|
"Husbands" and "wives" now illegal in Ontario (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Kytracid |
| quote: | Originally posted by tatgirl
Some people on here are just trying to use a play on words to infuriate the masses about some dumb semantics, when what they're REALLY upset about is equal rights for homosexuals. |
I agree. That to me is the underlining issue which a lot of people are afraid to admit bothers them about this whole issue. Stright people are somehow afraid that by giving up the title of husband or wife they are losing something they had...
It's hard to convice people who begin to think irrationally and give in to fear mongering tactics that like 'society will begin to decline if the institution of marriage is allowed to change...'. They begin to lose perspective of what the real implications of these changes will be, which to me is simply cosmetic at worst, and allowing for equality at best.
Stright people need to stop worrying about what they are suddenly losing -- because the truth is, we're still the majority, we're still the one's doing most of the discriminating, and ultimatley no matter how much we bitch, situations in life will still favor us. It's sad, but true... |
|
|
| SurrJRS |
| quote: | Originally posted by tatgirl
SILENCE= DEATH |
Heh reminds me of P Diddy's 'Vote Or Die' campaign. That asshat Bush still got reelected though! :( |
|
|
| tatgirl |
| quote: | Originally posted by SurrJRS
Heh reminds me of P Diddy's 'Vote Or Die' campaign. That asshat Bush still got reelected though! :( |
Not by MY hand. |
|
|
| SurrJRS |
| quote: | Originally posted by e*motion
you do know why women have smaller feet right? So they can stand closer to the sink. |
Small feet on a woman was a big thing in China way back when. Chinese women used to do something called foot binding from a very early age to restrict the growth of their feet.
http://www.sfmuseum.org/chin/foot.html
It's amazing what people will do to be accepted sometimes. Actually the big footed Chinese women were at huge risk of not finding a husband and most likely would live a life of poverty on the street. |
|
|
| zokissima |
Just my two cents:
I think that this small change in proper terminology is publicly a good step to take. It is unfair to deny life-long union benefits as granted by Canadian law to same-sex couples. If the commitment and willingness to live constructively are there, then the benefits should be granted to them as well. However, from a religious context, it is just as unfair to deny the meaning of marriage as a union between man and woman. If this little step will serve to finally give some distinction between legal union and religious marriage, then it is a good little step. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by tatgirl
Some people on here are just trying to use a play on words to infuriate the masses about some dumb semantics, when what they're REALLY upset about is equal rights for homosexuals. |
and this is why i keep repeating my "wife" comments. it's a play on words. all those against the change, first of all, are not married, don't have a wife or husband and therefore have no say from experience on this topic. it is for you to decide what you call your partner but in a general sense (in the legal books) all partnerships are equal and it's better to use the term spouse.
it's individually based. you guys all care if husband and wife remain in the legal books? if you do, you need help.
you guys really care, if a permission form has the word mother and father or just parent? if you do, you need help. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by SurrJRS
It's amazing what people will do to be accepted sometimes. Actually the big footed Chinese women were at huge risk of not finding a husband and most likely would live a life of poverty on the street. |
yes, because it was the great husband that saved her from a life of poverty on the street, to a life of slavery in the home. :( |
|
|
| SurrJRS |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
yes, because it was the great husband that saved her from a life of poverty on the street, to a life of slavery in the home. :( |
Unfortunately that was largely the case for that time period.
We have come far, but still have a ways to go yet. |
|
|
| psychosomatica |
The government has always been eager to please the vociferous and the active. Take the Conservatives for example.. you think they're economically conservative.. but they support subsidies to farmers. Honestly, if you want to be heard, hit the streets. Not on TA. Take a look at all these sexual diversity groups... they have one thing in common.. they're out there all the time.. publishing.. lambasting... recently Jada Pinkett Smith was a target from a Harvard sexual diversity group. Take Bush/Kerry for example... you would think Kerry was going to win with all his positive press. Nope, he didn't. Silent majority.
However, the loud minority holds the most sway. |
|
|
| zokissima |
| You're bringing up an entirely different issue here. The equality, or lack thereof, between men and women is a staple of history. We have come far, but probably not in the direction you think. It'd be relatively easy to assume that equality to a far greater degree exists in the western world, however, it is a greatly misrepresented equality. In terms of work and power of word, women have gone nowhere for thousands of years, and have gone far in the last 50. However, I think that there is a very strange climb in the last few years. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that every woman-oriented public message, presented in any form of media from magazines, stupid commercials, and tv, grants the virtue to women by demeaning men. Every statement is brought to realization by putting some stupid jackass man in a situation that makes him look the stupider of the pair. Now, say what you will in response, but if the only way you can carry merrit is to carry it off the back of someone else, it doesn't say much for the quality of the character. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by tatgirl
...Some people on here are just trying to use a play on words to infuriate the masses about some dumb semantics, when what they're REALLY upset about is equal rights for homosexuals...
SILENCE= DEATH
... |
so true...relevant to the thread I posted a while ago that contained a link to a speech entitled "The Tragedy of Today's Gays" by Larry Kramer (if anyone is interested, google it). Look past the words he uses and understand the real meaning which is exactly what you've implied when saying "silence = death", i.e. that complacency and remaining quiet is a danger for any minority...because those who would seek to deny your rights certainly are not remanining quiet or complacent themselves.
Thanks are in order for your posts...always a voice of reason and common sense around here, Nat...luv ya! ;)
It's comforting for me too in knowing that there several like minded people who've posted in this thread too (you all know who you are)...who have compassion and empathy...who can appreciate that there are issues that are important to others, that may not be to themselves, yet still recognize that those issues ought not be dismissed. |
|
|
|
|
