Paulie Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 The reason is fairly simple: Homosexual activity is a perversion from the natural order of things. Yes, I am saying that homosexual activity is perverted, and that is NOT a homophobic statement. I believe homosexuals deserve respect and compassion. the pain they must endure must be a heavy burden, indeed. Homosexuals should have the same rights as others when it comes to the law, but I'm sorry, two people of the same sex claiming to be maried...NOT NORMAL, in fact, it is incredibly sick, twisted and bizzarre....just my opinion. Paulie Link to post Share on other sites
lostforwords Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 well you had them this long...... you may as well keep them..... ill miss my aunthentic beaver fur undies , but what the hey.... im all for keeping mementoes.... as long as i can keep your glass eye..... Link to post Share on other sites
jester Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 as long as i can keep your glass eye..... That's fine. I'll just wear a patch. PETA is going to give me a hard time because of your beaver fur undies. You Canadians are so cruel to little critters. Link to post Share on other sites
lostforwords Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 That's fine. I'll just wear a patch. PETA is going to give me a hard time because of your beaver fur undies. You Canadians are so cruel to little critters. oh wait thats not your glass eye.... its the beavers eye....... Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 Someone suggested removing marriage for heterosexuals as well. After today's debate (not here, I actually went), I'd say I have to agree. The government has no legitimate reason to recognize marriages. In case you were wondering, I won 2nd in speaking, and first Presiding Officer in my Senate Link to post Share on other sites
Arabess Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I know three gay couples who seem to have wonderful relationships. One even did the 'invetro' thing and share a beautiful child in a home full of love. What I don't understand......and enlighten me if I am wrong.....if you are living on the fringes of what is socialy acceptable because your 'feelings' are more important to you than following the 'norm'....then why the hell would you care if you were 'legally' married? Why not have you OWN ceremony and call it a DEAL? The reason is 'family insurance and other tax breaks'. I would think NEITHER ONE is worth persuing to the point of making it a VALIDATION of your relationship. If I were gay, I wouldn't give a rats ass if society 'accepted' it as legal or not. The only thing which would matter if the love we shared and the family we have within ourselves. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by Arabess If I were gay, I wouldn't give a rats ass if society 'accepted' it as legal or not. The only thing which would matter if the love we shared and the family we have within ourselves. Love is not a prerequisite of a legally recognized marriage. If you were gay, and were denied hospital visitation rights to the woman you love, you'd care. Link to post Share on other sites
Arabess Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I didn't think that would happen. That's why I said to 'enlighten' me. I really DON'T know what all is involved....as far as problems....regarding a 'gay couple'. My friends have only mention family problems. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by Arabess My friends have only mention family problems. Perhaps your friends haven't yet encountered the myriad of problems that gay couples "tolerate", while society treats them as if they are lucky to get what they have. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 dyermaker Someone suggested removing marriage for heterosexuals as well. After today's debate (not here, I actually went), I'd say I have to agree. The government has no legitimate reason to recognize marriages.Let’s throw the baby out with the bathwater. Why would two people need to pool their resources? How should spousal deaths and emergencies be handled? Link to post Share on other sites
Thinkalot Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I just read an article about a lesbian couple who travelled to Vermont to get married, because that's the only place in the US where it's legal. My ex, whom I met while living in Canada, had 3 sisters, two of whom were gay. It gave me some insights into the difficulties and judgements they face in society, something I was quite unaware of, until I saw it from their side of the fence. I think if gays want to marry, they should be allowed. Our PM has also made comments about it ruining the traditional idea of marriage...blah! Marriage is already an evolving institution anyway isn't it? And really, heterosexual couples don't always do such a good job of it do they? I am a traditionalist when it comes to some things, but on this one, I think I support moving with the times. Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 The reason I support it is, there are NO prerequisites for heterosexual marriage. You don't have to love each other, be compatible, you don't even have to have sex. Pretty much ANY man and ANY woman can seek a marriage license, and I have no problem affording the civic benefits therein to ANY man and ANY man, same for women. Link to post Share on other sites
Kriz Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 In Belgium gay civil marriage is possible since somewhere last year. Fine with me, but now they are pushing forth to adoption. I don't really have a decent argument here, but I sort of think of that issue as a bridge too far. Any thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites
jester Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 If they qualify as adoptive parents under whatever eligibility criteria apply to hetero marrieds, I have no problem with it. There are many abandoned, emotionally deprived kids out there, and I believe a loving responsible couple, whether gay or straight, is infinitely preferable to the cold hell of foster care or orphanage. Let gays marry, let them adopt. Let them live like you and me. Link to post Share on other sites
midori Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by dyermaker The reason I support it is, there are NO prerequisites for heterosexual marriage. You don't have to love each other, be compatible, you don't even have to have sex. Pretty much ANY man and ANY woman can seek a marriage license, and I have no problem affording the civic benefits therein to ANY man and ANY man, same for women. I think this gets to the crux of the dilemma. Those who talk about the special nature of a heterosexual union assume that it will involve reproduction. But what about a widow and widower, both in their 60's? Should they be able to get married? There won't be any children coming out of their union -- so why should they be able to "pool their resources" if a gay couple isn't allowed to? How are they any more a family than a gay couple? Why not just be content to love each other, share their lives, and not worry about an official piece of paper? Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 Originally posted by jester There are many abandoned, emotionally deprived kids out there, and I believe a loving responsible couple, whether gay or straight, is infinitely preferable to the cold hell of foster care or orphanage. That's the truth, because there are way more kids than couples who want to adopt. Link to post Share on other sites
reservoirdog1 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 As a Canadian, and as a hetero human being, I'm all in favour of gay marriage. I don't see why it's anybody's business but the two people involved. That being said, after going through what I've been through, and knowing that 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway, I sometimes wonder why homosexuals are champing at the bit to get access to an institution that straight people have so comprehensively screwed up anyway. As somebody wiser than myself once said, "50% of marriages end in divorce. But hey, the other 50% end in death. You could be one of the lucky ones!" Link to post Share on other sites
cdn Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 The government has no legitimate reason to recognize marriages. No, it doesn't. But the list of things that the government interjects itself into with no benefit to anyone except itself is loooooonnnnnng. The majority of the benefits that married people receive have nothing to do with the government. It is private business that decides who to make insurance benefits available to; it is the hospital who decides who can visit and when. There is little benefit to continually looking to the government to solve societal problems. The problem is that, having done so for so long, many people have forgotten how to get things done any other way. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest2 Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 Someone touched on an explanation that a lot of people are not aware of. In the United states a household consisting only of adults that are not parent/child (a married couple with no children, siblings, other relations, etc.) is not considered a family and is excluded from many of the benefits or social programs that households with minors have. A household with a parent and adult child falls in the middle -- they have some consideration as a family, but not all. It seems like to be a family, every adult in the household must share the same last name. My mother and aunt live together - both retired, both widowed. They are sisters. They consider themselves a family. The government in America does not recognize them as such. They are not included in a census of families. I don't know how to explain it without going into personal details. They had a government agency tell them they did not qualify as a family. It is the same for gays, but even more so. For a long time people of different races were "not allowed" to marry or even date. That is changing and so will this. The definiation of and reason for marriage is subjective to who you ask. Politically you have to be married to make decisions about your partner's health or finances if they cannot make decisions themselves. Unless you get a legal power of attorney. A gay couple who is concerned about being able to make decisions if one is in an accident or somehow incapacitated needs to go to an attorney and have a legal power of attorney drawn up and have wills made. They can also legally change their name so that if they want - they will have the same last name. Link to post Share on other sites
Arabess Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Well.....since this thread was brought back up....let me add: ONE REASON gay marriages WANT to be accepted into the mainsteam is for work related 'benefit and insurance' purposes. At this time....health insurance is high enough. Now, what if you add a MAJOR claimer....such as 'more likely to have aides'....on top of our current Insurance burden. Insurance doesn't go by 'what the cost ARE'.....but by 'what the cost can BECOME'. It a realistic fact to consider of you are paying for health insurance. I'm NOT against gay marriages.......I just don't understand who they want a 'blessing' from??????? They have their own friends and communities which are very supportive....what diff would it make if some church or town hall didn't accept the VOWS they make to one another? Well...there IS NO difference. So, WHY fight for the right??? Back into the 'benefit and insurance' purposes. Link to post Share on other sites
metal_chik Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Personally I'm all for gay marriages. But I do agree with arabess and others....I don't see the need to get married, period. Y can't u just be happy living together, and that goes for gay and hetero marriages. I mean if I lived with someone for say 6 yrs then we decided to get married...why? The only difference I can see that it would make would concern money, and I would hate to know I'm marrying someone for financial purposes. That to me seems a bit shallow. But don't get me wrong ne body...I do completely see how that would help if u were tight on money ya know. But I think it should be someones choice whether they wanna be married, not the governments or ne one besides the 2 involved. And someone mentioned giving them their own kinda "marriage thing", I think that would be an awesome idea. Then u reckon all the straights would be whining cuz they can't have the same kind of "marriage"?lol... and don't take that last sentence wrong, I don't mean it in a bad way. I'm bi so I can totally understand "whining and bitchin" about a lot of the things gays can't do and have to deal with. I think it's ridiculous now-a-days that people can't just deal with it and move on...as long as they don't push whatever they like on me....have at it! #1 reason for divorce is marriage!!! Link to post Share on other sites
sarah12 Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead It depends on your viewpoint. What is the function of marriage? Believe it or not, life was very hard at one time, and people actually struggled. Raising children was often too difficult for a person to handle alone. Blockhead - somehow my name was used in your post from the first page of this thread, but that quote is not mine. I have not replied to this thread. Please check your references! Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites
jester Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 That was me Blocky was quoting. I guess he just had you on his mind, Link to post Share on other sites
bubby Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 As for following Quebec's civil union model... nice concept, but it's still discrimination. Many conservatives (and even many liberals) see it as a compromise; it's actually just still taking away. Marriage has been legally defined as between a man and a woman, but ONLY in 1996 when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed. It hasn't been that way for centuries. We're in a pattern of adding exclusionary language to our laws. Unfortunately, civil unions do NOT provide the same benefits as marriage. And there is no reason, religious or otherwise, why the LEGAL term marriage should not be used for same-sex unions as well. Even if a civil union was exactly the same as marriage but with a different label, it's still not fair and it is still discrimination. "We are not married; we are united." Heterosexual couples will never have to deal with that. A rose is a rose by any other name perhaps, but 'rose' sounds a heck of a lot better than 'smelly thing with thorns'. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts