|
Gay Marriage in Canada (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| milanster |
I think its pretty ed up....great, lets get more fked up diseases like aids etc coz some dude decided to do another dude up da a$$....
I cant stand those [email protected] fuken wrong...man is for woman and vice versa...otherwise u have to be fuked up in the brains |
|
|
| gd_nimrod |
| Strong way of putting it, but im not gonna disagree with you. |
|
|
| milanster |
| quote: | Originally posted by gd_nimrod
I dont believe in gay marriage.
Marriage is the union of a happy man and woman who want to take the next step in life and become a family. A man and man, or woman and woman, can go ahead and do what they please in their own homes. Its been like that for years and centuries. Now just cause its going public gays want the exact same rights as hetero's.
Want the same rights? Dont be gay.
Oh, and im sure there will be some flaming, but please try and support your arguments. |
im 100% with u..and i dont care about flamming...u got a prob...dont be a fuken f@g |
|
|
| alec |
| LOL, but hot lesbians are allowed to do porn right? :happy2: |
|
|
| milanster |
| quote: | Originally posted by alec
LOL, but hot lesbians are allowed to do porn right? :happy2: |
ofcourse! thats an exception! haha
but then again...hot lesbos only exist in porn movies :p |
|
|
| Dj Nacht |
| They just want attention cause they are bored with there lives. |
|
|
| Romain |
we had a big debate about it here in France...
one marriage was allowed by one politician, but then it was cancelled by some others... a lot of religious fans were very angry about this marriage "when will i be able to marry with my cat" slogans and all... was quite funny actually.
personnally i don't care, we already have a sort of union for gays, called PACS, but some of them still want to marry; i don't think it has any interest, except for religious fans... anyways they should be free to do what they want...
and if it can bring the pope some more religious fanatics he should be happy... cause here they're disappearing (although it seems to be the contrary in jesus land as you call it :p) |
|
|
| fastmp3 |
| le PACS c'est pour les hétéros aussi :p Noel Mamere voulait faire son show , mais ca n'a pas marché :tongue2 |
|
|
| Romain |
| quote: | Originally posted by fastmp3
le PACS c'est pour les hétéros aussi :p Noel Mamere voulait faire son show , mais ca n'a pas marché :tongue2 |
oui :D
tu m'as l'air bien renseigné sur le PACS... :p
coup de pub en tout cas, y'a eu beaucoup de vent autour de cette histoire, et plusieurs reportages... donc à mon avis son objectif il l'a atteint :rolleyes: |
|
|
| fastmp3 |
lol qu'es tu insinu en disant que je suis bien renseigné sur le pacs :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :toothless
on a fait ca en cours de socio en 1ere au lycée :toothless |
|
|
| Epicurus |
Alright, so I expected more people to be *for* gay marriage in this forum -- this being Montreal/Canada, not [insert your choice of a red state here]-- but I guess I was wrong :p
At any rate, the reasons given by people opposed to gay marriage, in my opinion, hold absolutely no water whatsoever when subjected to careful scrutiny. They are merely hasty and knee-jerk emotional reactions that have been inculcated in them by their respective homophobic cultures, reactions based on fear, misunderstanding, ignorance or plain bigotry. If I'm sounding abrasive, it's because I haven't seen one shred of credible evidence backing anyone's claims. Anyway, I'll do my best to methodically debunk these claims and give a more sound rationale as to why gay marriages should be legalized.
Why people are against gay marriages:
Traditionally, and for centuries, marriage has always and only been between heterosexual couples
Ya, and, so what? Traditionally, and for centuries, slavery, segregation between races, denial of rights for women and so forth were accepted as the norm amongst populations across the globe. Does that make it right though in today's world?
Traditionally, and for centuries, marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman
First of all, the source of objective definitions is the dictionary.
Click here for the definition of "marriage", taken from the Merriam Webster dictionary. I'll even quote it in full:
| quote: | Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
Main Entry: common-law marriage
Function: noun
1 : a marriage recognized in some jurisdictions and based on the parties' agreement to consider themselves married and sometimes also on their cohabitation |
Furthermore, and for the sake of argument, let us assume that indeed, marriage had been defined as soley the union between a man and a woman. So what? How is such a banality, without any moral force whatsoever since it is merely definitional relevant to this discussion? To deny basic civil rights to gay couples (since afterall, denial of rights is the main point of contention in this debate) on a definitional basis is lunacy and insanity to the highest degree.
And finally, to put the nail in the coffin with regards to this argument: To those who claim that they're alright with gay couples being afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples as long as it's not called "marriage", I ask why not? Definitions are man-made constructs, and thus, can be changed if circumstances dictate that they should. Without going into arguments of philosophy of language, the point here is that not calling both unions by the same name is somewhat discriminatory since a distinction between unions is being made solely on the basis on sexual orientation.
Being gay is unnatural
Huh? Says who? If "natural" is construed as "that which is found in nature", or "that which mother nature has created", then homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, although granted of course, not in the same proportions (but natural nonetheless).
Click here for a good article detailing this claim. I'll quote part of it:
| quote: | | J.B.S. Haldane may not have had homosexuality in mind when he uttered his famous quote about a queer universe, but it has proven to be far more prescient than he could ever have imagined. In the approximately 1,000 to 3,000 species whose behavior has been well researched and described in the literature, approximately 450 have been shown to have clear homosexual behaviors. As we'll learn in this essay, homosexuality is not at all exclusively a western, European cultural pattern as some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and Afrocentrists (and even some African politicians) have long maintained. It's not even unique to humans. And any homosexual behavior you care to name - anal sex, same sex kissing, long-term pair bonding between members of the same sex, courtship rituals unique to homosexual couples, all these and many more are all commonly found in the animal kingdom. |
Furthermore, and this is simply for the sake of pondering: Although homsexuality isn't unnatural, why should something unnatural be frowned upon? I assume everyone who objects to homosexuality on those grounds goes outside wearing clothes. How unnatural of them :rolleyes:
Gay couples would create an environment that is not suitable for raising children
The main arguments for this position, loosely, have something to do with children requiring a parent from different genders to raise them "properly". Bull. Click here for an interesting set of publications regarding gay parenting. I'll quote the main conclusion:
| quote: | | These studies, reports, and articles all reach the same conclusion: Children raised by lesbians and gay men do not differ from children raised by heterosexuals "on measures of popularity, social adjustment, gender role behavior, gender identity, intelligence, self-concept, emotional problems, interest in marriage and parenting, locus of control, moral development, independence, ego functions, object relations, or self esteem." Additionally, no significant differences have been observed in regard to "teachers' and parents' evaluations of emotional and social behavior, fears, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and conduct differences." (Meyer, "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 239-240 [1992]) |
Furthermore, if we were to use the logic that children should be raised solely in an environment with a mom and a dad (genetically speaking), then single parents should not be allowed to raise kids. In fact, if they have kids, technically, they should be stripped of them.
Marriages are for the purpose of procreation
Using that logic, any couple where one partner or both are deemed infertile should not be allowed to get married. Furthermore, if they had already gotten married before knowing about their infertility problems, their marriage licence would be revoked.
God says it's wrong
Huh? Who's this God you speak of?
On a more serious note, this has NOTHING to do with God, religion or the like. It is ONLY and exclusively at the level of government, which last I checked, was seperated from church or any other religious institution. No one is asking churches, mosques or cinagogues to give homosexual marriages their blessings. It's an issue at the level of government. Just like you currently have common law marriages between heterosexual couples, which are marriages that fall under the jurisdiction of the government, you'll have common law marriages between homosexual couples.
In conclusion and at the end of the day, this is an issue about denial of civil rights and discrimination, and thus, should be vociferously opposed.
| quote: | Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue
Courtesy of http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.
One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?
Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?
If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?
These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?
These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.
|
|
|
|
| habsfan |
| What Epicurus said :D |
|
|
|
|
