Same-sex marrage legislation passed

RakuraiTenjin said:
What's with all the gay threads lately?
Click to expand...
lol @ the pun
and boo erns to this. WHY CANADA WHYYYYYYYYY
 
nWe got this in New Zealand- where couples can get a 'civil union' instead of marriage- it's legally recognised the same way as marriage, just named differently to keep the stiffs happy- lol
 
J_Tweedy said:
nWe got this in New Zealand- where couples can get a 'civil union' instead of marriage- it's legally recognised the same way as marriage, just named differently to keep the stiffs happy- lol
Click to expand...
This is what I support.

But people on both sides flipped out and we're a minority that actually came to the logical conclusion of that idea.
 
This is what I support.
Click to expand...

'Civil unions' are certainly better than nothing at all. However:

A while ago, I remember Seinfieldrules arguing that he was totally for gay 'civil unions' but not marriage. He said he was not homophobic but that marriage was a sacred thing and shouldn't be done between same-sex couples. So, the seperate but equal doctrine.

In the 1950s, American judges ruled that the idea of 'seperate but equal' had no place in society. That by seperating things (in that case black and white education) you made them inherently unequal.

Anyway. Yay Canada.
 
Where's locust? Oh wait he's banned :LOL:

First came the gay marriages, next comes legalized pot. :D One can only hope. :|
 
legalized pot.
Click to expand...

BUT IT'S 3VIL!
Actually, liberal as I am wont to be, I don't think pot should be legalized. But that's off-topic.
 
Revisedsoul said:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html

man i wish i could have seen harpers face
Click to expand...


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!


I've been planning a thread for this day since last winter when the supreme court gave it the green light! I had a title all picked out and various "in your face conservatives!" statements all thought out ...I even had a pic picked out as a jab at the conservative backlash sure to come with the passage of this bill:

http://home.gate.net/~nickfury/shield/villians/images/HATEMONGER1.JPG


but now it's been robbed from me!!!! ROBBED!!! You've ruined my fun! curse your black soul revisedsoul! (that almost sounds lyrical)


;)






oh almost forgot ...yay! canada
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
This is what I support.

But people on both sides flipped out and we're a minority that actually came to the logical conclusion of that idea.
Click to expand...


There is no "logic" to discrimination ..as Sulkdodds correctly pointed out: seperate but equal is discrimination
 
Sulkdodds said:
'Civil unions' are certainly better than nothing at all. However:

A while ago, I remember Seinfieldrules arguing that he was totally for gay 'civil unions' but not marriage. He said he was not homophobic but that marriage was a sacred thing and shouldn't be done between same-sex couples. So, the seperate but equal doctrine.

In the 1950s, American judges ruled that the idea of 'seperate but equal' had no place in society. That by seperating things (in that case black and white education) you made them inherently unequal.

Anyway. Yay Canada.
Click to expand...
Solution being to make all government licenses "civil unions."

Make and keep "marriage" a religious ceremony and union. I personally will get married in church probably, and of course get the legal mumbojumbo taken care of somewhere else, my wedding is for the ceremony.

Government won't give out the title of "marriage," it'll be for whoever wants to say "I decree you married by ____ authority"

CptStern said:
There is no "logic" to discrimination ..as Sulkdodds correctly pointed out: seperate but equal is discrimination
Click to expand...
There isn't any discrimination in that way. Government hands out civil unions. You're still a spouse. I'm sure everybody would call it husband and wife even if they weren't given the title by a religious ceremony (or they could just give it to themselves if they felt like it. marriage won't be a legal term in that way)
 
so in other words do away with the word "marriage" all together ...I have a better Idea ..why not change the word for marriage to mean only those who do it in front of god ..we'll call it "intolerant-union-of-people-who-hate-others-for-wanting-what-they-want-but-disguise-it-because-they-love-god" ...or stupidjerkfacehatemongerreligiouscrazies for short :E


actually that could work but marriage is not exclusive to religion so there's no way that anyone who's married outside of the religious ceremony (cant use church here because chrisitianity isnt the only religion in the world, despite what some of you think) would want to change their title
 
lol I talked to my Grandma about this "gay marriage" thing, she said they should give it another name when they marry...LOL
 
CptStern said:
so in other words do away with the word "marriage" all together ...I have a better Idea ..why not change the word for marriage to mean only those who do it in front of god ..we'll call it "intolerant-union-of-people-who-hate-others-for-wanting-what-they-want-but-disguise-it-because-they-love-god" ...or stupidjerkfacehatemongerreligiouscrazies for short :E


actually that could work but marriage is not exclusive to religion so there's no way that anyone who's married outside of the religious ceremony (cant use church here because chrisitianity isnt the only religion in the world, despite what some of you think) would want to change their title
Click to expand...
Marriage wouldn't be an official title, there'd be no way to determine if someone "is or isn't" so it would work with all religions, etc. Those who are devout Christians, etc, they'd still get married before God because they feel it's right. When they get the papers at the courthouse after the ceremony though, they're only legally, on paper of the state, a civil union.

No one would have to change titles or anything.. since titles are just that, there's no legality to title unless it's a position (IE: something like President, Doctor, etc)

But I doubt that would ever happen, some people oppose that plan just because they hate gays, not because they're trying to protect a religious sanctimony of marriage.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Marriage wouldn't be an official title, there'd be no way to determine if someone "is or isn't" so it would work with all religions, etc. Those who are devout Christians, etc, they'd still get married before God because they feel it's right. When they get the papers at the courthouse after the ceremony though, they're only legally, on paper of the state, a civil union.

No one would have to change titles or anything.. since titles are just that, there's no legality to title unless it's a position (IE: something like President, Doctor, etc)
Click to expand...

yes it's the word "marriage" that is causing all the uproar ...I dont think people would be willing to relinquish that word for any reason ..the simplest solution is/has always been ...make the same for everyone ...religions are NOT forced to perform same-sex marriages

RakuraiTenjin said:
But I doubt that would ever happen, some people oppose that plan just because they hate gays, not because they're trying to protect a religious sanctimony of marriage.
Click to expand...

that's one of the most poignant things you've said in a long time :cheers:
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Marriage wouldn't be an official title, there'd be no way to determine if someone "is or isn't" so it would work with all religions, etc. Those who are devout Christians, etc, they'd still get married before God because they feel it's right. When they get the papers at the courthouse after the ceremony though, they're only legally, on paper of the state, a civil union.

No one would have to change titles or anything.. since titles are just that, there's no legality to title unless it's a position (IE: something like President, Doctor, etc)

But I doubt that would ever happen, some people oppose that plan just because they hate gays, not because they're trying to protect a religious sanctimony of marriage.
Click to expand...

Because they hate gays? I know gay people...I will only dislike them if they hit on me or attend a gay parade and have sex in the streets.

There have been many posts about why homosexuals shouldn't be together. If you have missed them then read further back in the thread. I just don't see why they need tax breaks to be happy together, it's their choice so then they chose to not have tax breaks. Their own fault, not our problem. On top of that they can't offer anything to society.

However...maybe if we just give them civil unions they will finally shutup and keep it to their bedrooms...that would be a whole lot better than hearing or seeing them do it in public...simply disgusting.
 
Glirk Dient said:
Because they hate gays? I know gay people...I will only dislike them if they hit on me or attend a gay parade and have sex in the streets.
Click to expand...

you couldnt sound more insane if you tried ...where are gays having "sex on the streets" ...I seriously doubt you know anyone who's gay

Glirk Dient said:
There have been many posts about why homosexuals shouldn't be together. If you have missed them then read further back in the thread. I just don't see why they need tax breaks to be happy together, it's their choice so then they chose to not have tax breaks. Their own fault, not our problem. On top of that they can't offer anything to society.
Click to expand...

ya I can see how tax breaks would be more important than equality :upstare:

Glirk Dient said:
However...maybe if we just give them civil unions they will finally shutup and keep it to their bedrooms...that would be a whole lot better than hearing or seeing them do it in public...simply disgusting.
Click to expand...


you're about as intolerant as they come ...which reinforces the need for equality ..if nothing else just to protect their rights from people like you
 
Protest their rights? Like the privelege to get married? Oh wait...that's not a right. I honestly don't think me debating about same-sex marriage makes me hate any of the gay people I know nor does it automatically mean I am trying to take their rights away.

You are the one being intollerant of people who don't share the same beliefs as you.
 
On top of that they can't offer anything to society.
Click to expand...

Culture?

Oh, and children through artificial means.

Please tell me why you think gays should not get married.

You are the one being intollerant of people who don't share the same beliefs as you.
Click to expand...

You are a little mean, Stern. :p Nah, only joking, although being in this forum for more than a few months would send anyone insane.
 
Glirk Dient said:
Protest their rights? Like the privelege to get married? Oh wait...that's not a right. I honestly don't think me debating about same-sex marriage makes me hate any of the gay people I know nor does it automatically mean I am trying to take their rights away.

You are the one being intollerant of people who don't share the same beliefs as you.
Click to expand...


you are correct ..I AM being intolerant towards people who display bigotry ..equal rights Glirk no matter what you cant avoid the issue

Sulkdodds said:
You are a little mean, Stern. :p Nah, only joking, although being in this forum for more than a few months would send anyone insane.
Click to expand...


no need to apologise ..I AM mean :) ..when it comes to issues of bigotry I have zero patience
 
Alright...answer me this stern. Why won't the government allow me to marry many many wives and get bigger tax breaks? I am a person too, why am I to be denied rights?
 
Glirk Dient said:
Because they hate gays? I know gay people...I will only dislike them if they hit on me or attend a gay parade and have sex in the streets.

There have been many posts about why homosexuals shouldn't be together. If you have missed them then read further back in the thread. I just don't see why they need tax breaks to be happy together, it's their choice so then they chose to not have tax breaks. Their own fault, not our problem. On top of that they can't offer anything to society.
Click to expand...

They don't need to offer anything to society as a whole to have the same thing. Bear in mind I am looking at things from the point of view of the government just makes 'civil unions' for two consenting adults (the earlier idea in the thread.) I'm a fiscal and military conservative, but on (most) social issues I'm a libertarian. They should be able to be legally joined if they are consenting. On a personal level, I would not support the church joining them in holy matrimony, but that has nothing to do with the state and thus not relating to politics.

Glirk Dient said:
However...maybe if we just give them civil unions they will finally shutup and keep it to their bedrooms...that would be a whole lot better than hearing or seeing them do it in public...simply disgusting.
Click to expand...
I think the people who do the wild public sex things (CptStern I read, so I can't say for 100% sure as I didn't see.. thank god lol, but I read an account and article about how that was happening at San Francisco parades)

-- I think the people who do the wild sex things are going to do it no matter what, it's not because they're gay, it's because they're weirdo exhibitionists. The gay people I know you wouldn't know until you asked them or a situation came up where you'd find out (IE: Hey isn't that chick hot? "I don't like women")
 
Glirk Dient said:
Alright...answer me this stern. Why won't the government allow me to marry many many wives and get bigger tax breaks? I am a person too, why am I to be denied rights?
Click to expand...

yes but polygamy has nothing to do with equal rights because it's not based on discriminating someone based on their sexual orientation ...in fact this was the justification that the Massachusetts courts used when they struck down the ban on same sex marriage saying that "the right to marry the person of one's choice is a fundamental right"
 
Yes lol. Woot Canada.

I really support this move.

Theirs really no argument against it.
 
Hooray Canada!


Gay marriage becoming legal seemed pretty inevitable. It's the necessary step in recognizing gays and lesbians as people who (sexual orientation aside) still deserve the same rights as any other person in their country.

In the olden days, I'm sure black-skinned citizens weren't allowed to marry because they were considered "evil" people; who were put to slavery and tortured just because of skin. They were commonly viewed as that which is "wrong" in society in those days.

Today isn't really all that different with respect to gays and being able to wed. Many view gay practices as "wrong" and are quick to deny them certain rights and freedoms. But just like mistreating the black citizens, it's rather silly to mistreat gays over something that I view as trivial. Marriage makes these people happy, and it's not affecting anyone. If two gays getting married is a sin, then it's between them and their god. If a minister does not want to wed two gays, then he doesn't have to. This bill does not force religious officials to marry two gays because freedom of choice still applies.

If we can marry people of the same skin color, than what's wrong with marriage for people of the same sex?
 
Why won't the government allow me to marry many many wives and get bigger tax breaks? I am a person too, why am I to be denied rights?
Click to expand...

Well, they're totally different things.
- Marriage is a thing that everybody in the US has theright to do - except gays.
- Polygamy is a thing that NOBODY AT ALL in the US currently has the right to do.

We're talking about equalising here.

You'd have a valid argument if heteros were allowed polygamy but gays weren't.
 
Sulkdodds said:
You'd have a valid argument if heteros were allowed polygamy but gays weren't.
Click to expand...


could you imagine if they allowed polygamy for gay marriages? :LOL: the christian-right would collectively explode into spontaneous prayer

"ohlordjesushelpmeohlordforthegaystheybecomingtomurdermyfamily"
 
Congrats Canada, you're not stupid. :)

Wish I could say the same about my country. :(
 
...

big error in the article...

3rd country after Belgium & the Netherlands.

AFAIK Spain also has it. the Pope screamed about it.
 
Muahahaha Stern, i must be the evny of all stern haters right now lol.
 
Sprafa said:
...

big error in the article...

3rd country after Belgium & the Netherlands.

AFAIK Spain also has it. the Pope screamed about it.
Click to expand...

Isn't the Spanish thing the same as the UK thing? It's not a marriage but a civil union?
 
Wow. A pic of the Pope. How offensive (not really).

IRTT, good for Canada! At least some people have sense.
 
thats not very kind hearted. he was a suffering old man yet you poke fun at him.
Click to expand...

Well the pope isn't very kind hearted. He say homosexuality destroy society because, and I quote:

the pope said:
It is an expression of freedom.
Click to expand...

What?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
The cut missions of Half-Life: Decay
Replies
2
Views
21K
Evo
Evo
B
Hostile Takeover, the lost Half-Life expansion pack
Replies
6
Views
16K
Ennui
Ennui
Back
Top