what would you say to her? : same sex marriage

[CptStern]

It has everything to do with the current issue. The real question is why can't you admit that you don't support polygamus marriages, but you admit that you do support gay marriages. Is it that you know it is hypocritical?

it has NOTHING to do with the issue:

"one involves the question of whether or not monogamy is only for heterosexuals, the other whether or not monogamy itself is permissible "

“We don’t see any connection, I repeat, any connection between the issue of polygamy and the issue of same-sex marriage."

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler


again, ghostfox you're not in my shoes, you have NO CLUE as to what my personal philosophy is

 

[GhostFox]

again, ghostfox you're not in my shoes, you have NO CLUE as to what my personal philosophy is

I agree, which is why I asked and hoped for an answer, as opposed to listening to you banally spew the liberal mantra on same sex marrige. Everyone with an ounce of logic in their brain knows they are intamitely connected. I am confused on why you are so opposed to discussing the facts that are plainly in front of you.

 

[jondy]

I agree, which is why I asked and hoped for an answer, as opposed to listening to you banally spew the liberal mantra on same sex marrige. Everyone with an ounce of logic in their brain knows they are intamitely connected. I am confused on why you are so opposed to discussing the facts that are plainly in front of you.

You can try and pin this on bias; Liberal Mantra; but the good Captain has just laid out clear distinctions in the law, which are sourced and supported.

 

[CptStern]

I agree, which is why I asked and hoped for an answer, as opposed to listening to you banally spew the liberal mantra on same sex marrige. Everyone with an ounce of logic in their brain knows they are intamitely connected. I am confused on why you are so opposed to discussing the facts that are plainly in front of you.

do you take me for stupid? why would I hand over the reigns to you when your only agenda is sidestepping the "seperate but equal" issue

 

[GhostFox]

but the good Captain has just laid out clear distinctions in the law, which are sourced and supported.

It has never been challenged in court. And I don't take the opinion of someone on the liberal payroll as fact when the liberals are right now trying to convince everyone that same sex marrige won't lead to polygamy, when everyone already knows that it will.

 

[Absinthe]

I'd say that in terms of having a point, it makes way more sense than gay marriage. Why not allow goats to marry humans. Can you tell if a goat loves somebody? No? My dog loves me, I can tell because whenever I come home he barks around and licks me. Why shouldnt I be allowed to marry him? He loves me, and I love him. So no, its not a dumb argument, you cant handle the argument. Love has nothing to do with gay marriage, its gay people wanting the RIGHT to marry, and its all very childish.

You can view it however you want.

Your dog, however, does not have the mental capacity to say "Oh yes, gh0st! I believe we should get married! It would be a rather splendid good time, I say!" nor can it say "No, asshole. Put that freakin' ring away". Your dog is an animal that is incapable of giving informed consent. And if you think marrying your pet "makes way more sense" than marrying your male partner, then you have some very screwed up views IMO.

But love was never something I brought up, gh0st. You did.

ADDED: I don't see what the big freakin' problem with polygamy is.

 

[jondy]

It has never been challenged in court. And I don't take the opinion of someone on the liberal payroll as fact when the liberals are right now trying to convince everyone that same sex marrige won't lead to polygamy, when everyone already knows that it will.

Everyone?

[gnarly evil voice] yeeees, eeeveryone. [gnarly evil voice]

But back on topic, is it not a bit presumptious to assume that everyone thinks like you?

No-one here is on a 'liberal payroll', so put that aside.

 

[GhostFox]

But back on topic, is it not a bit presumptious to assume that everyone thinks like you?

Ok, not everyone in general, but everyone who are willing to see the logical truth of the matter. You can't think that saying that it is morally ok now for gay marriage, but still morally wrong for polygamus marriage. There is no way it can hold up in court. Either marriage is between a man and a woman, or between any consenting adults. All of these self imposed divisions could never sustain a serious court challenge.

 

[CptStern]

Ok, not everyone in general, but everyone who are willing to see the logical truth of the matter. You can't think that saying that it is morally ok now for gay marriage, but still morally wrong for polygamus marriage. There is no way it can hold up in court. Either marriage is between a man and a woman, or between any consenting adults. All of these self imposed divisions could never sustain a serious court challenge.

you havent listened to a word I said ....oh and it WILL be upheld in court ...or are you forgetting the Charter of rights? oh right I forgot ...

 

[Edcrab]

Yay for the horrible bureaucratic nature of the travesty called marriage.

If only you all shared my nihilistic philosophy, then this argument over an outdated and ultimately unnecessary government-recognised bond wouldn't happen. Damn freedom of choice and opinion, damn it to hell.

Personally, although I doubt that polygamous unions will become legal and commonplace soon after the legislation of gay marriage, I still think moral advancement/degradation will eventually result in further changes to the process.

We accepted divorce, a distinctly so-called “anti-Christian” concept, and it’s only a matter of time before common sense and necessity permeate ignorant skulls and cause some irreversible changes. The religious sanctity of marriage vanished as soon as we allowed for a clause- no matter how warranted- along the lines of “actually, let’s end this eternal union, I don’t love you any more”.

But I think marriage is insane, so yay for being apathetic!

 

[seinfeldrules]

was segregation "differentiation" or discrimination ..it's exactly the same scenario

Then apparently every adjective in reference to people is discrimination.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

'Cos many of us have suffered prolonged exposure to religion-inspired ignorance and prejudice, and we're yet to develop an infallible antidote for osmosis-transferred stupidity.

... and I'm suffering due to prolonged exposure to your prejudice and inspired ignorance against religion -- and since then, I've not developed a sensible way to acknowledge my fellow compatriots because of your osmosis-transferred stupidity.

Stern, your pure. Like a glass of water. Only the glass has President Bush's face on it. You'll be his cup of tea one day ...

 

[Edcrab]

Kereberos: I am a Protestant who just happens to accept evolution and advocates human rights as well as accepting some form of higher power.

I just don't use it as an excuse to spout some of the aforementioned drivel like certain so-called Christians.

I am not ignorant or at all prejudiced towards any religion- I am, however, completely incapable of understanding or accepting ignorant prejudice from any direction.

That's my philosophy- regardless of their creed, colour, beliefs or opinions, I can despise idiots who dare to attempt to justify their flawed stances using a religion they clearly don't understand half as well as they claim to.

 

[PvtRyan]

Realistically they are not. Gay marrige and Polygamy are both "moral" issues. If you dismiss the moral argument for one, then it will not stand up for the other. Polygamy will be challenged in court and won very shortly after gay marrige is legalized. There is no rational way around it. It would be the height of hypocrisy to say that a man can marry a woman or a man, and that's ok, but a man marrying two woman is just morally wrong.

They main thing why people think gay people are allowed to be married is because they're not harming anyone with it, we're not bothered by it so what the hell? But with polygamy, think about when the "couple" (is something with 2+ people still a couple?) has some kids, it would damage them, for example when they divorce. This is beyond the moral issue of just the couple, this could also involve other people. A divorce and custody with 2 people is trouble enough as it is. And we would have to watch out for suppression of women too and men creating harems.

Besides, it's too big of a change to make in the laws anyways, requires some major rewriting I think. Doubt anyone will undertake it any time soon. Gay marriage is a simple change to make.

But I don't think I'd be fully against polygamy anyway, as long as both parties (or more ) can give their voluntary consent, I'd let you marry your damn goat.

 

[CptStern]

Then apparently every adjective in reference to people is discrimination.

no, seinfeldrules ...but if you can justify "seperate but equal" when it comes to same-sex marriage then you also must be able to apply it to segregation. One cannot be justified without over-ruling the other

 

[DrDevin]

As was mentioned earlier there would be no debate as long as they were not "married" but "joined" or something of the like. You can call it descrimination but "marriage" is owned by the church and if you tell them that they are wrong you are trying to force them to do something about something they own and you are just as bad as descriminating. It is up to them to choose what happens. Forcing things onto others is worse then compromising. I dont have a problem with gay marriages but call it something else. A maiirage is already defined as the union between a man and a woman it is not descrimination it is a term nothing more. Why can they not settle for something else? Just because you know what 2+2 is does not mean you deserve to be called a genious. You need to be excell and fit the definition of a genious to be called one. Just like you have to fall into the definition of marriage to be married. This society tries to make everyone feel good by classifying them as the same even though they are clearly different and different does not mean hated.

 

[CptStern]

You can call it descrimination but "marriage" is owned by the church and if you tell them that they are wrong you are trying to force them to do something about something they own and you are just as bad as descriminating. .

no marriage is not owned by the church ..if that were true I wouldnt be married as it wasnt in front of god ..oh and you cant force a religion to perform same-sex marriages

 

[seinfeldrules]

no, seinfeldrules ...but if you can justify "seperate but equal" when it comes to same-sex marriage then you also must be able to apply it to segregation. One cannot be justified without over-ruling the other

They are two different, unique traditions, because of this different words should describe them.

 

[CptStern]

They are two different, unique traditions, because of this different words should describe them.

no, you've got it all wrong ..a civil union is NOT a tradition ..it's a term used by heterosexual people who dont want gays to be married

oh and let me introduce you to two different sets of words that illustrate this perfectly

seperate

but

equal

 

[seinfeldrules]

no, you've got it all wrong ..a civil union is NOT a tradition ..it's a term used by heterosexual people who dont want gays to be married

It is a temporary term until the homosexual community decides on a new one. Call it Ahlaksdja for all I care, as long as it has an important, deep meaning to gays, and is not 'marriage'.

Your attempted comparison to black rights is laughable as well. Nobody who is in favor of 'civil unions' is saying that gays should be held under a different standard. They wont be prevented from using the same legal opportunities, adoption etc. MLKing Jr. is rolling in his grave right now. Comparing the plight of gays to that of African Americans, not even close bud. These people couldnt sit where they wanted, eat where they wanted, go to the potty where they wanted. The only thing that people are asking of gays is to leave the word marriage to describe a union between a man and a woman, and create their own word to describe their special union.

 

[bliink]

a lot of angry words in this thread...

 

[CREMATOR666]

a lot of angry words in this thread...

That's because there are a lot of angry people around......

 

[BlackDahlia]

I don't see what the big deal is...if two people really love each other and want to get married, then they should be able to. I mean, c'mon...since when does the gov tell people who they can or cannot marry?

 

[bliink]

That's because there are a lot of angry people around......

yup, and if they dont end the fighting themselves, I can gladly do it for them :E

 

[seinfeldrules]

yup, and if they dont end the fighting themselves, I can gladly do it for them :E

Bliink

 

[KoreBolteR]

http://spoofe.***********/pics/Woman soldier.jpg

somehow the website is blanked out. so heres an attachment

 

[CptStern]

It is a temporary term until the homosexual community decides on a new one. Call it Ahlaksdja for all I care, as long as it has an important, deep meaning to gays, and is not 'marriage'.

"separate but equal"

Your attempted comparison to black rights is laughable as well. Nobody who is in favor of 'civil unions' is saying that gays should be held under a different standard. They wont be prevented from using the same legal opportunities, adoption etc. MLKing Jr. is rolling in his grave right now. Comparing the plight of gays to that of African Americans, not even close bud. These people couldnt sit where they wanted, eat where they wanted, go to the potty where they wanted.

in principle they are the same, in application they are not:


"The doctrine that racial segregation is constitutional as long as the facilities provided for blacks and whites are roughly equal. This doctrine was long used to support segregation in the public schools and a variety of public facilities, such as transportation and restaurants, where the facilities and services for blacks were often clearly inferior. For decades, the Supreme Court refused to rule the separate but equal doctrine unconstitutional, on the grounds that such civil rights issues were the responsibility of the states. In the decision of Brown versus Board of Education, in 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled separate but equal schools unconstitutional. " source

it's the same thing ...civil rights that apply to one group but not another ...here's an article from YOUR perspective that may go some way in explaining it

The only thing that people are asking of gays is to leave the word marriage to describe a union between a man and a woman, and create their own word to describe their special union.

create their own word to describe their special union


"separate but equal"

yup, and if they dont end the fighting themselves, I can gladly do it for them

I for one am not angry. Seinfeldrules misinterpreted my use of pictures to illustrate my point, so I can understand how he's a bit ...cross. No need to intervene: we're both on topic and no one is fighting, it just gets hard to put a point across when people's judgements are clouded by personal opinions. It's such a volitile issue that raises the ire of many religious people

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Well, I agree about the Seperate but Equal part. I would think it would be wrong to dissassociate benefits from one group because of their choice of mate.

 

[Kangy]

I wish you guys would stop bickering over something so silly.

You seem to agree a basic principle, but it's like this:

Susan learnt that red was orange at a very early age. Robert learnt that red was purple, at the same age. They'll never, ever agree on what red is, because their entire conception of "red" is different.

 

[CptStern]

yes but in a perfect world, debates are decided by whomever has the most compelling evidence ...there's nothing wrong with aspiring towards perfection

 

[RZAL]

create their own word to describe their special union

"separate but equal"

What do you think they, meaning the “homosexual community” wants more, all the legal benefits of marriage, all the religious aspects of marriage, or acceptance of the norm?

 

[CptStern]

I dont know ..I'm not part of the "homosexual community" but my guess would be equal rights

 

[firemachine69]

Will it affect my taxes, my rent, my Visa bill?


Thanks for reminding I don't ****ing care what the hell they want to do. Let my neighbours be, they haven't hurt me. Sheesh. Pass the legislation to make it legal already, scrap the gun registry, and let's move on to bigger and more important things puuhhhhhlllleeeeeaaaaaze.

Oh also thanks for reminding me why I think the Liberals are a bunch of bafoons.

 

[Absinthe]

Oh also thanks for reminding me why I think the Liberals are a bunch of bafoons.

And thanks for reminding me why conservatives are thought of as aggressive ignoramuses.

 

[firemachine69]

Actually I voted Green Party. :thumbs:

 

[Absinthe]

Then I will have to settle with calling you an aggresive ignoramus.

 

[Sainku]

I dont know ..I'm not part of the "homosexual community" but my guess would be equal rights

If all they want is equal right than what is wrong with calling it a civil union, religious people just want to keep marrige as between a man and a weoman, and homosexuals want equal right. Two different names and everyone is happy, This is really all its about, a name and a definition.

 

[CptStern]

If all they want is equal right than what is wrong with calling it a civil union, religious people just want to keep marrige as between a man and a weoman, and homosexuals want equal right. Two different names and everyone is happy, This is really all its about, a name and a definition.

no it's about having separate laws for separate groups

"separate but equal"

 

[Sainku]

I fail to see the problem in having seperate laws for seperate groups if its keeping both of thier freedoms equal and keeping them both happy.

 

[CptStern]

I fail to see the problem in having seperate laws for seperate groups if its keeping both of thier freedoms equal and keeping them both happy.

yes but it didnt work with segregation ..it was deemed unconstitutional

also, I really dont understand how anybody can be against it ...it really doesnt affect you in any way

oh and a religion cannot be forced to perform a same-sex marriage