Given this is a dead topic in Canada (it will not be revisited), it makes no sense for them to continue to have it in the books. For me, if I honestly thought they would act on this, I would not consider them as a choice at all.
Given this is a dead topic in Canada (it will not be revisited), it makes no sense for them to continue to have it in the books. For me, if I honestly thought they would act on this, I would not consider them as a choice at all.
Dixie, are you aware that the topic of the thread is same-sex marriage and not transgender issues?
I know a fair number of gay and lesbian individuals who cannot quite wrap their heads around transgender issues either. (Although some do and are very empathetic with such issues, I'm sure.) I'm not defending that or stating one point of view is right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that they are different issues.
Why? Are blue eyed people not allowed to be married? Because I think they should have the ability to marry people with any eye colour they choose. In fact, not allowing them to marry just because they have blue eyes is discriminatory. Now, I'm not personally a fan of blue eyes so I can choose not to marry someone with blue eyes but I'll be damned if I will dictate my personal taste upon the rest of society.
Particularly when the confines of anyone's taste or proclivity or orientation (however the hell you choose to define it) in no way whatsoever affects anyone other than yourself. You dig? Whether you tolerate it or not does not matter and should not matter to the extent that it affects the choices that other people get to make.
And if you can't see that, then you are blind and I only hope the next generations weed out your particular blindness.
Your're right you will not dictate your personal taste upon the rest of society unless you form the body of the majority. If as you imply that the tastes and orientations in no way whatsoever affects anyone other than myself in the face of enormous media leveraging to affect exactly that displacement of conservation of natural law did not exist, I might agree with you. Such is clearly not the case, as we are informed in a constant solid stream flowing in exactly a direction opposite to your reccomendation. The subject clearly affects everyone, on many levels. And the most alarming aspect to me is what is shunted aside so that these divergent matters can overshadow the real and pressing needs of modern social advancement. The whole subject was elevated to national debate of nations to deflect minds from substantial matters directly associated with pressing undertakings of far greater importance to the species. It's a near zero subject painted and pandered to elevate the idiot to saintly status and does nothing but agravate and divide. There are choices that the individual does not get to make.
Same sex people cannot get married despite artificial laws pretending to circumvent the laws of reproduction.
Please, someone start a third thread on this exact same topic.
As with global warming...Never argue with the consensus....differing opinions not allowed!
And the most alarming aspect to me is what is shunted aside so that these divergent matters can overshadow the real and pressing needs of modern social advancement..
Isn't bear LGBT?
Isn't bear LGBT?
Insult?
Only transphobes would think that's an insult.
Insult?
Only transphobes would think that's an insult.
Insult?
Only transphobes would think that's an insult.
So you feel insulted Flossy.