in the same world as us. You can’t cut them out of anything that we have for ourselves because were heterosexual.

Over the pass year or so I have really taken and in depth look into our society and it has made me question peoples ways. Everyone has the right to be different its what makes us unique, and everyone also has the right to their own opinions, which is another factor that makes us all who we are today and I have no intent on arguing that because I have my own views and opinions and it may not satisfy anyone but myself but that’s the only person my opinion matters to.

Getting back though over the pass years I have noticed this and it really ties into the gay lesbian issue and it is how much we live in a very heterosexual culture. A person is bombarded by acts of heterosexuality every minute or every day of their lives and this is why I think when an issue like this comes up there is so much debate. Its because were so not use to seeing it that when it does come up it becomes such a big issue because like I said its all so sudden If homosexuality had have been accepted from the start or in an early time I don’t feel we would have as many people voicing their protest against it because it would have already been accepted. But I could be wrong, so I really don’t know what people would do.

In the end though as I’m sure most of you have come to realize I am pro gay marriage as it can bring people one step closer to showing the world the love they share for each other


Have a good one everyone

[canoe instructor]

can't everyone just be.....regardless if their gay, straight, Bi...let them be joined in a union/marriage..we have no right to decide what is right and what is wrong for any human being..we are, just the we are...you can't stop someone from being gay, anymore than can stop the sun from rising....open your minds, take the blinders off your eyes...and actually take a look at the world around you....love no matter what form it takes, be it between a man and woman, or two men and two women..its a wonderful thing.....why can't we just see for what it is and embrace it??
judge lest ya be judged ;) ;)

Cheers
CI Harris
ORCA Flatwater Instructor/Canoe Tripper
HMCS Ontario Athletics Staff 2003 and 2004

[Lil Lightnin]

And while we're at it, let's make it a fad to discriminate against those who think differently than ourselves!

Interesting you should say that, because as I see it, his opinion is just as valid as yours. He thinks differently than homosexual couples, and you think differently than he does. He isn't the only one who thinks that way. I won't touch the adoption topic right now because he didn't provide any grounds for it, but I believe he raises an interesting (although slightly primative) point. I shouldn't have to draw a picture for anyone on here showing that two people of the same sex aren't "biologically compatible". His view may be a little extreme, but he raises a valid point nonetheless.

[Chief Hoult]

*bleh* my bad. alright then, if the governement accepted it then they would have been doing it for hundreds of years

I think I'll agree with you :) You and I should run for leadership of the country! And while we try to keep homosexuals out of our society (as we have been doing for hundreds of years) let's base out entire platform on retroactivity!!!

We'll start with women, because let's face it, they're in WAY over their heads with this whole 'work' and 'vote' thing. I mean, when I get home, I want my dinner cooked, on the table, and a smiling wife who does nothing but say, "Yes, Dear!" and if not, why shouldn't I be able to give her a good crack across the head? That'll teach her! Back the way things were in the good old days!

And you know what else? I want a slave. A black one, of course. Why do they get to be equal to me? I'm blonde hair, blue eyed, and I get treated EQUAL to them? I think not. Clearly, I am superior to them *shakes head* savages. Same goes with the beating if they step out of line *shakes fist*.

And let's start taking the bible literally :) Murdering those who work on the sabbath, etc. Afterall, our way or the highway, right? We know out religion is right. How do we know? Because we say so, of course.

Let's get a little more modern now. All those vets claiming to suffer from "shell shock"? Cowards. Yeah, RIGHT, it's a mental condition. It wasn't too long ago that it happened, and for hundreds of years it was just cowardice. Back to the way things were!

Even more, let's get rid of medicine! Computers! Chanting used to be a cure, and some rattles. Let's use those. Nope, no morphine for me! I have a rattle.

Cpl, society changes! Right in our own backyard, everyday, things are changing. Our responsabilities as human beings (I can't kill my neighbor for being different? Why not?) change, and our rights change as well. While I respect your opinion in that you don't like homosexuals (for whatever reason), I do not agree with the misinformed statement that hey, if it was right, we'd already be doing it. If you haven't noticed, we're not in the stoneage. We know the world is round (propostrous! We all know it's flat), and no one here can convince me that they KNOW for a FACT that their religion is the right one. The only being that really know are 6 feet under or cremated...and they ain't giving up the secret of which religion (if any) is the 'right' one.


Lets make it a fad to be gay, maybe eventually the whole world will love their own gender and then we'll be doomed to extinction. You're either helping the race or you aint, homosexuals definately aint.

I agree, I'll add it to my platform. Now, of course, this means I will require all couples to undergo a fertility test (afterall, if they can't reproduce, I certainly don't want to see them together), and I'll make in a mandatory child birth, how does 2/couple sound? Those stupid couples that don't/can't have children are ruining marriage for everyone else! AND hurting society! This world NEEDS MORE PEOPLE! This world is clearly drastically underpopulated, and by gosh, homosexuals, infertile people, and people who just plain don't like kids certainly aren't helping the cause of underpopulation.

As for the 'fad' thing..yes, as you can tell, the majority of the population is gay, and it's spreading rapidly! From what I can remember, the overall % hasn't really changed, it sits around 10% or so....they're just more open about it now.

Again, I respect someones opinion for disliking homosexuals, but let's get some reasons here....aside from, "well, historically..." because that argument just doesn't stand fast in today's society, especially not Canada.

CH

[marek]

Marriage is between man and woman. Gays and Lesbions even when they do get married they are not married. It is a wonderfull word called tradition and reason.Which gays and lesbions do not understand.

So YOUR discriminating them against their human rights? What if you were born homosexual... you would be fighting for your human rights if you wanted to get married...

__________________________________________________ _______

Here is the formal definition found at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage.


mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

a) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b) The state of being married; wedlock.
c) A common-law marriage.
d) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
e) A wedding.

So therefore in the FORMAL DEFINITION it prooves that marriage can exist between same gender, so those that say that it will never happen... your wrong.

[Chief Hoult]

Ask for opinion I give it stright not bent.

My last post.

For future reference...there is a large difference between stating something as fact without backing it up, and actually forming an opinion based on facts.

CH

"I think that treating people equal is cool, what's your opinion?"

"Homosexuals aren't equal"

...

[Carter]

It is the marriage thing that bothers me.

Here is the artical I found. This is the reason I disagree with marriage.




Marriage protection proclamation – what's missing
1.
Posted: October 16, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush issued a proclamation making this "Marriage Protection Week," stating that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman."
That is a worthy goal. However, it is impossible to protect traditional marriage while supporting "domestic partnerships" pushed by homosexual activists.
The U.S. Treasury has the responsibility for minting our coins and printing our money. What if Congress, the various federal agencies and our states suddenly decide to recognize counterfeit money as legal tender?
It would undermine the nation's monetary system and throw our economy into chaos.
That is exactly what is happening with traditional marriage. It is being undermined by domestic partnership laws created by state and local governments and has been further eroded by acts of Congress and regulations issued by various federal officials and agencies.
We need to go back and re-examine the two original reasons for marriage. The first is to have the union recognized by God. The second is to have the union recognized by the state.
Since homosexual acts are condemned by the sacred writings of all the world's major religions, the attempt to have these unions sanctioned by the church is an attempt to "feel good" at best.
Let's look at reason No. 2: Society long has recognized that a committed relationship between a man and a woman is the best environment to produce and nurture productive citizens for the future. Research has shown that children fare far better with a mother and a father who are married to each other, even if the marriage isn't perfect.
For many years, our federal, state and local governments recognized the obvious: It costs money to raise children. By legalizing unions between a man and a woman, the government was able to put a "hedge of protection" around traditional marriage and to give the partners in these unions certain rights that went along with their responsibilities to the family unit.
Homosexual-rights activists want to change the definition of marriage from a union between one man and one woman to a union between any two or more people living together in a "committed" relationship. That could apply to almost anything from a couple of roommates to a college basketball team.
Are you beginning to see the problem? If everyone is allowed inside the hedge, than the hedge, for all practical purposes, ceases to exist.
Marriage was not invented to discriminate against homosexuals or others who wish to pursue alternate lifestyles. The question is not whether homosexual couples should have the right to marry but whether we really want to remove the hedge of protection from around the traditional family unit.
Has the traditional family outlived its usefulness? It has not!
Research has shown that children in intact married families are much less likely to be poor. They attain higher levels of education and have lower rates of substance abuse, emotional and psychological problems, out-of-wedlock births and criminal behavior.
For more than a decade, politicians of all stripes have been trying to have it both ways. It must stop!
On March 7, 2000, California passed the Marriage Protection Initiative. A year and a half later, Gov. Gray Davis signed into law a domestic-partners bill – passed by his Democrat-controlled legislature – which states: "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations and duties under law ... as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
There is an old saying: "If it quacks, swims and has webbed feet and feathers, you can call it whatever you like, but it is still a duck."
The U.S. Congress and many states have passed the Defense of Marriage Act which has been undermined in the same fashion.
In 1992, the District of Columbia – which gets its funding from Congress – passed a domestic-partners law. At that time, Congress began inserting a provision in the D.C. Appropriations Bill to keep federal money from being used to implement the law. In 2001, with some pressure from the Bush administration, that provision was dropped.
Also, the Bush administration has allowed money set aside for the families of the 9-11 victims to go to domestic partners. Had this happened under the Clinton administration, Republican leaders and pro-family groups would have been up in arms. However, with George W. Bush in the White House, the silence was deafening.
All this talk about protecting marriage between a man and a woman is wonderful, but actions speak louder than words.
You simply cannot elevate these homosexual unions without lowering the protection placed around the traditional family.





***I just did not read this. This is how I think about gay marrages.***


So what is freedom?




For future reference...there is a large difference between stating something as fact without backing it up, and actually forming an opinion based on facts.

CH

"I think that treating people equal is cool, what's your opinion?"

"Homosexuals aren't equal"

...

[marek]

Ask for opinion I give it stright not bent.

My last post.

Opinion is not fact.

[Chief Hoult]

I support the churches right to not allow homosexuals to marry in their church. That's fine, they are entitled to their beliefs. I may not agree with it, but I support it nonetheless.


Research has shown that children in intact married families are much less likely to be poor. They attain higher levels of education and have lower rates of substance abuse, emotional and psychological problems, out-of-wedlock births and criminal behavior.

I'm sure the above is true, but let's look at the reasons:
1. Shown not to be poor -- While growing up? Of course not. If you have a household with two parents, you probably have 2 incomes, OR, one person working full time, and one person at home (thus freeing up time for the other to work). When they are old, probably, because another parent means more money, ergo, higher education in many cases (especially with tuitions in the states!)

2. Well, the rest of it -- Yes, when you have one parent trying to work and raise a child alone, it can be hard. Some can handle it, some can't (although it is becoming more commonplace). Are you suggesting that we take all children away after a divorce, and put them in loving foster homes?

2 Homosexuals can be parents :) There are studies (anyone have a link to one? I remember seeing something about one on CNN or something) that show that 2 homosexuals can raise a child just as well as 2 heterosexual parents. As to those who argue "But the children will be gay!" well, hold on, let's re-examine here....If homosexual parents raise homosexual children then then shouldn't heterosexual couples raise heterosexual children?

CH

[The Blue Tory]

What's next though Man marry Cat? Woman marry dog? Man marry lawn mower? Woman marry shopping bag?

I believe there is for a reason...

Now, if two "unnaturals" (nicest term I'll use...) decided to unite let them do it at some City Hall... but don't do it in the Church. The Church has traditions which no man man or woman woman couple has the right to break. Call it a marital union or something but not marriage... You don't see people going to Muslim areas and wanting to name their pets Allah because they believe a name is free...

Just as 2 of "them" want to be together and claim to have a right... Catholics and Christians have a right to their religion

[Carter]

I am going to stop posting in this thread. I smell trouble.

No that is not it .

I do not want to regret saying something wrong.

I appoligize , some of my posts may of been offensive to people.

[Oakleys Stud]

"But the children will be gay!" well, hold on, let's re-examine here....If homosexual parents raise homosexual children then then shouldn't heterosexual couples raise heterosexual children?
CH


Your sexuality has nothing to do with the way you are brought up. You could be brought up in the queerest of all places and still be heterosexual. Sexuality is determined before birth and your parents or guardians can't influence that. They may not encourage it or let you express it if they dissapprove of it but then your only faking who you really are and most people would feel unhappy with themselves because they know who they pretend to betray as a person in society is not who they really are.


They argument you made though about heterosexual couples bringing up homosexual kids is very good.

[Little Cadet]

What's next though Man marry Cat? Woman marry dog? Man marry lawn mower? Woman marry shopping bag?

I believe there is for a reason...

Now, if two "unnaturals" (nicest term I'll use...) decided to unite let them do it at some City Hall... but don't do it in the Church. The Church has traditions which no man man or woman woman couple has the right to break. Call it a marital union or something but not marriage... You don't see people going to Muslim areas and wanting to name their pets Allah because they believe a name is free...

Just as 2 of "them" want to be together and claim to have a right... Catholics and Christians have a right to their religion

Don't start with bestiality and whatnot, you darn well know a lawnmower or any of the sort does not have any argument here.

I could use some nice terms for you too.....

And by the way, if you call don't do it in a church or call it mariage etc...., it takes us all back to the equality issue... I think you didn't quite grab that concept either. But whatever it's your beliefs I guess

And Colin, I have to agree with you! :D

[Chief Hoult]

Yeah I agree.

You agree...what? That homosexual parents will raise homosexual children, and that heterosexual parents raise heterosexual children? Then how do we have homosexuals? Homosexuals didn't randomly start procreating, and as homosexuality is NOT natural, in your opinion, but rather learned, then all homosexual people must ahve had homosexual parents, who learned it from somewhere..? Explain, please...

And Ed....I don't really think any homosexual person can demand the right to be married in a church. Just like women can't be priests in the Catholic Church. Does it matter that the rest of society has moved on? No. They have their beliefs, and they are entitled to them. But the church has no say in how the government works, and IF a church CHOOSES to allow homosexuals to marry (as some have) then that's their perogative, you'll know whether they were 'right' when you're at the gates of heaven (or not, depending on whatever religion is the 'true' religion)

[The Blue Tory]

You agree...what? That homosexual parents will raise homosexual children, and that heterosexual parents raise heterosexual children? Then how do we have homosexuals? Homosexuals didn't randomly start procreating, and as homosexuality is NOT natural, in your opinion, but rather learned, then all homosexual people must ahve had homosexual parents, who learned it from somewhere..? Explain, please...

And Ed....I don't really think any homosexual person can demand the right to be married in a church. Just like women can't be priests in the Catholic Church. Does it matter that the rest of society has moved on? No. They have their beliefs, and they are entitled to them. But the church has no say in how the government works, and IF a church CHOOSES to allow homosexuals to marry (as some have) then that's their perogative, you'll know whether they were 'right' when you're at the gates of heaven (or not, depending on whatever religion is the 'true' religion)
The person also chooses at confirmation to be part of the Church or not... If they want to live in their world of homosexual relationships, then they are free to not fully join the Church as no one is forcing them. If they don't accept the Church's view on marriage, then its not for them...

[Feeloo]

What's next though Man marry Cat? Woman marry dog? Man marry lawn mower? Woman marry shopping bag?

I believe there is for a reason...

Now, if two "unnaturals" (nicest term I'll use...) decided to unite let them do it at some City Hall... but don't do it in the Church. The Church has traditions which no man man or woman woman couple has the right to break. Call it a marital union or something but not marriage... You don't see people going to Muslim areas and wanting to name their pets Allah because they believe a name is free...

Just as 2 of "them" want to be together and claim to have a right... Catholics and Christians have a right to their religion

The problem is that marriage also has a legal connotation, and gives benefits to the married couple. These benefits should be available for any people wishing to live together as a couple. No one asks the church to marry homosexuals, it's a matter of right, right to the same benefits as any Canadians. If by being "maritally unionized" it gives homosexuals the same rights as "married" couples, then it's all good.

[Chief Hoult]

Confirmation...most of my friends got confirmed when they were 13/14...I know people who didn't know until they were 16, 17, sometimes even later, so it's a little late then.

If the person chooses to say that they are "Catholic" then well, the person will get theirs when the time comes :) And that's not really for you to decide.

CH

[Little Cadet]

The person also chooses at confirmation to be part of the Church or not... If they want to live in their world of homosexual relationships, then they are free to not fully join the Church as no one is forcing them. If they don't accept the Church's view on marriage, then its not for them...

Do you curse, do you eat meat on fridays, do you work on sundays, do you miss attending church sometimes? Odds are you answered yes to one of them, so technicly, that's going against the Churches beliefs or whatever, you should of simply not chosen to be part of the church.

Oh and to mention soemthing interesting, how old are you when you get comfirmed? like 11, 12... how many people had their entire sexual life figured out at that age...? LOL think about it.

[marek]

Wow I just noticed how this is the most emotional subject from everyones perspective, but lets carry on the arguments...


What's next though Man marry Cat? Woman marry dog? Man marry lawn mower? Woman marry shopping bag?

I believe there is for a reason...

Now, if two "unnaturals" (nicest term I'll use...) decided to unite let them do it at some City Hall... but don't do it in the Church. The Church has traditions which no man man or woman woman couple has the right to break. Call it a marital union or something but not marriage...

So a human cannot marry a human?? It is not their choice 9 times out of 10 to be homosexual... thats exactly like descriminating against handicapps and making them walk up stairs even though they cant... or making lefthanded people use righthanded people's desk in lecture halls...

[Chief Hoult]

thats exactly like descriminating against handicapps and making them walk up stairs even though they cant... or making lefthanded people use righthanded people's desk in lecture halls...

I'll add that to my platform :)

[Oakleys Stud]

So a human cannot marry a human?? It is not their choice 9 times out of 10 to be homosexual...


Your exactly right a person does not choose to be homosexual most of the time so not allowing them to perform certain things such as marriage is a violation of their rights as canadians.

[The Blue Tory]

Doesn't matter really...

Whats with the same argument over and over and over...

It never got anywhere the first how many times so whats the point again... all you people are doing is "hmm maybe if I rephrase my opinion I've stated numerous times already it will be more accepted" its being done on both sides of the argument...

So what if some people don't recognize gay couples? They're going to do it no matter how much criticism I or anyone else give to them...

Seems like everyone is getting worked up over nothing... thats all this subject has ever done is brought conflict to CW, as no more valid new points have been presented in this thread, that haven't been brought forward in some other thread earlier...

So really, must we keep :beat: (beating this dead horse)?

[RatherBeFlyin]

Says who? I don't really see the problem...some cultures allow one man and several women, so what's the problem with one man and another man? How do we decide which one is the 'right' way for someone to 'marry'?


I strongly agree!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RatherBeFlyin]

What is there to be mad about, they may not know, not everybody walks around wearing their "I'm purely heterosexual" sign everday, I could understand if they forced themselves on you, I'd be pretty angry if anybody tried to do that to me. I just hope people who detest being hit on don't go nuts when it happens, I say..respectful shoot down is the appropriate response.. I mean what else could you do about it?

There is a lot of people here who go into a gay bar in halifax called Reflections, only they don't know that it's a gay bar, therefore they are mistaken for being gay.

[RatherBeFlyin]

Refrain from shopping at The Gap, Old Navy or American Eagle, for starters... :p Don't highlight your hair, or gel it, for that matter. Wear football jerseys everywhere, they're manly. The more often you wear the same jersey without washing it, the manlier.
No cologne. Heck, forget even wearing deodorant! Keep your hair really short. And, for the love of God, ADJUST YOURSELF IN PUBLIC! If that's not the manliest thing you can think of, I don't know what is.

*disclaimer: may repel girls, as well.*


I shop at the gap, does that make me a lesbian??? Lots of people here shop at thw gap, old navy, and american eagle, and they're straight. Just because they shop there does not mean that they are gay/lesbian.

[RatherBeFlyin]

We'll start with women, because let's face it, they're in WAY over their heads with this whole 'work' and 'vote' thing. I mean, when I get home, I want my dinner cooked, on the table, and a smiling wife who does nothing but say, "Yes, Dear!" and if not, why shouldn't I be able to give her a good crack across the head? That'll teach her! Back the way things were in the good old days!

CH work and vote thing is not true. If a man ever tried to crack me over the head for not fulfiling hsi needs when he gets home, then i'd be going to jail because i'd bash him right back. There's no need for any man to beat his wife around because she's not doing something that he wants. In today's world, mostly both man and woman go to work. If the woman gets home before the man does and she feels like cooking supper by all means go for it, if not, then the man is big and ugly enough to get up off his bottom and get something for himself, or you can just order out if you're too tired to cook. my boyfriend and I have decided that when we get married, and we get home for work, one will wait for the other and we will cook supper together.

[Chief Hoult]

I understand that. That post was mearly a reflection of how much society has changed, and that if we are going to go back in time to "Do what the government has done for hundreds of years" then clearly we need to make a lot of changes. Don't worry, I'm not anti-women ;)

CH

[jgoguen]

What's next though Man marry Cat? Woman marry dog? Man marry lawn mower? Woman marry shopping bag? Now you know perfectly well there's no comparison and that doesn't even belong here. Unless all those times in the past you told people to keep arguments relevant was just sucking up and you really don't care...but then we have not-so-nice terms for that too...


Now, if two "unnaturals" (nicest term I'll use...) Why won't you call them "homosexuals"? Much nicer and more respectful than "unnaturals". I seem to recall you saying a lot in the past about showing respect for everyone...unless you think homosexuals aren't part of "everyone" and thus deserve to be segregated and discriminated against and beaten and whatever else...


The Church has traditions which no man man or woman woman couple has the right to break. So if I go and marry my girlfriend, thus becoming a man-woman couple, are we allowed to break the Church's traditions? I think there would be many people saying no. But homosexuals aren't allowed to break those traditions either...but if they're not part of "everyone" and "everyone" has to follow Church traditions, then what's stopping them from breaking Church traditions, hmm?


Call it a marital union or something but not marriage... I'd have to double check this, but I do believe if I were to marry my girlfriend, I would be entering into marital union with her. Not positive, have to check the semantics with someone I know from the Catholic Church.


Catholics and Christians have a right to their religion Indeed they do. And as I recall, the Anglican Church was/is split rather bitterly over homosexual marriages. Some churches say "yes, we'll perform the holy ceremony of marriage" others say "no way". The Anglican Church has said "yes, we will". So who's right? If you have a priest against homosexual marriages but the church members aren't, or you have a priest for homosexual marriages but churchmembers against, who's right? According to the Anglican Church, whoever is for homosexual marriages is right. Last I heard, according to the Catholic Church, you're only right if you're against homosexual marriages. But they both worship God and follow God's laws, so who's really right?


The person also chooses at confirmation to be part of the Church or not... So I'm assuming you're confirmed and chosen to be part of the Church? Have you ever eaten meat on Friday? Ever worked on Sunday? Ever swore? Ever not gone to Church when it was at all possible for you to attend? Ever missed Church for a cadet activity? And there's more too. If you answered anything but a whole-hearted NO to any single question or combination of questions, maybe you should have chosen not to be part of the Church, cause you're obviously not devout enough or you're letting something come before the Church :rolleyes:


a person does not choose to be homosexual most of the time Most of the time?? When did you last wake up and say "alright, I've decided that I'm going to be heterosexual for the rest of my life"?? Probably the same day you woke up and saw pink zebras with orange polka dots flying around your house...:rolleyes:


Doesn't matter really.. Doesn't matter? Seemed to matter a great deal a half hour before you posted this. What's changed in the half hour between posts?


So what if some people don't recognize gay couples? They're going to do it no matter how much criticism I or anyone else give to them... Seems to me you're saying here you criticize people for not recognizing gay couples. But earlier, you said you STRONGLY DISAGREE with gay couples. Why would you detest, hate, despise, whatever, gay couples but criticize others for thinking the same thing? Me, I disagre with homosexuality, but I also disagree with treating them badly for just that reason. I also do not disagree with homosexual couples, because I believe there is no reason they should be prevented from showing their love for one another. The best friend I've ever had (aside from my girlfriend) is questioning, and the nicest, most helpful guy I've ever met was openly homosexual. Why should I treat them badly? They haven't done anything to me. What I think is my business, but it shouldn't affect how I treat them.

Colin...you're officially my hero of the week :D

[ArmyBoatswain]

Ed, I'm sorry but this just has to be said. Religion has to do with beliefs, NOT YOUR SEXUALITY! And if that's the case then maybe I should become homosexual and have my own little religion, because if homosexuals aren't welcomed into religions like everyone else, than what religion are they going to take? Homosexuality is determined before birth, so are you saying to shun someone out of a religion for something that's not even their fault, than your going against religious ways anyway. Because that is discrimination, which evolves into harrassment...which if I'm not mistaken, to a certain extent, is punishable by law. :( It makes me sad to see people frown upon homosexuality, because that's like saying "Your tall, so I don't like you", or "Your Ed, so I REALLY don't like you". Think about it.

[Embarking Crazy Drummer]

I don't really care they have just as much right as everyone else in this world.

[Ching]

I shop at the gap, does that make me a lesbian??? Lots of people here shop at thw gap, old navy, and american eagle, and they're straight. Just because they shop there does not mean that they are gay/lesbian.
*ahem*
I was kidding, and I was referring to guys. I was addressing the stereotype that gay guys are well-dressed and well-groomed.

[JGallagher]

Well my belief is that it is 1 and 1. One Man and One Women. This is the way that I was brought up. I agree with the other 7 I think it was that voted with me. Now I am not going against any of your beliefs but. This is how things have been for eons. It should not change. First thay wanted there parade then they wanted to live as equeal partners together. My belief is Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

[Ching]

Don't worry, I'm not anti-women ;)

CH
Don't lie. :p
We all know your true colours, Colin. You want a wife that'll cook, clean, look good and make babies.

[Ching]

If all you people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds were REALLY that good at being Christian, you'd know that the judgement is up to God, not you.
It's up to God to decide who goes to Heaven or Hell. Not you. It's up to God to decide what's right and what's wrong.
It's up to you to love your neighbour as you love yourself. And to judge not, lest ye be judged also.
I think you should all read a book called "The Davinci Code". Basically, one of the topics it deals with is that a few hundred years ago, a bunch of Catholic priests decided to add a bunch of stuff to the Bible, making it more fantastic and easier to control people with. Things like not being gay were added to it.
It's a non-fiction book, not a novel. And, like any good book should, it makes you question your beliefs. It makes you think.

[JGallagher]

If all you people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds were REALLY that good at being Christian, you'd know that the judgement is up to God, not you.
It's up to God to decide who goes to Heaven or Hell. Not you. It's up to God to decide what's right and what's wrong.
It's up to you to love your neighbour as you love yourself. And to judge not, lest ye be judged also.
I think you should all read a book called "The Davinci Code". Basically, one of the topics it deals with is that a few hundred years ago, a bunch of Catholic priests decided to add a bunch of stuff to the Bible, making it more fantastic and easier to control people with. Things like not being gay were added to it.
It's a non-fiction book, not a novel. And, like any good book should, it makes you question your beliefs. It makes you think.


That is right, it is up to God on who goes and who stays. Though here on earth it is the mortals that make the decisions. We decide who lives who dies via war. We lock people up in prisons. I belive that the people not the Government its self make the decision on if Gay Mariage be aloud in the country. Alot of people dont feel comfterble living with same sex couples trotting around and doing what "normal" people do. (I use that term loosley)

[RatherBeFlyin]

That is right, it is up to God on who goes and who stays. )[/B] That is so true too.

[piper]

I'm not against gay marriages per se, but I do find the whole issue rather rediculous. Instead of turning the world and how it has worked for thousands of years on its head, could they not have just gone with common-law relationships or something like that? Because honestly, if you go against the grain of society, be prepared to make some sacrifices, and if that includes having to settle with a common-law status instead of marriage, so be it. I do not oppose homosexuality on the basis of religion, I personally find it disgusting and a little wrong, but thats just me. I am against homosexuality, but if you are gay and wish to live as such, all the power to you. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, thats how it has always been and thats how it should stay, your gay and want to live with a lasting partner you are in love with? Enter a common law relationship and stop making to grand hoop-la over this whole issue.

[Walsh]

The state has no right interfere with people's sexual preferance. And the 'church' doesn't either.

[Ching]

I belive that the people not the Government its self make the decision on if Gay Mariage be aloud in the country. Alot of people dont feel comfterble living with same sex couples trotting around and doing what "normal" people do. (I use that term loosley)
We elected that government because we entrusted them with the ability to make decisions in our best interests. And, it's not a matter of opinion, really. The supreme court has to make sure that every law, including the ones surrounding marriage, do not discriminate against anyone on any basis. This includes gay people. The marriage issue is about equal rights. Although you yourself may not be attracted to black women, for example, would you say that no white man should be allowed to marry black women?
It would have been a preposterous suggestion even 50 years ago. Now, I can hardly even count how many mixed race people I know.
So if we can't discriminate based on race, then who's to say we can discriminate based on sexual preference?
I'm sure that, 50 years ago, a lot of people didn't feel comfortable living with mixed race couples, or even black couples, trotting around and doing what "normal" people did. They got used to it.

[Tomtom]

Alot of people dont feel comfterble living with same sex couples trotting around and doing what "normal" people do. (I use that term loosley)


What a horrible, discriminatory, pathetic, and absolutely absurd comment.

*shakes head*



I guess people are entitled to their opinions, but my lord, can you live anymore in the past?

"It's been that way for eons and it shoud never change"

That is absolutely barbaric.

II wish you good luck as a future peace officer, I'd advise you, after your training, during your interview to become a correctional officer and a peace officer in our community, that you do not disclose your discriminatory and prejadice attitudes towards your fellow citizens.

[Tomtom]

This is how things have been for eons. It should not change. First thay wanted there parade then they wanted to live as equeal partners together. My belief is Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

James Gallagher
Fire Fighter


Would you let their house burn a little longer too, because they are homosexual?


Get real!

[Kass]

For all those people who are using religion as an argument. Did you know that according to the bible, if you get mold on your clothes, you have to take it to a priest, and then depending on the colour he will do certain things with it, like keep it for 3 weeks then burn it, or some weird things like that. Bet no one follows that rule.

I believe that under law homosexuals have the right to be protected by the laws that protect married couples not just defactos. I mean why shouldn't they have the same rights in the event of a seperation?

[Dick]

Theres two ways of looking at marriage.

Legal Marriage, and the religious meaning implied by marriage. I doubt homosexuals really care too much about the religious meanings of it because the Bible pretty much says not to do it. However, I believe they're probably most concerned with the legal side, and meaning of marriage as they interpret it. If they are married, they are LEGALLY entitled to all the rights of a straight married couple. And by the meaning as they see it, thats just the "bond" I guess.

Homosexuals are gay. I love stating the obvious.

[Chief Hoult]

Theres two ways of looking at marriage.

Legal Marriage, and the religious meaning implied by marriage. I doubt homosexuals really care too much about the religious meanings of it because the Bible pretty much says not to do it. However, I believe they're probably most concerned with the legal side, and meaning of marriage as they interpret it. If they are married, they are LEGALLY entitled to all the rights of a straight married couple. And by the meaning as they see it, thats just the "bond" I guess.


Exactly. As it's been stated several times, homosexuals will have a hard time getting married in a church, especially in the RC Church, because it isn't accepted. It's the churches perogative (like in cadets, guys have to cut their hair. Don't like it? Too bad.). I support the churches in their beliefs, and their right to run their organization as they see fit. Just like I support homosexualsin their lifestyle.

For those who aren't comfortable with homosexuals running around and doing 'whatever'....umm...they do it anyway. They run around in their relationships, living together, falling in love.....why, there me be a homosexual couple living upstairs in that apartment building! How does it affect you? Because you don't enjoy seeing two men/women missing? Dude, I don't like to see anyone kissing. But hey, people do it anyway. I got used to it, it's the public. It's not my own little world (....yet...but...come tommorow morning....).

And people, STOP USING THE "DON'T CHANGE WHAT THE WORLD HAS ALWAYS DONE" arguement. Really, what's the validity? We should stop the world from developing? News for you: Society has grown...We don't sit around trynig to create fire (wait....that was a bad idea, right? They always ate raw meat and veggies before....so fire was a bad start...it changed what they had ALWAYS done). However, if you want to join my platform based on the way things were, PM me :)

CH

[sic_transit_gloria]

Why can't people understand that some people can't help who they fall in love with. When two people fall in love, they shouldn't have to feel embarassed or have to keep it to themselves because of what ignorant, close minded people might think of them. It's just not right. Sure, some people protest it's 'blasphemy' or what not, or that it's 'gross to look at' well -- WHO CARES?!?! Talking about how much you don't like homosexuality is not going to change the fact that some people just prefer partners of the same sex, so get over it already. They're people too and deserve the chance to fall in love with anyone they want without scrutiny from others.

[canoe instructor]

Well my belief is that it is 1 and 1. One Man and One Women. This is the way that I was brought up. I agree with the other 7 I think it was that voted with me. Now I am not going against any of your beliefs but. This is how things have been for eons. It should not change. First thay wanted there parade then they wanted to live as equeal partners together. My belief is Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

anyone heard the term..god made man is his own image.....could that mean god was gay, straigh, bi..perhaps all three..he is the allmighty after all(and i don't say that lightly or as joke..im a practising catholic)....do you think people just wake up one day and say i think im going to be gay...we can't choose the way we are..and if two men fall in love..ya think they could of controlled that..you can't choose who you fall in love with..it just bloody happens....i think we need to get rid of the titles..marriage..common law what ever thats the problem...two people fall in love=wants to spend life together=union/get their papers whatever.....
we have to move forward..learn from the past, make a better future....we are all equals under the sun...gay, straight, bi, black, white, indian..we all have two eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc etc..and a heart....to love....
~~there can be no understanding until all things divided are joined.~~
Open your minds and really take a look at the world around you...its changing..can you handle it??

Cheers
CI Harris
ORCA Flatwater Instructor/Canoe Tripper I
HMCS Ontario Athletics Staff 2003 and 2004

[jgoguen]

Enter a common law relationship and stop making to grand hoop-la over this whole issue. Once I've been living with my girlfriend for 6 months, we're legally a common-law couple. What does that change? Well we can call ourselves a common-law couple...we can file taxes as two seperate people with no transfering or whatever it is married couples can do with taxes...and if one of us unexpectedly dies, the other gets to fight with the government to keep stuff, cause we're not married and have no claim to each other's stuff. Sounds wonderful :rolleyes: I'm not sure if I said it before, but it seems that more and more straight couples are marrying just for the benefits...they'd both be perfectly happy as common-law, but they get nothing out of it. I know that's not true for all, and hopefully not most, couples, but there's a fair number of couples marrying just for that reason...


Alot of people dont feel comfterble living with same sex couples trotting around and doing what "normal" people do. (I use that term loosley) Wow...just...wow...thought I'd seen some pretty nasty, discriminatory, closed-minded comments before...but this just takes the cake. So homosexuals aren't normal people? I'd like to see you stand up to some of the homosexuals I know and tell them to their faces they're not normal. For that matter how about you come tell any of their straight friends homosexuals aren't normal. See how welcomed you'll be. Tell us all Jim...honestly...you're a firefighter...if you were going to a fire, and you knew the occupants of the house were openly homosexual, would you put the same effort into saving their lives? I mean it's not like they're "normal" or anything...hardly even people...they do such horrid, unnatural things, why bother wasting the energy to save them. May as well just make the effort look good, and if they get saved you look good. I'm sorry Jim...but that comment is most definately worse than anything I'd expect from someone who wants to be a Corrections Officer. Ever heard of "situational homosexuality"? Well you're probably going to become very familiar with it if you work in larger institutions, maybe even some smaller ones if people are in there long enough. Hope that doesn't affect how you do your job...


Sure, some people protest it's 'blasphemy' or what not I posed the question earlier...who's really right? For quick reference:


Catholics and Christians have a right to their religion Indeed they do. And as I recall, the Anglican Church was/is split rather bitterly over homosexual marriages. Some churches say "yes, we'll perform the holy ceremony of marriage" others say "no way". The Anglican Church has said "yes, we will". So who's right? If you have a priest against homosexual marriages but the church members aren't, or you have a priest for homosexual marriages but churchmembers against, who's right? According to the Anglican Church, whoever is for homosexual marriages is right. Last I heard, according to the Catholic Church, you're only right if you're against homosexual marriages. But they both worship God and follow God's laws, so who's really right? Not saying anything about your post...that bit just piqued my interest.

[sic_transit_gloria]

No, well the thing I find tricky about the Bible, is that most people have 'selective interpreting' to it. At least, that's what it seems like. I mean, if your going to persecute homosexuals because 'it's not right' according to the Bible.. well then I sure hope you're doing everything that book says (well, I don't condone it, but hey.. sure would lessen some of the hipocracy heh??). And in the very beginning of the Bible it says: and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. So if you're arguing that homosexuality isn't right because the Bible mentions Adam and Eve, one man, one women.. well then what was this huge big fuss over women's rights and such back in the 60's and 70's??.. wouldn't that count as blasphemy too?? I mean come on, are you really going to let your personal decision be based on a book thousands of years old??

[DaveKeane]

I'm a Catholic, and earlier this year We had a Gay Couple living in our flat (they were dicks for reasons other than being Gay).

In NZ, they're writing new legislation to create a type of civil union for Same-Sex Couples, providing the same or similar legal protection as that affordrd to married couples.
Currently, there is also a law in NZ that 2 people living as a couple for 5 years are afforded those rights, but it doesn't quite fit what people were looking for.

[JGallagher]

Would you let their house burn a little longer too, because they are homosexual?


Get real!
That sir is a direct attack against my person as a Fire Fighter. I take great offence to that. That is like me saying that that you would not shoot the person shooting at your buddy. That is a personel attack and I take great offence to it.

[jgoguen]

I take great offence to your comment...looks like Tom does too. Are you sure you wouldn't let your personal feelings affect the way you conduct yourself on the job? What about if you're working as a corrections officer in a facility where situational homosexuality is high. What about if there are a large number of open homosexuals in the facility? Are you sure your feelings wouldn't affect the way you do your job? Personally, after a comment like the one you made, I think it would. Seems to me Tom agrees with me, but I won't speak for him.

[Ching]

That sir is a direct attack against my person as a Fire Fighter. I take great offence to that. That is like me saying that that you would not shoot the person shooting at your buddy. That is a personel attack and I take great offence to it.
And a lot of us take great offense to you putting normal in quotations, implying that gay people aren't normal. It's a personal attack to homosexuals and bisexuals, as well as their friends and families.

And it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that you would treat gay people differently in the line of duty, after a comment like that.

[Tomtom]

That sir is a direct attack against my person as a Fire Fighter. I take great offence to that.


I knew you would.

Perhaps now you know how it feels.

[Tomtom]

Indeed they do. And as I recall, the Anglican Church was/is split rather bitterly over homosexual marriages. Some churches say "yes, we'll perform the holy ceremony of marriage" others say "no way". The Anglican Church has said "yes, we will". So who's right? If you have a priest against homosexual marriages but the church members aren't, or you have a priest for homosexual marriages but churchmembers against, who's right? According to the Anglican Church, whoever is for homosexual marriages is right.


The entire religious community is divided on the issue.

For example, 3 out of the 5 churches in the community of Watford perform same sex marriages.

My mother, the Anglican Priest in Watford and Kerwood, Ontario has decided at this time to not perform the marriages until further direction is given from the Anglican Diocese.

The church is only one institution where a couple can be married. People need to get with the times. Marriage is no longer soley based on religion. There are legal issues with marriage, rights, and legal responsibilities that come with marriage.

[RatherBeFlyin]

The state has no right interfere with people's sexual preferance. And the 'church' doesn't either.

Exactly! 100% agreed!

[RatherBeFlyin]

Tomtom, jgougen, and jgallagher, your disagreements are none of my business, but your comments are very strong. There's no need to snap on each other. As Canadian Citizens everyone has the right to their own opinion. I thought that one of the rules of this site is that criticisim in any offense matter isn't acceptable.

[RatherBeFlyin]

Why can't people understand that some people can't help who they fall in love with. . Exactly. I fell head over heels in love with someone in my squadron that aged out and left, and then he ended up gay, and I had no idea that he was.

[JGallagher]

I knew you would.

Perhaps now you know how it feels.

You did some thing worse then insulting my morals. You insulted my ablities. So what if I dont like or agree with Same Sex Marriage or Couples. That is my beliefs. Same sex marriages:what's your opinion? Remember that is what the topic is. I gave mine and now I am defending what I said.

[JGallagher]

I take great offence to your comment...looks like Tom does too. Are you sure you wouldn't let your personal feelings affect the way you conduct yourself on the job? What about if you're working as a corrections officer in a facility where situational homosexuality is high. What about if there are a large number of open homosexuals in the facility? Are you sure your feelings wouldn't affect the way you do your job? Personally, after a comment like the one you made, I think it would. Seems to me Tom agrees with me, but I won't speak for him.

Let me clear one thing up for you. There is not a large population in a facility. Not all inmates make love. Less then 1% is gay. If they are caught they are charged. As well most people that are on the reciving end are not being there by there own will. On the most part they are being raped. Hope that clears it up for you.

[RatherBeFlyin]

Let me clear one thing up for you. There is not a large population in a facility. Not all inmates fudge pack. .

Please don't use the word "fudge pack". I hate that word. It's what my homosexual brother was called right before he got his face bashed in and his ankle broken.

[Carter]

There are legal issues with marriage, rights, and legal responsibilities that come with marriage.


It is like allowing prisioners vote. Hey it is their right!


Does it mean it is right?

[JGallagher]

Please don't use the word "fudge pack". I hate that word. It's what my homosexual brother was called right before he got his face bashed in and his ankle broken.

I appoligize. I am sorry what happend to your brother. No ones deserves to be physicaly assaulted. No matter what there beliefs are.

[ArmyBoatswain]

That is right, it is up to God on who goes and who stays. Though here on earth it is the mortals that make the decisions. We decide who lives who dies via war. We lock people up in prisons. I belive that the people not the Government its self make the decision on if Gay Mariage be aloud in the country. Alot of people dont feel comfterble living with same sex couples trotting around and doing what "normal" people do. (I use that term loosley)
I agree with CH, I would have thought you to be a better minded person, being a firefighter and going for corrections officer and all... But I guess you are going to use your freedom of speech, no matter whose feelings you hurt. I don't know, I'm thinking I might start to discriminate discriminators. tsk tsk!Now, guess who falls into that category. I respected you alot, I don't what happened to that respect, but I can tell, it's gone now.

[ArmyBoatswain]

I appoligize. I am sorry what happend to your brother. No ones deserves to be physicaly assaulted. No matter what there beliefs are.
You say physically assaulted, however you do not mention verbally and emotionally assaulted to. Does that mean your ok with it?Eh Jim? Think about what your doing and what I just pointed out.

[RatherBeFlyin]

I appoligize. I am sorry what happend to your brother. No ones deserves to be physicaly assaulted. No matter what there beliefs are.


No problem, no harm done. And you're absolutely right too.

[Little Cadet]

You did some thing worse then insulting my morals. You insulted my ablities. So what if I dont like or agree with Same Sex Marriage or Couples. That is my beliefs. Same sex marriages:what's your opinion? Remember that is what the topic is. I gave mine and now I am defending what I said.

And you did something worse than insulting our morals...you directly attacked some people here. I dont have to say that I do not have the best respect for you. I believe in people speaking up their opinions, but not when it hurts other. Theres a difference, you just asked for trouble for it when you posted these comments, you could of found a better way to express yourself.

But eh, what can ya do, theres going to be people like you here and there. Its not like anyone is looking for your approval anyways, but I wish you luck in the future because whether you accept it or not, it will eventually be accepted by most of society, and it will be a common everyday thing. I hope you can handle it!

[Tomtom]

I thought that one of the rules of this site is that criticisim in any offense matter isn't acceptable.

No, and especially not in this forum.

If someone is going to post something like that, they should be prepared for the responses.

[Tomtom]

You did some thing worse then insulting my morals. You insulted my ablities. So what if I dont like or agree with Same Sex Marriage or Couples. That is my beliefs.

So then post that you don't agree, no one will say anything to you about that. Many people have already posted their opinions on the subject and everyone has respected that.

You, my friend, posted discriminatory and prejudice remarks that attacked and insulted all homosexuals. Do I really need to quote them?


If I hear one more discriminatory term such as "Fudge Packer" come from anyone in this thread, it will be locked, and any discussion even remotely related to this topic will be banned from this forum.

[Tomtom]

It is like allowing prisioners vote. Hey it is their right!


Does it mean it is right?


How can you compare prisoners to homosexuals?

[piper]

People, people, relax. Sometimes people make heated comments on this forum (god knows I have sometimes), but really, relax. If you are really opposed to homosexuals, your going to make it clear to everyone. And if you are in support of homosexuals, it is only natural that your going to take offence to most of what the other anti-gay folks will say. This argument is like the drug one, it goes on and on, but never really accomplishes anything. So why don't we all hug and be friends again, because being pro-gay or anti-gay is like being a guy or a girl, your that and only that and the chance of you changing is something like 1:1000000000000000000. Take me for example.

[CKeenan]

yeah man!!! They're completely different people!!!

(crap... that one was for the last post, but Piper posted before I could...)

But yeah... Piper has a point. We're all going against each other and we shouldn't have that happen. let's all be friends again and stop gunning people down for what their opinions happen to be

[Dick]

How can you compare prisoners to homosexuals?
Hehe, I'm going to go out on a limb here...

Well, when in prison a lot of men get very lonely... And very.. well... randy. ;)

[The Blue Tory]

Hehe, I'm going to go out on a limb here...

Well, when in prison a lot of men get very lonely... And very.. well... randy. ;)
yeah and don't ya think it sucks for those who had a sex change and have to go to the prison of their original sex... lol

[Tomtom]

If someone had a sex change, a real legitimate sex change, and then was subsequently sentenced to prison, would they go to a prison for their original sex, or their new sex?

I never really thought of that one.


Jim?

[Carter]

How can you compare prisoners to homosexuals?

I am not.

I just made a remark about the human rights issue. Since "rights" was being posted.

We will never be satisitified with anything.Because if we give people all their rights , more laws will be made and then our freedom is lost.

[Carter]

If someone had a sex change, a real legitimate sex change, and then was subsequently sentenced to prison, would they go to a prison for their original sex, or their new sex?

I never really thought of that one.


Jim?


I believe it goes by what is on their birth certificate.

[JGallagher]

If someone had a sex change, a real legitimate sex change, and then was subsequently sentenced to prison, would they go to a prison for their original sex, or their new sex?

I never really thought of that one.


Jim?


Well lets put it like this. If they have a male Genatalia they are sent to a Male Correctional Center. It does not matter if they have breast or not. That is where they are sent. I know a person who had to strip search Transvestites on there OJT. As for the "Lonely" thing, most people are rapped if that is happening.

[Gungod]

As for the "Lonely" thing, most people are rapped if that is happening.


Someone has been watching to many movies, or been listening to old screw stories.. In the 14 years I have working with the Gaol sytem I have only ever dealt with 1 count of rape within the gaol. Most guys don't rape guys...

[JGallagher]

Someone has been watching to many movies, or been listening to old screw stories.. In the 14 years I have working with the Gaol sytem I have only ever dealt with 1 count of rape within the gaol. Most guys don't rape guys...

I am aware of that. AS well I had said most times. I did not say it happened alot. This is from to people that worked and work in a Federal Instituation.

[Gungod]

I am aware of that. AS well I had said most times. I did not say it happened alot. This is from to people that worked and work in a Federal Instituation.

In the Federal System it is more consensual sex, not rape. Tough, manly type guys very rarely rape someone and then walk the yard.. Guys who rape women, steal from other cells, guys who beat women, and guys that rat on people usually wake up dead... Thats why they seperate them into 38.1, Segregation or Protective Custody..

[JGallagher]

Or people like Paul Bernado for example he is in super protective custody. He cant even go out in Gen Pop with the PC guys.

[Gungod]

Exactly.. That is why Prison Rape is quite very rare...

[Pilot]

people usually wake up dead...
isn't the thing of being dead that you don't wake up???

[Tomtom]

You pose an excellent point, Pilot.

Gungod, Care to explain yourself?



;)

[JGallagher]

I think on avrage 10 inmates die a year. We are paying some thing like 55000$ a year per inmate. One federal instituation stays at about 400 at any time. That is 2000000$ a year for inmates in a instituation.

[Tomtom]

An adult grizzly bear can decapitate a moose with one swipe of its paw. When it charges it can cover 100 yards in six seconds - faster than a racehorse.










..... Oh sorry! I thought this was random fact time in International Issues

:confused:

[Pilot]

a woozule wazule?

[Gungod]

Gungod, Care to explain yourself?

;)

Just a slang term.

[Pilot]

how's the dirt tasting from your shoe ??

[The Blue Tory]

how's the dirt tasting from your shoe ??
tasting rather dirtish?

[Dick]

This thread went from marriage to prison sex.

I love it :D

[The Blue Tory]

its a new unexplored topic on CW... taking over the same ol' get nowhere topic

[Pilot]

This thread went from marriage to prison sex.

I love it :D
you love how the thread changed or you love.... oh never mind... :D

[BMaloney]

I think the trick is, it doesn't matter how many times homosexuality is denounced in the Bible, the government couldn't care less. Everyone DOESN'T have a right to their opinion if it is openly discriminatory.

[Little Cadet]

Everyone DOESN'T have a right to their opinion if it is openly discriminatory.

Exactly! Everyone has the right AS LONG as it doesn't hurt others, sometimes people ask for it, but you don't control the way ur born, the color of your skin...etc. You don't go up to someone's face and tell them theyre not normal because they are too skinny, or black or purple. Cause it hurts...simple as that.

[jgoguen]

Let me clear one thing up for you. There is not a large population in a facility. Not all inmates *censored*. Nice term you used there. Makes me wonder even more about your professionalism. What would you have done if you had decided to do something else, and you had decided to stay with the CIC, and a cadet were to come to talk to you saying they're homosexual and aren't sure if they should tell anyone or not. Happens a fair bit. What would you have done? You sure can't call them inappropriate names, or tell them they're not natural...well you could, but it'd be some interesting to see how much longer you're allowed near a corps


Less then 1% is gay. Yes, I'm aware of statistics. Did you know if you stand with 9 other people, statistically one you must be gay? On average, 10% of the population is homosexual. However, I could easily take a sample of the population where on average 0% of the sample is homosexual. Doesn't prove the other statistic wrong, because that 10% figure is a population statistic, meaning the sample taken to get that number is the entire population. My statistic, however, would be a sample statistic, meaning I'm taking less than the entire population as my sample space. Personally, I'd say the population stats are more accurate.

I'm not talking about homosexuality, but rather situational homosexuality, where men who outside of prison are straight, married, have kids, never had a homosexual thought in their life, suddenly raping another man.


If they are caught they are charged. I hope you mean if they're caught raping someone they're charged with rape or sexual assult or aggrevated sexual assult or whatever the appropriate charge would be. I sure hope they're not being charged just because they're caught being gay. What would you call that charge anyway...


On the most part they are being raped. Yes, from what I've read situational homosexuality rarely involves two consenting parties. Afraid I don't remember the stats on how frequent it is after various lengths of time in whatever size facility, but I'm sure Google can be a nice help if you really want to know.


No ones deserves to be physicaly assaulted. No matter what there beliefs are. What about the emotional and verbal abuse he went through? "Don't worry kids, it's all good until someone touches him!" :rolleyes:


Everyone DOESN'T have a right to their opinion if it is openly discriminatory. I like this guy...where'd we find him :D I think he's the first one to post what most of us take as common sense, and the rest don't understand.

[The Blue Tory]

Isn't homosexuality a choice that men and women make? No one is born that way... Their experiences and lessons learned make them that way...

[Little Cadet]

Isn't homosexuality a choice that men and women make? No one is born that way... Their experiences and lessons learned make them that way...

Uhh nope.....wrong answer, try again! Did your experiences and lessons made you white, or male, or tall? Can you seriously tell me one morning you asked yourself, umm am I going to be straight or gay? Maybe you think homosexuality is gross, and that you don't want part in it, but it's because you're straight. (I'm assuming you are! if not, you're kind of contradicting yourself lol). It just kind of happens, you don't choose your feelings and who you fall in love with!

[The Blue Tory]

Uhh nope.....wrong answer, try again! Did your experiences and lessons made you white, or male, or tall? Can you seriously tell me one morning you asked yourself, umm am I going to be straight or gay? Maybe you think homosexuality is gross, and that you don't want part in it, but it's because you're straight. (I'm assuming you are! if not, you're kind of contradicting yourself lol). It just kind of happens, you don't choose your feelings and who you fall in love with!
yeah but a person is not born like that... just like your not born wanting to be in the military...

[jgoguen]

Isn't homosexuality a choice that men and women make? No one is born that way... Their experiences and lessons learned make them that way... What day did you wake up and say "I've decided that I'm straight"? If there are any homosexuals here who woke up one day and said "I've decided to be homosexual" please tell us. I know I never "decided" to be straight. My gay friends never "decided" to be gay. My lesbian friend never "decided" she likes women. My questioning friend didn't "decide" they weren't sure about their sexuality. When did you decide you were straight? Does that mean you were homosexual at one time? Or did you consider becoming a homosexual? Did you ever participate in "homosexual behaviours"? If you answered no to all those questions, you didn't decide to be straight. What you did decide is to take such a strong anti-homosexual view, which I think is really too bad. Of course...if you did answer yes to one or more questions, I'm expecting to learn the date you decided to be straight Me, it was that day the flying purple cows chased the crawling green eagles around the moon only to get eaten by the one-legged pink aardvarks waiting on the dark side of the moon. Quite a chase...ever see a one-legged aardvark run? It's rather amusing:D Oh yea...the eagles got eaten too...by a common American platypus :D


yeah but a person is not born like that... just like your not born wanting to be in the military.. I'll agree that you're not born wanting to be in the military...but can you really prove babies are born straight or gay? A fair, unbiased, scientific study would be acceptable, not personal opinions. Care to elaborate on why you say people aren't "born gay"?

[Chief Hoult]

yeah but a person is not born like that... just like your not born wanting to be in the military...

That's a hard one, Ed. From what I've been told, homosexuality occurs occassionally in the rest of the Animal Kingdom, so I'm not sure why you think that humans are exempt from this.

They've done some studies, but there is little evidence suggesting that you can be raised to like men or women. TV, society as a whole, is heterosexual...their parents are usually heterosexual (although there is the odd exception)...so what is homosexual 'behaviour'? If you go into a room, and I told you 5 people in the room of 50 were gay, could you pick them out from their behaviour (and no, they are not hitting on the same sex....they're just sitting around having a drink)? I don't think so..and that's because it isn't a learned behaviour, it's inborn.

That being said, I can see the other side of the arguement. Biologically, something is "wrong" with homosexuals (biologically...not social sciences, not society accepting...but in the sense that out basic function is to procreate, so a gene would probably be out of place in those who are homosexual). I wouldn't go as far as to call it a 'defect', but....does anyone see what I'm saying at all in the above paragraph? I'll try to make myself more clear if not....

CH

[Wood]

It's pretty ridiculous to assume people choose their sexual orientation, the attraction factor (as I'm sure we all know) is a strong primitive drive, it isn't something you reason. And If we could choose how many people woul choose to be gay? Oh, ok well I like being segregated from my family, discriminated against by society, insulted, hated feared and generally made fun of so I'm going to choose to be a homosexual over the easy life of a hetrosexual.

[The Blue Tory]

Its not choice made consciously... if anyone bothered reading the second part... it is an unconscious choice made from their experiences...

[Chief Hoult]

And what experiences would make someone homosexual? There have been children moltested by members of the same sex who turn out straight....There are boys who play with dolls who are straight, girls who play in mud who are straight....so what are the experiences?

CH

[Wood]

Its not choice made consciously... if anyone bothered reading the second part... it is an unconscious choice made from their experiences...

An unconcious choice? Isn't that an oxymoron? A choice involves freewill, freewill implies consciousness. Therefore if someone does something unconsciously they could not have chosen to do it. In any case their is significant evidence pointing towards it being a biological thing (makes sense considering we are talking about biological urges).

[Dick]

it is an unconscious choice made from their experiences...That, I would have to agree with.

No one suddenly decides one day to be gay. Likewise, you are not born knowing you are gay. How could you? Most toddlers have idea what a homosexual is.

I think you guys kinda mean the samething though. By saying "it is an unconscious choice made from their experiences" that is like saying you never really made the decision yourself, you just knew somehow thats what you wanted to do. I think, "Saying your born that way" is a crappy way of describing what your are saying. What Ed said means exactly the same thing, but it actually makes sense.

I guess what I'm saying is, That knowing what your sexual orientation is, is something that you come to realize through life.

[Wood]

That, I would have to agree with.

No one suddenly decides one day to be gay. Likewise, you are not born knowing you are gay. How could you? Most toddlers have idea what a homosexual is.



How could you? The same way most people... most species... are born attracted to the opposite sex of the same species. Only your body chemistry would react to the same gender as oppose to the opposite. Their are a lot of biological behaviors that we have that "we are born with" meaning simply that they come from factors that are there a birth. Not meaning that babies nessessarily are attracted to any sex as infants.

I mean did you like the opposite sex as an infant, probably not but as you grew older you started to realize what appealed to you.

The experience argument ignores that people living totally different life styles all become gay while people of similar lifestyles, families don't all develope the same way.

[The Blue Tory]

so you say it is more biological than it is psychological.... as in a defect in the sex drive?

[Chief Hoult]

so you say it is more biological than it is psychological.... as in a defect in the sex drive?

Not really a defect in the sex drive. A homosexual teenager probably has the same amount of sex drive as the heterosexual standing next to him; it's just channeled differently.

But yes, a 'defect' in a certain gene I suppose would be accurate. That being said, it doesn't affect the heterosexual population (I don't see how it would) as being homosexual doesn't affect anyones abilities, thought process, intelligence, etc. They just happen to find members of the same sex attractive.

If it is indeed proven to be a 'defect', does that justify your discrimination against them?

CH

[The Blue Tory]

Not really a defect in the sex drive. A homosexual teenager probably has the same amount of sex drive as the heterosexual standing next to him; it's just channeled differently.

But yes, a 'defect' in a certain gene I suppose would be accurate. That being said, it doesn't affect the heterosexual population (I don't see how it would) as being homosexual doesn't affect anyones abilities, thought process, intelligence, etc. They just happen to find members of the same sex attractive.

If it is indeed proven to be a 'defect', does that justify your discrimination against them?

CH
not discrimination... crossing the line with the accusations there aren't ya

[DaveKeane]

I'll bring across some points of a lengthy discussion I had with some people I respect.

The Roots of Homosexuality (that's not a euphemism) are unknown, whether it's nature (biological), or nurture (psychological) is still unknown. In fact almost piece of reputable news that is helping work this out gets News Coverage. For an example of that, anyone remember the 'Gay Ram' thing brought up earlier this year.

No-one can condemn Homosexuals for being homosexual. Homosexuals don't choose to be so on a whim, its programmed into them (whether it was pre-programmed or programmed later, as I said, we still don't know).

While on principle as a Catholic, I don't support Marriage for Homosexual Couples, I do support a similar level of Civil Union and Legal Protection as that currently only reserved for Married Couples.

[Nighthawk]

Sorry that im not going with the flow of this thread.. but I want to put in my little bit to this topic...
--
One day I plan on getting married. To promise someone that I will be there for them in sickness and in health for the rest of my days. To make my vows of love and commitment to them. To be in the company of my best friends and family who have been there for me and have them witness my pledge to this person.

If at all possible, I would love to be married at Kings Park in Perth, Australia. I have no desire to be married in a church for I do not believe in that god. I have my own faith. One that has been developed through my lifes experiences. I have almost died a few times in the few years that I have been on this planet. Those moments have had a huge influence on my spirituality.

I want to get married for a few reasons. One being that, to me, it is the greatest expression of love one can give to another human being. Another is to be afforded the same benefits that any other straight couple would recieve. The real drive and incentive to get married would not be the legal benefits, but the final bond that ties two people together in a ceremony of life and love and to have that bond be recognised by the world as legitimate. If the day came where it was decided to once again not be legal to have a same sex marriage then I will do so regardless of it being legal and will hold my own ceremony in which I will express my undying love for my partner because that is the part that is truely important.

--
On a bit of a different side to all of this, I will share a story from a few weeks ago. I will start off by saying that prior to this I have never felt that I have been discriminated against or have been called names or anything of the like. I was downtown on Robson street holding my boyfriend's hand. A car drove by and out the window someone yells "******S!" and you hear a bunch of laughing from inside the car. That is the first time I have ever had anything like that happen to me. It hurt me deep inside.. I kinda laughed on the outside and brushed it off as we pretended that we both would just ignore it. Inside it cut away at me a little and I was in a depressed mood for the majority of the day.

I am not asking for anyone to like how I live my life, but just for a little respect. I make a point of doing my best to not make people uncomfortable at anytime. The majority of the time I go out of my way to not make someone uncomforable even though I dont believe that I should have to do that.

Im not sure how many of you are aware of this, but for many homosexuals the idea of straight sex is just as disgusting to us as homo sex is to a straight person with that attitude. Even sitting here typing this and thinking about some of the stuff guys do with girls makes my stomach turn. I am well aware that male and female anatomy is made to go with each other.. but once again im feeling physically disturbed even thinking about that. I like women. I think they are attractive. I think they are beautiful, funny, smart, and would love to be with one.. just as long as they keep their clothes on and thier girl parts away from me.

What it all comes down to is that I want my relationship with the person that I love to be recognised by the state as valid and legal just as any straight relationship would be. I wish to be married by the state and not by the church. In fact I could care less what the church thought of my marriage. As it has been quoted at so many weddings, when the day I give myself to my partner comes, This day I will marry my friend, the one I laugh with, live with, dream with, Love.

[RatherBeFlyin]

One thing i've always been wondering about is drag queens. I mean when you come into contact with them are you supposed to refer to them as he or she? God only knows........

[ArmyBoatswain]

Nicely said NightHawk.
---
Ed, if you don't like how people live their lives, then do something about it for YOURSELF, don't do anything to them like hurt their feelings, but do something for yourself...Like tape yourself in a soundproof box so you don't have to hear what's going on. Just a question Ed. Are you against predjudice?
...If so, your really contradicting yourself, because what your doing is being prejudice against homosexuals.Another question... What if you were BEST FRIENDS with someone, thought you knew them perfectly, and it turns out they didn't know themselves very well either, until one day, while still being best friends with you, finds out he's gay. Would you then deny him as your friend?
Also, what would you say if there were homosexuals reading what your saying in this thread? What would you say to a homosexual posting a thread like this about heterosexuals, and it had the same kind of content from people like you and Jim? How would you feel?

EG

[Dick]

Im not sure how many of you are aware of this, but for many homosexuals the idea of straight sex is just as disgusting to us as homo sex is to a straight person with that attitude. Even sitting here typing this and thinking about some of the stuff guys do with girls makes my stomach turn. I am well aware that male and female anatomy is made to go with each other.. but once again im feeling physically disturbed even thinking about that. I like women. I think they are attractive. I think they are beautiful, funny, smart, and would love to be with one.. just as long as they keep their clothes on and thier girl parts away from me. This I thought was very interesting! I never thought of it like that. Neat.

I don't really think gay sex is disgusting, because some guys like doing that to girls, it just doesn't float my boat. So I'll be stering clear of the rocky road whether its male or female :D

[Nighthawk]

Also, what would you say if there were homosexuals reading what your saying in this thread?

Considering the very nature of this thread I would venture to guess that almost all homosexuals using these forums have taken a peek at this thread and are following it.



One thing i've always been wondering about is drag queens. I mean when you come into contact with them are you supposed to refer to them as he or she? God only knows........

When in drag, Drag queens will have girl drag names and are typicially refered to as 'she'.. I however have a hard time getting into the pattern of calling someone she if Im friends with them when theyre not in drag.

I work at a bar downtown and drag queens will come in for dinner and such... My greeting is always 'good evening ladies' or something close to that.

[RatherBeFlyin]

When in drag, Drag queens will have girl drag names and are typicially refered to as 'she'.. I however have a hard time getting into the pattern of calling someone she if Im friends with them when theyre not in drag.

I work at a bar downtown and drag queens will come in for dinner and such... My greeting is always 'good evening ladies' or something close to that.

Thank you very much for clearing that up!!!!!!!!!

[RatherBeFlyin]

Also, what would you say if there were homosexuals reading what your saying in this thread? EG


There probably are too. I love gay men!!!! They're the best kinds of friends that a woman can have!!!!!!!!!!!

[Caz]

To be honest, I've just skimmed the nine pages of this thread. I promise to pay more attention from now on.

Here's my take.

My wife and I weren't married in a church. We didn't have a relgious ceremony at all. We were married by a Marriage Commissioner, in our hometown.

Does that make my marriage invalid?

According the to the church, yes. It wasn't a religious ceremony. Fine by me.

However, according to my marriage license, which was issued by the state, my marriage is alive and well.

Surely the church doesn't dictate that I can't get married, because I do not do so in the face of God.

I am not married in the religious context. I am in the civil context.

Then why should it matter if homosexuals marry in civil ceremonies?

Nobody is saying that the churches have to perform or honour same-sex marriages; the same as they don't have to honour inter-faith or even inter-racial marriages.

What the homosexual population of Canada is asking, is for their right to profess their love to their partner for life, much like I did, in a legally-binding civil ceremony.

You don't have to like gay marriage. You don't have to like that I didn't get married in a church. That's your opinion. You're entitled to it.

I'm entitled to mine.

And we're all entitled to start a family through marriage.

-R.

[Ching]

And what experiences would make someone homosexual? There have been children moltested by members of the same sex who turn out straight....There are boys who play with dolls who are straight, girls who play in mud who are straight....so what are the experiences?

CH
What about boys who play in the mud with dolls? Are they bisexual? :p

[Ching]

There probably are too. I love gay men!!!! They're the best kinds of friends that a woman can have!!!!!!!!!!!
Hear, hear!

[Nighthawk]

So I'll be stering clear of the rocky road whether its male or female :D

One more thing is that not all gays have the 'from the behind' sex... Some find that rather unappealing as well..and they only engage in it once in a while... Just because were gay doesnt mean we have to do that.. theres other stuff thats fun enough on its own :) It seems that whenever a lot of people think of gays.. thats the first thing that comes to mind :rolleyes:

[RatherBeFlyin]

Hear, hear!

Lesbians are alright too, they've got pretty good senses of humor.

[Caz]

Lesbians are alright too, they've got pretty good senses of humor.
Okay, that was really funny... but...

Here we are in a thread about same-sex marriage and rights, and we are making generalizations such as gay men making great friends, and lesbians being funny as heck?

Time for a little less Will & Grace, a little more studying social issues.

[Tomtom]

Lesbians are alright too, they've got pretty good senses of humor.


How very stereotypical of you.

You are suggesting that people have certain personality qualities simply because they are lesbian.

I know often the topic in threads change over time... but lets get away from contributing to prejudice stereotypes and continue with our discussion.

[RatherBeFlyin]

Okay, that was really funny... but...

Here we are in a thread about same-sex marriage and rights, and we are making generalizations such as gay men making great friends, and lesbians being funny as heck?

Time for a little less Will & Grace, a little more studying social issues.


Umm, I thought people are allowed to discuss what they want in threads. There's many threads out there about certain topics, in which people go into and bring up something else. Is it really that big of a deal?

[RatherBeFlyin]

How very stereotypical of you.

You are suggesting that people have certain personality qualities simply because they are lesbian.

I know often the topic in threads change over time... but lets get away from contributing to prejudice stereotypes and continue with our discussion.

Ok, if I was stereotyping i'd say that lesbians are "butch" or they're nothing other than "bike dykes" or plain "dykes" All I said that is that they have really great senses of humor, and that's why they make such good friends. And that's why I have several lesbian friends.

[Wood]

Ok, if I was stereotyping i'd say that lesbians are "butch" or they're nothing other than "bike dykes" or plain "dykes" All I said that is that they have really great senses of humor, and that's why they make such good friends. And that's why I have several lesbian friends.

Its still a styreotype, just because its positive doesn't mean anything. It really doesn't mean anything, a person isn't funny because of their sexual orientation but because of who they are.

[Caz]

Umm, I thought people are allowed to discuss what they want in threads. There's many threads out there about certain topics, in which people go into and bring up something else. Is it really that big of a deal?
Exactly. You expressed your opinion; I expressed mine.

So, to be a lesbian, you have to have a good sense of humor - but can you have a good sense of humor, without being a lesbian?

Just highlighting what I believe is a flaw in your argument. Don't take it personally.

-R.

[Wood]

No-one can condemn Homosexuals for being homosexual. Homosexuals don't choose to be so on a whim, its programmed into them (whether it was pre-programmed or programmed later, as I said, we still don't know).



There was indeed a lengthy debate on why people are homosexuals. However, I'm wondering how inportant that was. If a person chose to be a homosexual consciously, does that change anything. Is that then something the government should condemn, or we should as individuals.

[Little Cadet]

There was indeed a lengthy debate on why people are homosexuals. However, I'm wondering how inportant that was. If a person chose to be a homosexual consciously, does that change anything. Is that then something the government should condemn, or we should as individuals.
I think everyone should have the right...even IF it was a choice. I also don't think it should be "condemned", it's normal...

[jgoguen]

Well you know...the government could be nasty about it and say homosexuality is a personal choice and thus give no rights to them...but then they couldn't claim to support freedom of choice and freedom of expression. Or they could be nasty and say homosexuality isn't a choice, but it's still wrong and so they get no rights...but then that would be discrimination, so they couldn't complain about anyone discriminating against Jews or coloured people or anything. Really now...can you really see the government saying "He didn't choose to be homosexual, but let's condemn him anyway"? About the same as them saying "Well, he didn't choose to be black, but let's condemn him anyway: :rolleyes:

[RatherBeFlyin]

So, to be a lesbian, you have to have a good sense of humor - but can you have a good sense of humor, without being a lesbian?


-R. You don't have to have a good sense of humor in order to be a lesbian. Of course you can have a good sense of humor and not be a lesbian. I've just found that most of the lesbians that I know have really great senses of humor, that's all.

[Tomtom]

!OLOLOL!OLOL!OLL !OLO!L!OLOLOL


Welcome back buddy!

[RatherBeFlyin]

Here's a problem with the amount of choices you have: you don't get an accurate idea of what the majority feel unless you combine them. Asking whether we are "gay/bi/les and proud of it" has NOTHING to do with the question.


See that's what you think, some people feel that there is no yes or no answer. It's called being creative.

[Little Cadet]

!OLOL!LO!LO Thanks big daddy.OMG....he's back......... lol Welcome back

[JGallagher]

OMG....he's back......... lol


Its him!! The MAN!!

[ctjj.stevenson]

I have a little note for His Excellency, the Honourable George W. Bush on his law baning same-sex marriage.

His Excellency says that same-sex marriage is un-natural, and has never existed in any human society in the past. This is not true. The Nuer in Africa do have same-sex marriages since 500 years (at least). This society believe in the passing down of the family name though a male offspring. However, if a father does not have a son, then he will name a daughter as a "female-son" and will have a male role in society, and therefore, will get married with a woman, and act like a father to the wife's children (how the wife will be able to bear children, that's another story which I will not talk about).

[RatherBeFlyin]

Nice try, but that doesnt even make sense...but if they dont have an answer, then they shouldnt be voting OR there could simply be an "I Don't Know" option.


You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "creative".

[Insane Power Pilot]

They've done some studies, but there is little evidence suggesting that you can be raised to like men or women...

...I don't think so..and that's because it isn't a learned behaviour, it's inborn.

Just thought I'd point out some "studies" of note on the subject:

Point (http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/bio207.hp/locke/Hamer1993GayGeneXq28.pdf)

Counter-Point (http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/bio207.hp/locke/Ebers1999GayGeneNotXq28.pdf)

For those who don't want to read through both of those, I can't say I blame you. To sum up the first article, a study conducted by Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute examined the X chromosomes of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers (not twins). The study found that 33 of the pairs of brothers have DNA markers in the same chromosome region called Xq28. He observed that gay men had a 14% of having a gay brother vs 2% for a non-gay man. Also, maternal uncles of gay men had a 7% chance of being gay, and sons of maternal aunts had an 8% chance. He postulated that the trait is influenced by a gene on the X-chromosome that will be inherited through the mother and be observed in brothers, maternal uncles and maternal cousins. However, In a control group of 314 families, the Xq28 marker was randomly inherited. This implies that there is a gene in/near Xq28 that influences (predisposes - not determines) male homosexuality.

To sum up the second article: Rice studied 52 gay brothers. His control group was 33 sibling pairs from a multiple sclerosis study. He examined four separate markers in the Xq28 region which spanned ~ 12 cM distance, and found that none were linked to the gay phenotype.

I guess you have to know a little about genetics to make sense out of what I just wrote. My head hurts, I need to go lie down...

[Ching]

Thanks, IPP, that was helpful/interesting/brain hurty. :)

[RatherBeFlyin]

Just thought I'd point out some "studies" of note on the subject:

Point (http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/bio207.hp/locke/Hamer1993GayGeneXq28.pdf)

Counter-Point (http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/bio207.hp/locke/Ebers1999GayGeneNotXq28.pdf)

For those who don't want to read through both of those, I can't say I blame you. To sum up the first article, a study conducted by Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute examined the X chromosomes of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers (not twins). The study found that 33 of the pairs of brothers have DNA markers in the same chromosome region called Xq28. He observed that gay men had a 14% of having a gay brother vs 2% for a non-gay man. Also, maternal uncles of gay men had a 7% chance of being gay, and sons of maternal aunts had an 8% chance. He postulated that the trait is influenced by a gene on the X-chromosome that will be inherited through the mother and be observed in brothers, maternal uncles and maternal cousins. However, In a control group of 314 families, the Xq28 marker was randomly inherited. This implies that there is a gene in/near Xq28 that influences (predisposes - not determines) male homosexuality.

To sum up the second article: Rice studied 52 gay brothers. His control group was 33 sibling pairs from a multiple sclerosis study. He examined four separate markers in the Xq28 region which spanned ~ 12 cM distance, and found that none were linked to the gay phenotype.

I guess you have to know a little about genetics to make sense out of what I just wrote. My head hurts, I need to go lie down...

ouch! that was too much for my brain, likely because i'm not awake yet...
Now I have a severe brain trauma, LOL!

[DMCorrigan]

What I find interesting is how the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled Same-sex Marriage to be fine, but the Conservative Party has been saying "Yeah, we're going to put SSM to a free vote in the House of Commons if we are elected."

Does that mean the Conservative Party is trying to over-ride the Supreme Court, which is impossible as the judicial branch of government is not influenced by the legislative? Hmm...

[RatherBeFlyin]

What I find interesting is how the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled Same-sex Marriage to be fine, but the Conservative Party has been saying "Yeah, we're going to put SSM to a free vote in the House of Commons if we are elected."

Does that mean the Conservative Party is trying to over-ride the Supreme Court, which is impossible as the judicial branch of government is not influenced by the legislative? Hmm...


Ah what can ya say, PC sucks....

[DMCorrigan]

First of all, the Progressive-Conservative party of Canada doesn't exist any more. The PCs joined with the Canadian Alliance to form the Conservative Party of Canada. Very different, being that the CAs dominate that party.

As well, it's not a good idea to insult parties... some people feel very strongly about these things. We wouldn't want to make a flame war ;)

[piper]

First of all, the Progressive-Conservative party of Canada doesn't exist any more. The PCs joined with the Canadian Alliance to form the Conservative Party of Canada. Very different, being that the CAs dominate that party.

As well, it's not a good idea to insult parties... some people feel very strongly about these things. We wouldn't want to make a flame war ;)

You got to it before I did. I am a strong supporter of the CPC, and used to side with the Alliance when they were a party. I wonder what you (Mr/Mrs CPC sucks) would have said if I had said the NDP and Greens were a bunch of tree hugging hippies. Be nice to the right wingers and we'll be nice to you.

[Carter]

What I find interesting is how the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled Same-sex Marriage to be fine, but the Conservative Party has been saying "Yeah, we're going to put SSM to a free vote in the House of Commons if we are elected."

Does that mean the Conservative Party is trying to over-ride the Supreme Court, which is impossible as the judicial branch of government is not influenced by the legislative? Hmm...

Supreme court has no offical conclusion of the situation.

[Chief Hoult]

From what my understanding is, he wants the government to decide whether or not homosexuals can use the word 'married', as most people said, a civil union of some sort is hard to deny.

The reasoning behind letting the government decide this and not the court, is that the courts are appointed, and the use of the word 'marriage' isn't such a legal issue as opposed to a preference issue, which, in his opinion, should be decided by the peoples representitives...I'm not saying I agree with a logic, but it's his opinion, which he's entitled to.

CH

[jhunter]

I've heard stories of the judical branch completely mucking around with affairs with the legislative branch. A story of the judical branch of a province actually telling the province how it ought to run health care comes up...and I'm certain there are other examples. There have been unlawful mistakes made by judges in the last decade, and it only goes to show that one can't trust their own courts to uphold the law when potential issues are first given to the Supreme court, then brought to parliament.

[Lorenza]

Do you think that Christian people should really go against gays, lesbians, transexuals etc.? Because the Christianity teaches that you should love or like everyone no matter what, but I understand if you just don't like the life style. I personally believe it's their life and at the end of the day you're supposed to feel fullfilled with whatever it was that you have done and if that makes them happy, then leave them be. And really why care if it isn't your life and doesn't involve you? :rolleyes:

[Chief Hoult]

It's your choice to accept the lifestyle of homsexuals...likewise, it's the choice of the church to not accept it, as it's against their teachings. I can see the churches arguments, but as far as legislation is concerned, it's not their place in my opinion.

[jhunter]

It's your choice to accept the lifestyle of homsexuals...likewise, it's the choice of the church to not accept it, as it's against their teachings. I can see the churches arguments, but as far as legislation is concerned, it's not their place in my opinion.

However, it is not the choice of the government to decide whom the chuches ought to marry. There are many out there that fear that any waivering will lead to marry people who do not fit their religious requirements to receive the sacrament.

Currently it is between man and woman, and that is fine in the traditional sense of the word. Marriage historically is a religious mechanism...not of recognition...but as a blessing on a relationship, or an entering of a relationship between a man, a woman, and their God. Marriage has been a sacrament since somewhere between 1545 and 1563 in the Catholic Church while civil marriages have only existed since invented in the 1890s in Germany.

What we are witnessing is the evolution of a civil recognition, completely different from marriage in the fact that it is not a legal recognition of a religious sacrament first...but rather the attempt to equate recognition, tax breaks, and other legal social advantages given to the nucleus of a family unit before adoption of an entire-faith recognized sacrament.

To say that homosexual couple can marry is like saying you can churn cows milk to make margarine.

However, people don't know the law too well. However, some think there is a great social inequality existing out there. Well, here's the unaltered section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:


15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

There is equal protection and benefit for all who marry currently, except maybe those in religions that practice polygamy, and is certainly not based on an inequality of sex. All men, according to law, may marry. All women, according to law, may marry. Either may initiate a marriage licence. However, a man must marry a woman, and the reason is that marriage only means that. Just like "drive a car" doesn't mean "sit in it and make humming noises".

A slim arguement can be made that the law discriminates against sexual preference...however, it doesn't. Sexual preference has nothing to do with marriage in the legal sense. One may be homosexual and participate in a marriage, although to what purpose one can only wonder...

In short, leave the definition of marriage alone, protect our religious rights, and someone come up with some creativity and give a name to the social and legal standing homosexual couples desire rather then misusing another word.

[Chief Hoult]

The government isn't deciding who the church can marry though. The church can go on and do what it's done for hundreds of years. A woman can't sue the church for not being allowed to be a Catholic Priest. Why can't she be a priest? Is she not capable? No, it's just that it's the churches belief, and the church doesn't have to allow it.

And that's only one church, there are some churches that have accepted homosexual marriages and will perform though. So which church is right? Is one church misusing the word 'marriage'? Which one? How do you know?

If we're arguing over the word of marriage, and say it shouldn't be changed, let's go back a step further and go back to the classical definition of "persons" to not include women anymore, afterall, that's the way it was for a long time. But by your logic, we should honour the traditional purpose of the word above all else. Emily Murphy must be rolling in her grave.

[jgoguen]

Because the Christianity teaches that you should love or like everyone no matter what Christianity also teaches that homosexuality is wrong and they must be killed. Stoned if I remember correctly. One of the many contradictions I found in Christianity. And before anyone accuses me of being anti-religious or whatever, I was raised Christian. Taught it's the one true way and any other way leads to eternal suffering. But personally, it's hard to believe in contradictions being true.

[canoe instructor]

it funny..i was thinkint about the issue again when i was in church....and it an interesting thing...whether some believe its right, or if its wrong..it doesnt matter because it just is...
we can argue about religion, and the government, social values, our moral values...and non of that matters...because its love, regardless what shape it takes...or who it involves..
like colin said , ya all might as well take the rights away from women well your at it..we're going in that direction...
haven't we learned from the mistakes that we've made in the past (the holocaust, the british in India, slavery in the states......etc etc) its funny how we try to destroy the things that scare us....
for those who oppose, and hid behind the shield of christianty..i pose this question..what are you so afraid of? what does two men or two women who want to give their love freely and be united have anything, anything at all to do with you??? it wont affect your way of life, your jobs, your right to worship....its fear.........get over it..
...those who do not know their own history are doomed to repeat it....
..there can be no understanding until all things divided are joined....
Cheers
CI Harris
ORCA Flatwater Instructor/Canoe Tripper I
HMCS Ontario ITPERTC Staff 2003 and 2004
LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD. VOTE GREEN

[DMCorrigan]

Supreme court has no offical conclusion of the situation.

I'm sorry, but my sources have told me that they have said Same-sex marriage is legal and shall not be interfered with in the country of Canada.

And the right-wingers are perfectly nice, too.

[Lola]

One may be homosexual and participate in a marriage, although to what purpose one can only wonder...

Perhaps for exactly the same reasons as hetero couples do. Geez... :mad:

[Feeloo]

I'm sorry, but my sources have told me that they have said Same-sex marriage is legal and shall not be interfered with in the country of Canada.

And the right-wingers are perfectly nice, too.

Three provincial courts have ruled in favour of it, but the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to rule on the issue. (Court of Appeal of Ontario (http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onca/2003/2003onca10314.html), BC (http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/2003/2003bcca251.html) and Quebec (http://www.jugements.qc.ca/php/decision.php?liste=3553940&doc=5C01465D0E011600)). In October, the Supreme Court of Canada has quashed a motion from a group of people wanting to be heard as a third-party for an appeal before our country's highest court.

But the Supreme Court of Canada never said same-sex marriages were legal...yet, but it will probably come.

[jgoguen]

I find a lot of people confuse the Supreme Court of Canada with their provincial Supreme Courts. Funny thing is, they're usually not called anything like "Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island" or anything. New Brunswick has Court of Queen's Bench, Ontario has Court of Appeal of Ontario...two very different names, exactly the same thing -- the provincial equivalent of a Supreme Court.

I'm waiting for the day the Supreme Court of Canada rules that homosexual marriages are legal and may not be interferred with. I don't mean to say that churches MUST marry homosexuals, but that homosexuals may be married. I think each church should be allowed to say if they will perform a ceremony or not, but that's another debate for another time. Hopefully the Supreme Court also reminds everyone with its ruling that it's illegal to discriminate against homosexuals ;)

[wb256]

The word marriage has come to mean more than just a Catholic Sacrement or Christian religious tradition. I think it's FINE to call homosexual unions civil unions, but the same must be done for all non-christians. Currently heterosexual couples who are married by the state are referred to as "married". This must end if homosexual couples cannot use the same title, as it would be discrimination.

However, if a Church decides to marry a homosexual couple, it should be recognized as a marriage (if this is the route we're taking). Numerous churches already marry homosexuals (while others give them another type of blessing).

This is the only way I can think of that using the term "civil union" would be inclusive to homosexuals and not discriminatory.

However, with such a system all churches should have the freedom to deny marrying homosexuals if they see fit (and the right to deny marrying heterosexual couples for whatever reason they may find - such as the bride or groom previously having a divource, or whatever).

[Lorenza]

Christianity also teaches that homosexuality is wrong and they must be killed. Stoned if I remember correctly. One of the many contradictions I found in Christianity. And before anyone accuses me of being anti-religious or whatever, I was raised Christian. Taught it's the one true way and any other way leads to eternal suffering. But personally, it's hard to believe in contradictions being true.
Okay I understand what your trying to get across: "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."
But I was also raised in a Christian home as well. And my mother would always go on about the gay marriages and how it's the worst sin that a person could ever commit, after it became a hot topic. She believes that, when God made the earth, he made it so that nature could replenish its self and that the whole non-heterosexual life-style goes against it. She does have a point on that one but I just believe they should be able to live however they want. :) And gay guys are really fun to be around, (maybe it's because I a girl). :D

[DMCorrigan]

I withdraw my prior statements for I have in fact been proven wrong.

[Lorenza]

I withdraw my prior statements for I have in fact been proven wrong.
Which ones??????????????? All of them?????????????? :confused:

[jgoguen]

And gay guys are really fun to be around, (maybe it's because I a girl). :D Nah, I agree with you. I was in Quebec doing CEGEP for 2002-2003, and there were only 2 (out of 115, not including myself) I thought were even decent. One was my roommate. Great guy. The other was gay. Wonderful person, definately enjoyed knowing him. And for all you "gays hit on every guy they see" types...he never did anything I could possibly see as hitting on me, or even suggesting anything. Neither have most of the gay guys I know. Except one, but he stopped right away when I told him I wasn't interested ;)

Sgt Cassidy, care to clarify what comment(s) you're referring to? I admit to being just a little confused :confused:

[Scoopable]

I am going to go out on a bold statement....

The bible was written a long time ago, by a bunch of people living in a world where they thought the earth was flat.
As well many of the stories in the bible where passed down over the years as stories, so yeah, ever play the pre-school game "Telephone"?

For anyone to say, "Well it's not right, because the bible says...."
It's not "right" to even make that statement. I am sure i will get a big speech about how i should hold my tongue, and it wasn't right for me to say what i just did. The way i see it, my words hold more ground then the bibles, on this issue.

[Pilot]

you know, it's fine that you can express your opinion Chris. Frankly I believe what is written in the bible to be true. My beliefs are based on it, and that's what I'll stick to. I'm not going to go off on a tangent about homosexuals. I don't believe it is right, however, it is their decision to make.

[DMCorrigan]

Not all my statements, but the one about the Supreme Court of Canada regarding same-sex marriages.

I agree with the statement that the Bible is old, thousands of years old. The original Bible said nothing about abortions, yet the Roman Catholic faith is against them, as well as birth control. NEITHER issue came into existance when the Roman Catholic faith was founded, yet they say, "The bible says we're not allowed to have abortions or use birth control."

Funny that, I didn't know the Bible had an editor...

[RatherBeFlyin]

Not all my statements, but the one about the Supreme Court of Canada regarding same-sex marriages.

I agree with the statement that the Bible is old, thousands of years old. The original Bible said nothing about abortions, yet the Roman Catholic faith is against them, as well as birth control. NEITHER issue came into existance when the Roman Catholic faith was founded, yet they say, "The bible says we're not allowed to have abortions or use birth control."

Funny that, I didn't know the Bible had an editor...

The Bible has an editor??? Since when???

[Feeloo]

The Bible has an editor??? Since when???

Guttenberg maybe?

[jgoguen]

I think the Catholic Church is taking the phrase "go forth and multiply" just a little too literally. I think, I don't know. I haven't gone and asked a priest about it, and I probably won't for a very long time, if ever. Personally, my morals follow fairly closely to the Bible, but I had those before I started going to a church. Most of them anyway. I find now I'm much more accepting of anyone who's not like me. And I'm a lot more patient.

[DMCorrigan]

lol, I wonder if we can write Letters to the Editor of the Bible?

[offguard96]

The Bible has an editor??? Since when???

Since monks began transcribing it in Aramaic a few thousand times, then translating it to Greek and transcribing it a few thousand times, then translating it into Latin and transcribing it a few hundred thousand times, then rinse & repeat with every language it's been translated into since.

Take a page from one of your favourite books, and make a photocopy of it. Then make a photocopy of that. Then photocopy the photocopy, etc. etc. etc. until you either run out of nickels, or paper, or ink. Then try reading the last-generation photocopy. I know it's a different medium, but it's the same idea...time and generations of copies cloud the original. The same idea comes into play when you play "telephone" with ten or so of your closest friends. Try playing it with five hundred thousand of your closest friends in many different languages, and you see the difficulties that arise.

The most damage probably came when the bible was translated from Aramaic, then again when it was transcribed again and again in Latin, under often unethical and immoral Popes. Then you can't rule out the damage done when it was first used by Henry VIII...he had some pretty good reasons to change content.

This is why literal interpretations of the modern English bible are not only irrational, they are also dangerous, simply because what you read today is NOT what was read two thousand years ago.

[wb256]

The main reason why I would hesitate to believe the bible isn't the "broken telephone game of translation" that has occoured (because yes, it obviously did changea few things). The true "editors of the bible" were those who compiled it during the canonization process.

Due to the fact that early christianity was illegal, many different groups began with very different opinions and beliefs. When it was finally legalized, a series of church councils (such as the one at Nicaea in 325) decided upon Christ's divinity (whether he was human or divine). Groups that didn't agree with this view of Christ (monophysites, for example) had their views lost. Their books that were consequently removed from the Bible were largely burned, however some were burried (many had problems with burning books they believed so strongly in, so they burried them instead to escape persecution). (the unearthing of these books is how we know that faith has changed so much).

I don't understand how it can be proven that the christianity that took over was the "correct" christianity. It was "edited" hundreads of years after Christ's death.

[Ching]

lol, I wonder if we can write Letters to the Editor of the Bible?
Teeheehee


"Dear Sir:
I was especially impressed with your Sept 345 issue, "1st Letter of Paul to the Corinthians".
Paul really engaged me, as a Corinthian, right down to the last Word.
However, I was wondering: Do Christ's words have to be in red? I'm really a big fan of the magenta, myself. Just a thought.
Cheers,
Mike from Corinthea."
:D

[RatherBeFlyin]

Teeheehee


"Dear Sir:
I was especially impressed with your Sept 345 issue, "1st Letter of Paul to the Corinthians".
Paul really engaged me, as a Corinthian, right down to the last Word.
However, I was wondering: Do Christ's words have to be in red? I'm really a big fan of the magenta, myself. Just a thought.
Cheers,
Mike from Corinthea."
:D


Either I am atcually confused, or i'm just tired.....LOL

[Tomtom]

If you wish to discuss abortion, start a new thread.


EDIT: I did it for you.

[Haddad-Bowler]

I think we should just let the same sex marry. It does not matter.. They are makeing a to big of deal out of it. If you don't want your kids to see keep them at home

*HB*

[DMCorrigan]

No need, Tomtom. Abortion is a no go for debate. No opinions ever change and feelings always get hurt.

[JGallagher]

If you wish to discuss abortion, start a new thread.


EDIT: I did it for you.



Check out the poll!!!

[BMaloney]

I don't see why homosexuals shouldn't marry. I am grateful that the majority never rules in cases like this.

[Insane Power Pilot]

I am grateful that the majority never rules in cases like this.

Sounds a lot like South Africa prior to the 90s...

[wb256]

Sounds a lot like South Africa prior to the 90s...

No, that's when a minority mistreats and rules over a majority. This is a minority being free to do as they wish.

Majority rules isn't always a good idea. We have minority rights for a reason.

Ever hear of Rwanda? The majority of the population agreed/helped with the genocide, but does that make it right to slaughted people?

[offguard96]

Sounds a lot like South Africa prior to the 90s...

I really, really don't think you can compare Apartheid to a Canada that allows same sex marriage. Seeing as how Apartheid was a system specifically set up so that a minority could remove the rights of a majority and treat them like rubbish...and allowing same sex marriage would only be granting more rights to a minority without any effect on the rights of the majority.

Maybe closer to Nazi Germany. The majority of them supported the systematic removal of rights of the minority. Of course it was majority rules, and in that strict sense it was a democracy, but by allowing it to happen, it was a tyranny of the majority. The system supported and rabidly pursued the removal of rights of minorities (and eventually genocide) because that's the mandate Hitler was elected on...strength through race (and all the rubbish associated with such absolute lunacy).

[DMCorrigan]

Can we please come back on topic? Digression is badness..

[wb256]

I really, really don't think you can compare Apartheid to a Canada that allows same sex marriage. Seeing as how Apartheid was a system specifically set up so that a minority could remove the rights of a majority and treat them like rubbish...and allowing same sex marriage would only be granting more rights to a minority without any effect on the rights of the majority.

Maybe closer to Nazi Germany. The majority of them supported the systematic removal of rights of the minority. Of course it was majority rules, and in that strict sense it was a democracy, but by allowing it to happen, it was a tyranny of the majority. The system supported and rabidly pursued the removal of rights of minorities (and eventually genocide) because that's the mandate Hitler was elected on...strength through race (and all the rubbish associated with such absolute lunacy).

Homosexual marriage is like nazi germany? You haven't really explained that connection at all.

And this is on topic, we're still discussing homosexual marriage.

[DMCorrigan]

Fair enough, if you think so, but I see comment about dictatorships more than same-sex marriages because it's not tied in.

[jgoguen]

Homosexual marriage is like nazi germany? You haven't really explained that connection at all. If I'm following his line of reasoning right, he's thinking more along the lines of the majority ruling, in which case I see his point. I wouldn't go so far as to say the majority of people support disallowing homosexual marriages without numbers in front of me, but I would certainly say a lot of people support taking away this right (or not giving it to them depending on if your provincial court has ruled on the issue yet). But assuming it is the majority of people, then you could safely say this is like Nazi Germany (to a VERY small extent!), where the majority supports removing the rights of a minority.

I also agree that comparing this to the Aparthied is way off...like in a totally different playing field. I'm also having a hard time using Nazi Germany, but at the moment I can't think of a better example...

Sgt Cassidy: I think they've just moved away from the actual homosexual marriage to discussing the following quote:

I don't see why homosexuals shouldn't marry. I am grateful that the majority never rules in cases like this. Again, I'd be hesitant to say "majority rules" but it does get the point across. And it went from there. Not too bad, but I do see a (another?) human rights debate brewing.

[offguard96]

Homosexual marriage is like nazi germany? You haven't really explained that connection at all.

Let's recap:


I am grateful that the majority never rules in cases like this.

In response to that:


Sounds a lot like South Africa prior to the 90s...

In response to that:


No, that's when a minority mistreats and rules over a majority. This is a minority being free to do as they wish.

Majority rules isn't always a good idea. We have minority rights for a reason.

Ever hear of Rwanda? The majority of the population agreed/helped with the genocide, but does that make it right to slaughted people?

Also in response to "South Africa prior to the 90s":


I really, really don't think you can compare Apartheid to a Canada that allows same sex marriage. Seeing as how Apartheid was a system specifically set up so that a minority could remove the rights of a majority and treat them like rubbish...and allowing same sex marriage would only be granting more rights to a minority without any effect on the rights of the majority.

Maybe closer to Nazi Germany. The majority of them supported the systematic removal of rights of the minority. Of course it was majority rules, and in that strict sense it was a democracy, but by allowing it to happen, it was a tyranny of the majority. The system supported and rabidly pursued the removal of rights of minorities (and eventually genocide) because that's the mandate Hitler was elected on...strength through race (and all the rubbish associated with such absolute lunacy).

My point was, leaving homosexual marriage rights in the hands of the majority (assuming the majority are against these rights) would put Canada in the same sort of situation as Germany was in back then...the majority taking away or giving back the rights of the minority at will. Tyranny of the majority.

I know it's extreme, and I know Nazis and Hitler always seem to pop up in forums every three or four posts, but it's true. That was just as much a tyranny of the majority as a referendum today on the rights of a minority would be. Their human rights hang in the balance of what we put on ballots. It's sick, if you think about it.

[Profound Darkness]

My two cents:

In the eyes of God, it's wrong. In the eyes of the Vegas Gaming comission, it's a quick 50 bucks.

If you want to get married to someone of the same gender, don't tear down the church in the process. If you're religious and you want to be married through a church, then I'd say no deal, because if you are religious you would understand that what you're doing is wrong in the eyes of the church.

If you want to marry your same sex spouse because you too want to enjoy the benefits of marriage (ie. lower taxes, spousal work benefits, etc) then just go and get married at a 50 dollar wedding in Vegas, where god doesn't exist. It's a win-win situation. The pope doesn't care, and you're still legally and happily married without causing billions of religious people any grief.

[whalersailore]

the view of the church on marriage is two bond a male and a female and to creat children, the catholic church arnt against homsexuals, they just view that getting married to the same sex partners is wrong because there is no possible chance of having children, and that sex would be only used for plessure, and that is something the church is strongly against.

[RegularGuy]

I actually think its a valid option. A person can be fine with any marriage as long as the people involved dont make you unconfortable and you can argue whether or not homosextuals make you unconfortable or not but if somebody straight or homosextual hit on you when they were married wouldn't you be unconfortable or against their marriage??

Does that make sence?
Just curious, I hear this answer everywhere, but how would you react if someone came up to you and said, "I'm ok with straight people, as long as they don't hit on me?" Don't you think it is an attack on the validity of their sexual orientation? Are homosexuals entitled to mistakes? I know plenty of straight people who have mistakenly hit on a homosexual and not felt bad for it, why should gays?

[offguard96]

If you want to get married to someone of the same gender, don't tear down the church in the process. If you're religious and you want to be married through a church, then I'd say no deal, because if you are religious you would understand that what you're doing is wrong in the eyes of the church.

If you want to marry your same sex spouse because you too want to enjoy the benefits of marriage (ie. lower taxes, spousal work benefits, etc) then just go and get married at a 50 dollar wedding in Vegas, where god doesn't exist. It's a win-win situation. The pope doesn't care, and you're still legally and happily married without causing billions of religious people any grief.

Er...nobody's forcing the church to perform any marriage that church does not feel comfortable performing. The proposed change simply allows same sex marriages to be recognized as marriages under the law, entitling the two partners to the same benefits as heterosexual marriages. The problem is that up until now these benefits did not extend to same sex partners.

[RegularGuy]

Whalersailore, i suggest reading some of the catholic doctrine on the matter, or consulting a parish priest. I think you're painfully mistaken about the Holy Mother Church accepting homosexuality even outside the bonds of matrimony. There is a growing minority of Catholics, myself and i presume yourself included who object, to some degree or another, to the Vatican's beliefs on the matter, but the official line from Rome is still that "Sodomy" is a sin. I however disagree, and for those of you out there who are over 18, you have your chance to have your say, not religiously, but legally this month. Keep same-sex marriage in mind when you go to the polls.

[Little Cadet]

Just curious, I hear this answer everywhere, but how would you react if someone came up to you and said, "I'm ok with straight people, as long as they don't hit on me?" Don't you think it is an attack on the validity of their sexual orientation? Are homosexuals entitled to mistakes? I know plenty of straight people who have mistakenly hit on a homosexual and not felt bad for it, why should gays?
I don't know why straight people should be offensed or feel uncomfortable about homosexuals mistakingly "hitting" (well I don't like to use that word, but it'll get my point across) on them. Same thing for the other way around. I say just take it as a compliment. They're usually not going to harrass you, or jump you, I don't know what the big problem is!

[RegularGuy]

The christian churches have changed their doctrine with changing times before. It wouldn't be "tearing down the church" to recognize that times have changed, and so have people's views, at least in this free land!

[RegularGuy]

good call, i was expecting an angry right winger to be the first reply, refreshing to hear!

[whalersailore]

Whalersailore, i suggest reading some of the catholic doctrine on the matter, or consulting a parish priest. I think you're painfully mistaken about the Holy Mother Church accepting homosexuality even outside the bonds of matrimony. There is a growing minority of Catholics, myself and i presume yourself included who object, to some degree or another, to the Vatican's beliefs on the matter, but the official line from Rome is still that "Sodomy" is a sin. I however disagree, and for those of you out there who are over 18, you have your chance to have your say, not religiously, but legally this month. Keep same-sex marriage in mind when you go to the polls.

I dont believe peoples rights should be up for vote and implying so is an insult to this country. I dont believe a law should be formed against peoples right, which are not infringing on anyone elses, I dont see how you can apply the charter of rights and freedoms against this.

[Ching]

It has to do with what party supports Same Sex Marriage, and what party will try to overturn the ruling.
Keep THAT in mind when you go to the polls.

[RegularGuy]

I dont believe peoples rights should be up for vote and implying so is an insult to this country. I dont believe a law should be formed against peoples right, which are not infringing on anyone elses, I dont see how you can apply the charter of rights and freedoms against this.

The government forming laws contrary to rights is not the issue here. The existence or absense of those rights is the issue. If the right was formally recognized it would not be up for vote. I am not saying that we should tell the government to make laws upholding or denying rights. I am saying that the Canadian electorate should stand up and TELL THE GOVERNMENT THAT SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS A RIGHT AND IN DOING SO, MAKE IT ONE!
(caps for emphasis to others, not anger to you whaler)