It Can Happen only in Texas.

[RanchHand]

I used 300,000,000 and 30,000,000 for the populations of our 2 countries.

Close... but still wrong. Try x9.11

and yes, there are more Catholics in Canada as a percentage - it's the Quebec factor.

Are there alot of "practising" Catholics in either country. Not really. It's a "birth identifier" and has a low percentage of ardent believers

Tyr, you're going to thank me for this. For purposes of a thread like this on an Internet forum, close is good enough. To use 9.11 for your calculations is a bit cumbersome and would probably require you to stop typing and bring up your calculator. Now look at the two numbers I used and see if for purposes of this thread your number, 9.11 is ridiculous while mine make life just a little bit easier.
300,000,000 and 30,000,000

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Obviously you can say you strongly disagree with the Catholic church's stand on gays, but to call them a hate group is mighty narrow minded.

That is a matter of degree, RanchHand, a matter of semantics. What may be strong disagreement to you may be hate to me.

Look at your opening post to the thread. You might as well have led by saying George Bush's Texas will lynch you if you're gay as a lead in to a story about some people objecting to 2 homosexuals kissing in a mall.

I don’t think Texas will lynch me if I am gay. But I do think they will imprison me for ten years, if they had their choice (they had the law on their statue book and were enforcing it in isolated instances, when Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional).

 

[RanchHand]

Obviously you can say you strongly disagree with the Catholic church's stand on gays, but to call them a hate group is mighty narrow minded.

That is a matter of degree, RanchHand, a matter of semantics. What may be strong disagreement to you may be hate to me.

Look at your opening post to the thread. You might as well have led by saying George Bush's Texas will lynch you if you're gay as a lead in to a story about some people objecting to 2 homosexuals kissing in a mall.

I don’t think Texas will lynch me if I am gay. But I do think they will imprison me for ten years, if they had their choice (they had the law on their statue book and were enforcing it in isolated instances, when Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional).

Can I take these 2 uncharacteristicly woeful responses to mean you give up?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Can I take these 2 uncharacteristicly woeful responses to mean you give up?

Again, it is a matter of opinion, RanchHand. To you, they may be woefully inadequate, to me they sound quite convincing.

 

[Tyr]

Tyr, you're going to thank me for this. For purposes of a thread like this on an Internet forum, close is good enough. To use 9.11 for your calculations is a bit cumbersome and would probably require you to stop typing and bring up your calculator. Now look at the two numbers I used and see if for purposes of this thread your number, 9.11 is ridiculous while mine make life just a little bit easier.
300,000,000 and 30,000,000

One word....Lazy

 

[Tyr]

Tyr, there has been a particular sea change in Québec. A generation ago it was highly Catholic, very conservative. I think it was Quebec who imprisoned Dr. Morgenthaler for performing abortions, by using some extra legal techniques (or was it Ontario?).

These days Quebec is the most liberal province in Canada. It has thrown off the yoke of Catholic Church in a big way.

...but as a demographic within Canada has the highest concentration of Catholics. It is just not the "overwhelming" numbers that it used to be

 

[SirJosephPorter]

...but as a demographic within Canada has the highest concentration of Catholics. It is just not the "overwhelming" numbers that it used to be

I think Quebec is still the most Catholic province in Canada. At least if you asked them their religion, I am sure they will say they are Catholic.

However, most Quebecois reject Church’s teachings on social issues, abortion, contraception, gay rights etc. Support for gay marriage is highest in Québec, more than any other province (more than 70%).

 

[Unforgiven]

Oh, well Excuse me!!!!!

Perhaps you should climb down off your high horse long enough to enroll in that reading comprehension class you seem to think the REST of us need........NOWHERE did I say you called Catholicism a "religion of hate".........what I DID say was you called the Catholic Church a "hate group".....which you did.

Although the difference is merely irrelevant semantics.

Religion on the whole is basically a hate group with good PR don't you think? I mean it's all about peace and love except when it comes to those who aren't a part of that religion or in any organized way point out the intolerance and vindictive nature that it is expressed by it's members. Then it's the boots, ostracizing and "you're going to hell demon!"

What's that look like to you? Each claim that isn't them at all but none have a clean record.

Something I've noticed though, is just how quick members are to disassociate other members for doing exactly what people who call religious sects, hate groups say they do. It's "oh they're not Christians" or something similar. Yet when you ask how many people are in any given religion, it's millions and millions.

 

[unclepercy]

Sure, in some places, but what would be the point? Someone who doesn't particularly care for dogs can just go buy one. Those who can't drive can buy a car and of course anyone of age who doesn't drink can buy all the alcohol they want. But what's the point?

A better question is, Should two people who love and are in love with each other, be able to ligitimize their union through marriage if they commit to the vows they speak?

No, that's not a better question. It's a very good question, but not an exact comparison. If gay people can marry (same sex, of course), then straight people should be able to marry others of the same sex. You are only thinking of dogs, driving and booze?

Stop and think. Many older people are not even interested in sex. They marry for companionship. Over 60% of the people in nursing homes have no living relatives. There are any more widows than widowers. You must be very young if you can't think why straight women would benefit from marrying. Ours is community property state. If you have no one to leave your estate to, it reverts to the State of Texas. With people living longer and the boomers coming along, it might be the answer to many problems, such as financial needs, loneliness, companionship, legal rights, medical needs, etc. What's love got to do with it? :lol:


Uncle

 

[lone wolf]

You just described room-mates....

 

[ironsides]

You just described room-mates....

Close loving room-mates. There is no difference.

 

[Spade]

Something I've noticed though, is just how quick members are to disassociate other members for doing exactly what people who call religious sects, hate groups say they do. It's "oh they're not Christians" or something similar. Yet when you ask how many people are in any given religion, it's millions and millions.

Millions identify with a faith group, but most do not attend "church." In Canada, about 1 in 6 people attend. Personally, I have no idea what a Christian is within the Canadian context, yet I guess I would say Canada is predominantly Christian.

 

[ironsides]

I think Quebec is still the most Catholic province in Canada. At least if you asked them their religion, I am sure they will say they are Catholic.

However, most Quebecois reject Church’s teachings on social issues, abortion, contraception, gay rights etc. Support for gay marriage is highest in Québec, more than any other province (more than 70%).

Did you get a chance to read this?


The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage

The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage - Indymedia - Québec/Montréal (CMAQ)


At least you have me looking around.:smile:

 

[L Gilbert]

Yup, room-mates. lol
As far as I can see, the only reasons people don't want gay people to marry are because of religious dogma and personal phobias. Neither are rational. Whichever religion it is we talk about does NOT have a say over EVERYONE. Jews don't and shouldn't have a say over what happens in a Buddhist's life and vice versa, so it follows that atheists shouldn't have a say over a Catholic's life choices and vice versa, nor a straight person have a say over a gay person's life choices and vice versa. Opinions are fine, everyone has those. But it just makes sense that if something bothers you, avoid it. Not everyone wants to convert to your personal preferences.

BTW, I really got a kick out of Cannuck digitally drooling over the pic of the lipstick lezzies and then flipflopping to declare the two fat guys kissing "sick". How very primitive and hypocritical. I just had to laugh.

 

[unclepercy]

Well, you take your sweetie to the hosital and see what rights you have. NONE.
Roommates do not inherit. Roommates are not family. By marrying, you gain all sorts of legal rights in this country.

Uncle

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ironsides, that was a very interesting article, thanks for pointing it out to me. It is a thoughtful, well written article. A couple of points about the article. In that the author says,

Few if any supporters of gay marriage, however, demand as a matter of central concern that each gay partner be automatically recognized as the parent of any child generated by the other. More simply, proponents of gay marriage do not seek the “essence[FONT=&quot]�[/FONT]? of marriage, as described above, in its most general and basic sense.

Still, few centrally insist upon the automatic parental rights and duties intrinsic to marriage as it is almost universally experienced.

I don’t know what he is talking about here. My assumption is that a gay partner would insist upon being recognized as parents of the spouse’s children. Where did the author get the idea that gays won’t insist on that?

I would think it goes without saying that gays would insist upon automatic parental rights and duties.

He bases his argument partly upon this (in my opinion) invalid assumption.

Anyway, what the author seems to be saying is that civil unions are enough, a marriage is not necessary.

Now, personally I have no problem with that, especially in US setting (a country which tends to be rather hostile to gay rights). Even if gays are successful in achieving civil unions (with all the right and responsibilities of a marriage) that would be a considerable achievement. In a generation or so, they would almost certainly get the right to marry.

Unfortunately, in USA even civil unions are rare, only a handful states have legalized civil unions. In many of the states there is active hostility to granting equal rights to days. A majority of states haven’t even passed a law outlawing discrimination against gays (usually a first step towards granting civil unions).

Forget about civil unions or ending discrimination against gays, my feeling is that the Bible Belt states (Texas, Alabama, Mississippi etc.) would recriminalize homosexuality, if they could.

So whether marriage or civil union, the gay dream of equality is still a long way off in USA.

 

[lone wolf]

Well, you take your sweetie to the hosital and see what rights you have. NONE.
Roommates do not inherit. Roommates are not family. By marrying, you gain all sorts of legal rights in this country.

Uncle

Yeah, Unc.... That's the unfairness of the system. The problem is, as long as there are a lot of homophobic blowhards sexualizing every relationship and influencing rules, Law won't venture far beyond some version of the Puritans' handbook.

 

[RanchHand]

Ironsides, that was a very interesting article, thanks for pointing it out to me. It is a thoughtful, well written article. A couple of points about the article. In that the author says,

Few if any supporters of gay marriage, however, demand as a matter of central concern that each gay partner be automatically recognized as the parent of any child generated by the other. More simply, proponents of gay marriage do not seek the “essence[FONT=&quot]�[/FONT]? of marriage, as described above, in its most general and basic sense.

Still, few centrally insist upon the automatic parental rights and duties intrinsic to marriage as it is almost universally experienced.

I don’t know what he is talking about here. My assumption is that a gay partner would insist upon being recognized as parents of the spouse’s children. Where did the author get the idea that gays won’t insist on that?

I would think it goes without saying that gays would insist upon automatic parental rights and duties.

He bases his argument partly upon this (in my opinion) invalid assumption.

Anyway, what the author seems to be saying is that civil unions are enough, a marriage is not necessary.

Now, personally I have no problem with that, especially in US setting (a country which tends to be rather hostile to gay rights). Even if gays are successful in achieving civil unions (with all the right and responsibilities of a marriage) that would be a considerable achievement. In a generation or so, they would almost certainly get the right to marry.

Unfortunately, in USA even civil unions are rare, only a handful states have legalized civil unions. In many of the states there is active hostility to granting equal rights to days. A majority of states haven’t even passed a law outlawing discrimination against gays (usually a first step towards granting civil unions).

Forget about civil unions or ending discrimination against gays, my feeling is that the Bible Belt states (Texas, Alabama, Mississippi etc.) would recriminalize homosexuality, if they could.

So whether marriage or civil union, the gay dream of equality is still a long way off in USA.

All you do is emote. You provide no facts to back up your obsession with America being a living hell for gays. Beware of Bush's Texas where a gay might get dragged behind a pickup is your lead in to a story of some old ladys in a mall being appaled by two homosexuals kissing. The Catholic church in America is a gay hate group.
You''re playing to a gay audiance here as much as your playing to an anti-American crowd. In fact what your doing in this thread is making gay rights a secondary issue to America bashing. No matter what you're presented with in the way of facts that refute what your saying, you just turn up your woe is me voume.

"So whether marriage or civil union, the gay dream of equality is still a long way off in USA"

Not as far off as most of the world's countries. Not by a long shot. You're so freakin obsessed with the US you can't even think clearly. It's impossible to not repeat this. Why do you have to define yourself relative to me??? Whay can't you aquire your own identity?

This is from Pew research in the US. One of the most respected polling organizations in the world. Perhaps the premier. The majority of Americans favor civil unions. The majority of Americans are not opposed to gay marriage. Does that sound like the gay dream of equality is still a long way off in the USA? What's a long way off for you? You're not interested at all in gay rights in the US. I've thrown everything you've said about the subject right back in your face and the best you can do is change the subject slightly and make it up as you go along.
Compare that to most of the world that are against both but are not part of your agenda.
You're just a slippery bomb thrower.


"Trends on Gay Marriage, Civil Unions

Currently, 49% of Americans oppose gay marriage - the first time since the question was first asked more than a decade ago that a majority did not express opposition to gay marriage. Roughly four-in-ten (38%) favor gay marriage, which is little changed from recent years. During the 2004 campaign, opposition to gay marriage ranged from 56% to 63%, while support registered between 29% and 32%.
The current survey finds that a narrow majority of Americans (51%) favor legal agreements that would give gay couples many of the same rights as married couples; 41% oppose such civil unions.

Pew Research Center: Gay Marriage Is Back On The Radar For Republicans, Evangelicals

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So what is your point after all this, RanchHand? I was already aware of the statistics. If you remember I did mention in one of my posts that support for gay marriage in USA runs at about 35%.

I also knew that support for civil unions was around 50%, so the numbers you quoted don’t come as a surprise to me.

Now let us compare that with Canadian numbers. Several years ago (perhaps 7 or 8 years ago, I don’t remember exactly), gay marriage was first legalized when appeal Courts in Ontario and British Columbia ruled that banning gay marriage violated the Charter of rights.

At that time (several years ago), support for gay marriage was 50:50. At that time (again, several years ago) support for civil unions was roughly 2/3rd (or around 65%). Today, support for gay marriage is around 60% (question of civil union of course, doesn’t’ arise today).

These numbers really support my contention, that USA is a lot less gay friendly than Canada, or Europe (in most of Europe, Australia and New Zealand, gays have civil union).

The PEW poll also says that opponents of gay marriage and civil union feel much more strongly about the issue than supporters do. The energy, passion of the opponents is an important factor in any debate about civil union.

Let us look at Oregon. Oregon has a Democratic Governor, he supports civil unions. Democratic party in the legislature supports civil unions. But Republicans have blocked the efforts to legalize civil unions for many years now.

Oregon is a fairly liberal state (or what passes for liberal in USA), so I assume a comfortable majority of the population supports civil union. Still they have not been able to legalize civil unions because of a small but committed, passionate and noisy minority.

If in a liberal state as Oregon they are having so much difficulty in getting civil unions, imagine how difficult the task would be in the Bible Belt. It is a near impossible task.

So the numbers really support my contention, USA has a long way to go before gays can achieve equality (I define equality as gay marriage, but even American style equality, civil
union, seems as elusive as ever).

 

[unclepercy]

All you do is emote. You provide no facts to back up your obsession with America being a living hell for gays. Beware of Bush's Texas where a gay might get dragged behind a pickup is your lead in to a story of some old ladys in a mall being appaled by two homosexuals kissing.

Stop it. Stop calling Texas "Bush's Texas." He does not own us, and although he is living a very comfortable and pleasant life in Dallas, Texas - we do not feel as if he has us under his thumb. You are a very long way from Texas, and you are so far removed from this situation, you have no authority whatsoever to speak about Texas. You only know what you read, filtered through your own personal beliefs.

Uncle