|
"Husbands" and "wives" now illegal in Ontario (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
If I've learned anything from this charade, the gays haven't made any hetersexual friends by shoving things down our throats or 'blending the lines' of society. |
Well, they sure as heck havent lost a friend in me bc of this! I support the cause 100%!
Its too bad most of the population doesnt! and that they are blind to how riddiculous it is to act/feel the way they do! |
|
|
| Kytracid |
| quote: | Originally posted by töbias
Thats just silly because its not as if millions of straight people are going to rush out and become gay because the government decides to give legal rights to serious gay relationships. |
This is how fear-mongers like Shadowolf operate. They give you the most extreme scenario, punctuating them with lines like 'gay marriage will result in the decline of society', or fabricate long term effects like it will lead to 'polygamous relationships' which they claim will ultimately deteriorates the sanctity of marriage, and lead to the degradation of our society.
What they hope you’ll forget is that this is unsubstantiated bull spun in a way that makes you feel like you're the one losing something here. The phrase ‘Shock and awe’ tactics comes to mind. I believe its application described the tactic used in the war on Iraq to cripple the resistant before the ground assault began. To me, it's comparable to some of the hateful propaganda that's posted here, on an almost daily basis in the hope that you'll hopefully lose perspective of the actual change that is taking place and realizes that it's not going to affect the quality of your life in any way whatsoever. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Whoa....5 pages already...
My 2 cents
While I don't mind that homosexuals want the same rights to be married, blah, blah, blah ad naseum there is a catch and I was hoping it wasn't coming down to this.
I didn't get married to become some neutered, faceless, neomort. A genderless amorphus blob on some obtuse government form that says that I'm a "spouse".
I got married because I wanted to be the man in the relationship.
If homosexuals want the same rights that fine, but don't go changing MY status just so they can "fit in".
Why should I have to change my status just so some minority wants it??? AND WITHOUT ASKING ME!!! The tail should NEVER wag the dog I'm sorry.
Get your own status! :whip: :mad:
If I've learned anything from this charade, the gays haven't made any hetersexual friends by shoving things down our throats or 'blending the lines' of society.
The irony of the whole thing is, if anything, they've just drawn more borders between what they're trying to accomplish and the cloudy utopian dream they're trying to mold.
So just to be clear, I'm not discussed with the gays, I'm discussed with this whole process and how it's affecting ME. :mad: |
but it's not affecting you...the gov't is changing what amounts to internal terminology...nothing more.
can you imagine the cost and time involved in creating a "new status", as you suggest? then there would be either be two sets of forms for everything...one set for those who are "married" and another for those who are in a "union" (or whatever that new status would be). Or they'd have to amend EVERY form out there to include this new status.
I suspect that heterosexual taxpayers (and gays who could care less about being able to marry...and there are plenty) would then complain about having to foot the bill, lol.
one thing that hasn't been mentioned...I *think* it was DigiNut who suggested this a while ago in another thread:
Scrap marriage altogether (as a legal arrangement) and let it revert back to being solely a religious sacrament that has no bearing on legal rights and obligations outside of the context of the church in which it was performed.
Then, for ALL people (gay and str8), let them enter into what amounts to a contractual arrangement together, with this agreement conveying all of the legal benefits and obligations for which marriage currently provides via the state recognizing that marriage.
ie. marriage means nothing outside the Church and is performed exclusively by the Church at their discretion. Marriage then provides for NO legal consequences. "Unions" (contract based) are separate and then recognized and regulated by the state.
This is an interesting, but FAR more involved process as it essentially removes marriage from the sphere of the state and the law. For gays to have pursued that avenue, instead of fighting for the right to marry under existing marriage laws, it would have been a much longer, more involved, and possibly less successful battle as they'd be creating an entirely new status...but it's something to consider in the future for ALL people. It would protect religious freedoms re: marriage and would provide everyone with the same legal rights and obligations under the law. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
one thing that hasn't been mentioned...I *think* it was DigiNut who suggested this a while ago in another thread:
Scrap marriage altogether (as a legal arrangement) and let it revert back to being solely a religious sacrament that has no bearing on legal rights and obligations outside of the context of the church in which it was performed.
|
...I brought this up about 10 pages ago in this thread. :) |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jem_hadar
Amen |
i thought u were atheist ?
|
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
can you imagine the cost and time involved in creating a "new status", as you suggest? then there would be either be two sets of forms for everything...one set for those who are "married" and another for those who are in a "union" (or whatever that new status would be). Or they'd have to amend EVERY form out there to include this new status.
I suspect that heterosexual taxpayers (and gays who could care less about being able to marry...and there are plenty) would then complain about having to foot the bill, lol.
|
What difference would that be between people who get married in a church and those that have civil unions in a hall married by the state?
We're going to be paying for this either way anyways appearantly.
I just can't wait to hear how much...:rolleyes:
| quote: |
one thing that hasn't been mentioned...I *think* it was DigiNut who suggested this a while ago in another thread:
Scrap marriage altogether (as a legal arrangement) and let it revert back to being solely a religious sacrament that has no bearing on legal rights and obligations outside of the context of the church in which it was performed.
Then, for ALL people (gay and str8), let them enter into what amounts to a contractual arrangement together, with this agreement conveying all of the legal benefits and obligations for which marriage currently provides via the state recognizing that marriage.
ie. marriage means nothing outside the Church and is performed exclusively by the Church at their discretion. Marriage then provides for NO legal consequences. "Unions" (contract based) are separate and then recognized and regulated by the state.
This is an interesting, but FAR more involved process as it essentially removes marriage from the sphere of the state and the law. For gays to have pursued that avenue, instead of fighting for the right to marry under existing marriage laws, it would have been a much longer, more involved, and possibly less successful battle as they'd be creating an entirely new status...but it's something to consider in the future for ALL people. It would protect religious freedoms re: marriage and would provide everyone with the same legal rights and obligations under the law.
|
I somewhat agree to this but the costs involved to change this whole process is going to be enormous; and for what benefit?
Just so we can say that a few gays can have a proper union and collect benefits?
There are hundreds of different religions that all have different ceremonies and customs yet they all fall under the same laws that we currently have (abit probably some amendments in there).
It absolutely floors me that one sect of our society can't make their piece of the puzzle fit without having to forcibly change the whole picture in the name of 'fairness'.
Personally I forsee political backlash, and waiting in the wings, a opening of a pandora's box full liberal, dogmatic lobbyists with the setting of this precedent.
I just hope I'm wrong because I'm starting to look in the mirror looking for that number branded behind my ear... |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I got married because I wanted to be the man in the relationship.
|
why, because being a woman would be horrible? |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
i thought u were atheist ?
|
100% PURE
Hehehehehe, i like to drop lines like "for the love of god" or "amen" or "for christ's sake" etc. etc. just for emphasis... such expressions just convey the intention of my thoughts easily!
its colourful language and i enjoy the way they roll off the tongue! :)
Walk in the Light, Emery! ;) |
|
|
| Kytracid |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
why, because being a woman would be horrible? |
[sarcasm]
no guy wants to clean dishes, cook the food, vacuum, and then look good when 5 o'clock rolls round... [/sarcasm]
Is that what you wanted to hear ?
Is there something horrible about a man wanting to be a man ? Otherwise i don't understand what the deal is with your loaded question. From what i've seen there are plenty of men who voluntarily give up the pants in their family, so maybe they have come to term with being the submissive. My experience from being around most guys is that they enjoy the role of being the 'man' whatever that means to you.
Men shouldn't be made conscious of expressing their masculine dominance as long as they respect women. Chauvanism and Masculinity are not the same thing ! :whip: |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kytracid
Chauvanism and Masculinity are not the same thing |
Very true |
|
|
| tatgirl |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I got married because I wanted to be the man in the relationship. |
Then what were you BEFORE you got married, if not the man in the relationship?
Funny- I thought people got married to make that ultimate commitment with the one they loved and start a life or family together?
Come on Jeff- You were a man, before AND after you got married. Why are you so focused on what term is used on a form as to whether you're the husband or spouse? I'm sure the term 'spouse' has been used on MANY a form in the past that we've all filled out, yet only now is it 'an issue'. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
lol.. so what's the verdict ?
|
|
|
|
|
