Brave woman

[Zzarchov]

I agree with her completely. I don't like the term "married" for two people of the same gender. That is not knocking their relationship. I just firmly believe that the term married means a man and a woman. I got flak for my beliefs on canada.com but regardless - I still feel the same way and I'm sure there is nothing that will change my mind on that.

And some believe it means a man and his harem (which is the historically correct definition),

I only see a problem if someone forces you to change your relationship. I have no problem with how you define marriage, unless you try and force your definition on me.

Its supposed to be a free country, and what that really boils down to is people are free to do things that bother the hell out of you in their personal lives.

 

[lone wolf]

That can be done Susie takes her DNA, fuses it (similar to cloning) into a gene whiped sperm, and puts in in Julies egg.

Now Susie and Julie have a baby. We may not be able to do that reliably now, but soon.

On that note, Men will soon be extinct.

That's discrimination. What about the Fred 'n' Barneys

 

[VanIsle]

I agree that she was brave in answering a controversial question honestly. I do however disagree with her.

I don't really understand why this has to be such a controversial issue. Why do heterosexual people get more rights than homosexual? Also why do some heterosexual people think that they deserve these rights and homosexual people don't?

It just comes across to me that like we are taking a step backwards here. Modern segregation. If you are not like us, don't think like us than you can't have what we have.

I am not gay but if I were I would want the ability to choose if I wanted to get married.

Because the definition of marriage is this:
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

 

[VanIsle]

And some believe it means a man and his harem (which is the historically correct definition),

I only see a problem if someone forces you to change your relationship. I have no problem with how you define marriage, unless you try and force your definition on me.

Its supposed to be a free country, and what that really boils down to is people are free to do things that bother the hell out of you in their personal lives.

Only in Bountiful in this country do some believe it means a man and all the women he chooses to marry. I guess I should have said I believe in marriage to mean a ceremony between one man and one woman.

 

[tracy]

Because the definition of marriage is this:
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
.

I think his point was that "a man and a woman" is just the current definition of marriage in some cultures. Marriage was originally between a man and however many women he could afford. It's still like that in some societies. It changed to mean one man and one woman. Now it's changed or is changing again. In Canada, the legal definition of marriage now includes gay marriages. The sky hasn't fallen yet, so I don't really see the big deal. How you or I feel about someone else's relationship is irrelevant to their lives I assume.

 

[coldstream]

Well then why restrict marriage to just two people. How about we allow legitimization of congual 'clumps', of however many men and women. Polygamy should not be restricted to one male and a harem, that would be sexist. What right do we have to tell other people what our society distinguishes and honours.. gratify yourself, that's the cardinal rule . With all those other rules gone, why not allow brothers to marry brothers, or fathers marry sons. It's all an individual 'right' isn't it. It all makes as much sense as homosexual marriage. Sodomy is an inalienable human right, our Parliamentarians and Judges have so divined.. but that's just the start of where we can take this. It's a brave new world. :roll:

 

[gerryh]

Well then why restrict marriage to just two people. How about we allow legitimization of congual 'clumps', of however many men and women. Polygamy should not be restricted to one male and a harem, that would be sexist. What right do we have to tell other people what our society distinguishes and honours.. gratify yourself, that's the cardinal rule . With all those other rules gone, why not allow brothers to marry brothers, or fathers marry sons. It's all an individual 'right' isn't it. It all makes as much sense as homosexual marriage. Sodomy is an inalienable human right, our Parliamentarians and Judges have so divined.. but that's just the start of where we can take this. It's a brave new world. :roll:

typical:roll:

 

[Cannuck]

Well then why restrict marriage to just two people. How about we allow legitimization of congual 'clumps', of however many men and women. Polygamy should not be restricted to one male and a harem, that would be sexist. What right do we have to tell other people what our society distinguishes and honours.. gratify yourself, that's the cardinal rule . With all those other rules gone, why not allow brothers to marry brothers, or fathers marry sons. It's all an individual 'right' isn't it. It all makes as much sense as homosexual marriage. Sodomy is an inalienable human right, our Parliamentarians and Judges have so divined.. but that's just the start of where we can take this. It's a brave new world. :roll:

Here's a radical concept. Why don't we just pretend that it's none of the government's business how people choose to live. If 6 people wish to share a house and pool their resources, why is it big brother's concern who, if any of them are bumping uglies?

 

[coldstream]

Here's a radical concept. Why don't we just pretend that it's none of the government's business how people choose to live. If 6 people wish to share a house and pool their resources, why is it big brother's concern who, if any of them are bumping uglies?

Well then why have marriage at all, if its utterly formless in quality. The homosexual community was never really interested in the institution except as a proclomation of the legitimacy of sodomy, so it is they who are most interested in preserving it.

Most homosexuals live solitary lives, especially when they reach middle age. The typical active homosexual's sex life is one of serial prurient encounters, often anonymous. Disease, suicide, depresssion is endemic, about 10% of active homosexuals live into their sixties.

Marriage, except as a political position is completely meaningless in this guise. It hollows out the institution to one of transient gratification, without any real purpose, certainly not the nurturing of children, one of critical social implications.

So should Big Brother be interested in the welfare and happiness of its citizens. Perhaps it can't dictate what people do, but it doesn't have to enshrine and honour such a sad human legacy. One that our civilization... through 2000 years, up until the last 30 years has deemed an abomination.

 

[lone wolf]

Well then why have marriage at all, if its utterly formless in quality. The homosexual community was never really interested in the institution except as a proclomation of the legitimacy of sodomy, so it is they who are most interested in preserving it.

Most homosexuals live solitary lives, especially when they reach middle age. The typical active homosexual's sex life is one of serial prurient encounters, often anonymous. Disease, suicide, depresssion is endemic, about 10% of active homosexuals live into their sixties. Marriage, except as a political position is completely meaningless in this guise. It hollows out the institution to one of transient gratification, without any real purpose, certainly not the nurturing of children, one of critical social implications.

So should Big Brother be interested in the welfare and happiness of its citizens. Perhaps it can't dictate what people do, but it doesn't have to enshrine and honour such a sad human legacy. One that our civilization... through 2000 years, up until the last 30 years has deemed an abomination.

It has more to do with the legal stuff a buddy can't do but a legal next-of-kin can.

 

[Cannuck]

Well then why have marriage at all, if its utterly formless in quality.

Why indeed? It's an institution that has probably served its time. Let's leave the term marriage to the churches if they want it. We can then strike any mention of it from our laws.

The homosexual community was never really interested in the institution except as a proclomation of the legitimacy of sodomy, so it is they who are most interested in preserving it.

You are only half right. They aren't interested in marriage. They do want to be legitimized. Remove the term marriage from the laws and the problem is solved.

Most homosexuals live solitary lives, especially when they reach middle age. The typical active homosexual sexual life is one of serial sexual encounters, often anonymous.

Lucky bastards!!

Disease, suicide, depresssion is endemic, about 10% of active homosexuals live into their sixties.

I'm just dying for you to post a link confirming this.

So should Big Brother be interested in the welfare and happiness of its citizens. Perhaps it can't dictate what people do, but it doesn't have to enshrine and honour such a sad human legacy. One that our civilization... through 2000 years, up until the last 30 years has deemed an abomination.

Only by some. Generally speaking I find those that find homosexuality an "abomination" to be an abomination. I can imagine these same types of discussions occurring when some freak decided that the earth was round.

 

[tracy]

Well then why restrict marriage to just two people. How about we allow legitimization of congual 'clumps', of however many men and women. Polygamy should not be restricted to one male and a harem, that would be sexist. What right do we have to tell other people what our society distinguishes and honours.. gratify yourself, that's the cardinal rule . With all those other rules gone, why not allow brothers to marry brothers, or fathers marry sons. It's all an individual 'right' isn't it. It all makes as much sense as homosexual marriage. Sodomy is an inalienable human right, our Parliamentarians and Judges have so divined.. but that's just the start of where we can take this. It's a brave new world. :roll:

I've always found it ironic that the people who call gays sick are the same ones whose minds automatically go to incest when discussing gay marriage...:roll: It's either that or bestiality.

 

[tracy]

I don't know how anybody could look at her, and then want sex with a man....no matter what their gender.... Wow.

No joke, that's how a friend of mine explained being gay to his brother. He said "you know how you feel when you see a pretty girl? I only feel that way when I see a good looking man".:lol:

I look forward to the day when my gay friends don't have to defend their relationships when they're compared to incest, bestiality, polygamy, etc.

 

[Colpy]

No joke, that's how a friend of mine explained being gay to his brother. He said "you know how you feel when you see a pretty girl? I only feel that way when I see a good looking man".:lol:

I look forward to the day when my gay friends don't have to defend their relationships when they're compared to incest, bestiality, polygamy, etc.

I know.....my brother said almost the same thing to me.......I know, I just don't get it. Thankfully.

 

[Zzarchov]

Only in Bountiful in this country do some believe it means a man and all the women he chooses to marry. I guess I should have said I believe in marriage to mean a ceremony between one man and one woman.

If we are going by "in this country"

Then everywhere do people believe it includes the right of two women or two men to marry each other.

Your argument falls apart because you aren't relying on tradition (which you oppose) nor progressive equality (which is also being opposed).


@ Tracy

More people live in Polygamous societies than are homosexual. I don't really think its fair to use "compare to polygamy" like its an insult of some kind.

while its not your intention, it reminds me of an old South Asian Hindu man I know who complained of discrimination against him and his family, and refused to serve muslims because they were "filthy and they steal"

 

[tracy]

@ Tracy

More people live in Polygamous societies than are homosexual. I don't really think its fair to use "compare to polygamy" like its an insult of some kind.

Polygamous sects in North America are often associated with abuse and the people who compare gay marriages to polygamy are using that. It's meant as an insult so that's how I respond to it. Whether you agree or disagree with polygamy doesn't really matter. When someone says "Yeah, so if we allow gays to marry then are we going to have to allow polygamy, bestiality and incest?" do you think they're referring to polygamy in a positive light? On the same tone, I don't see you defending bestiality or incest. I just take it one further and don't defend polygamy.