Canadians For Equal Marriage

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Canadians For Equal M

You'd give away you best friend? Doesn't sound very friendly to me....;-)

The "better half" says that pod is giving me away into very capable hands. :wink:

 

[peapod]

I am slow I just re-read this thread. You know what really bugs me. The same old boring argument that if you let "gays" marry what next fathers and daughters? barnyard animals? each issue is taken seperately, which would be common sense, but this boring argument is used over and over again.

Omega you said that it concerned you that
Also, to be truthful, we have some deep feelings that gays are despicable and do creepy things to each other, and not in the least what we think of as normal.

I got news for you omega even if they are, so are hetrosexuals. In fact I am sure you will find that it is mostly hetrosexuals that are doing the creepy stuff. :wink:

We are mammals, granted our brain thinks, thinking meat. Homosexuality is in the animal kingdom, so the human species is not alone with homosexuality. The universe is far more queer than you could have ever imagined. The human pattern of bisexuality also appears in animals. This well researched and documented facts. This is a quote from bruce bagemihl.

Lest you are tempted to believe that all of this is highly unusual and well out of the ordinary, you're in for quite a surprise. Homosexual behavior is not only common, but even more common in other species than in humans. While numbers are hard to come by, there are a few that present some interesting patterns. In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality, but among mule deer, bisexuality is more common than homosexuality. Among our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, few if any are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, all that have been observed are exclusively permanently bisexual.
Try reading, Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, by Bruce Bagemihl I will end with some of the things he says in his book.

There's clearly a wide range of homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom. It's widespread, common and impossible to deny or explain away any longer. Homosexuality is natural as green grass in summer, and it's high time we accepted that fact.
The birds do it. It's been described in 130 species of birds. The southeastern blueberry bees do it. Same sex pairs of animals kiss and caress each other with obvious affection and tenderness. Male pairs and female pairs form long-lasting pair-bonds and reject, threaten, even fight off potential opposite sex partners when they are presented with them. Same sex partners engage in almost every conceivable means of sexual expression throughout the animal kingdom.

It's high time we quit criminalizing something that is so normal, so natural, so harmless and so common among animals and recognize that what we call "sodomy" is really quite natural after all.

We're animals. And being animals, we should quit trying to pretend that we're not. What we call a "crime against nature" isn't unnatural, and it shouldn't be a crime.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[TenPenny]

Of course gays should be allowed to marry. They should be able to be miserable and have no sex, too. LOL.

Omega at least clearly states, in reasonable language his/her thoughts. That's more than most people. Note that the definition of marriage used was a "legal bond between a man and woman". So it's a legal issue, and has nothing to do with religion. That's good to see; many people are confused on this matter.

As far as "creepy" sex; I can't for the life of me think of anything that a gay couple could do, that one part of a heterosexual couple couldn't do. Remember: "kinky" means something you personally wouldn't do. Frankly, what business is it of mine what you do or don't do? Unless you are my partner, it doesn't involve or concern me.

 

[Andem]

Thanks very much for posting that peapod. It's something that many people, especially those against same-sex marriage, are not aware of. Homosex is usually referred to as unnatural, yet it's been practiced since recorded time. It's been observed in animals and humans alike. There's no point of me reiterating what you just said, but it's not unnatural and the equal rights issue still stands.

I have no doubt that in a year or maybe two, same-sex couples will be legally allowed to married country-wide. Right now, what is it? 4-6 provinces/territories are allowed to marry? It's honestly hard to keep track as there is a new province on the list every few weeks-couple months

 

[Andem]

Oh.. one other thing regarding legal bond.

If gay people have to follow through with credit card payments, that's a contract. It's between a man and a corporation I say, if gay people don't have the right to get married, then they shouldn't have to pay off their debts It's still a contract.. so if they can't be obliged by a contract of marriage, they shouldn't have to be obliged to follow through with other contracts.

:lol: What an interesting example I've concocted.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canadians For Equal M

Wouldn't that encourage all the gay people to move to Alberta where Ralphie has promised to invoke the not-withstanding clause, Andem?

I mean think about it. Run up your credit cards here in Manitoba with your same-sex spouse, buy a new car, get a mortgage...just get in as deep as you can. Then move to Alberta with all your new stuff and, since Ralphie won't recognise the marriage contract, declare all your debt null and void.

There would be this massive influx of gay people into Alberta and Ralph would go the rest of the way insane. Since most gays and lesbians don't vote for people who abuse them, the Conservatives would lose control of Alberta. It could actually solve a lot of problems.

I think we should push this idea of yours, Andem. ;-)

 

[Omega]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my post.

My intention on bringing up this subject was to make the (mostly) young people on this board aware of the difficulties older folk have with accepting SSM. I knew it would create some criticisms of myself but I need to learn so much...also, I don't intend to argue with you and won't.

Religion doesn't enter into it at all, i.e. I am an agnostic and really don't like religious zealots who try to push their beliefs onto others. I don't believe that if/when SSM is allowed all across Canada it will lead to people marrying their goat. Politicians are spending a lot of time discussing the issue of SSM because it's an emotional issue, like abortion, so of course there are going to be many voices to listen to and try to make their decisions based on what the voters want...otherwise they won't be voted in again.

Re this quote from Cosmo:

The idea that homosexuals are some kind of predatory miscreants is patently absurd. Most pedophiles are heterosexual. I can research that for you if you like and direct you to statistical evidence readily available. The vast majority of homosexuals I know have no interest in “converting” straight people nor interest in sleeping with them, yet a great many men I have met in my life think they had the “cure” for my lesbianism right there in their trousers.

These are not my words, Cosmo, I didn't say that homosexuals are some kind of predatory miscreants because I don't believe that is true.

 

[Cosmo]

RE: Canadians For Equal M

Sorry Omega, I got carried away. I've heard all the arguments and that is one I've heard often. I didn't ascribe it to you, though and didn't mean to imply you had said it.

I think this kind of topic is extremely valuable in a forum setting. This is where it belongs ... not in parliament. To hear what others think, especially when it is different than my own belief, is a way for me to articulate my own beliefs and, at the same time, to examine them. Any belief I hold must be able to withstand scrutiny and people, like you, who hold opposing views help me do that.

Peapod, thanks for the research and for your posting. I've read a lot about homsexuality in the "wild" kingdom and have seen it on the Discovery Channel but when it comes to posting here I'm often too lazy to look up the appropriate supporting research I have previously encountered. I do try to be careful about not stating as fact anything I haven't researched at some time, though.

Omega, I do respect your views although I cannot agree with them. If we all held the same opinions this would be a pretty boring world.

 

[bevvyd]

Letting gays and lesbian marry will not change one thing in my life, why should anyone care is what I wonder about. If swingers or bisexuals or whoever needed a special legal piece of paper to be recognized under the law would you have a problem with them too?

Nobody owns a word. You can own a name but not a word. We've had lots of words edited to include more up-to-date meanings, same with laws.

I also hear the issue about whether the church will marry SSM couples. You know what, after 20 years of marriage I have never ever been asked if I was married in a church or a basement, because it just doesn't matter. So if some churchs wish to not bless these unions, let them not.

 

[Diamond Sun]

Omega/Cosmo thank you so much for posting. It's a treat to see two people with opposing views talking about this subject without it degrading to name calling. I commend you both.

Omega says:

My intention on bringing up this subject was to make the (mostly) young people on this board aware of the difficulties older folk have with accepting SSM. I knew it would create some criticisms of myself but I need to learn so much

It is true that we (young people) forget that it hasn't always been accepted, and it's hard to adapt to changes. My grandmother still thinks that she belongs in the kitchen and cannot believe that I don't cook.

 

[Omega]

Just a few more comments from me,

Cosmo, I respect your point of view too. You are a worthy opponent.

Diamond Sun, thank you too for your understanding and encouragement. You wouldn't believe how many great big changes older people have had to adjust to in our lifetimes, many more than any previous generation has had to, and I think for the most part we do pretty well at it, too. I too am very, very glad that we can discuss these issues without getting nasty with each other.

Bevvyd, this question from you:

If swingers or bisexuals or whoever needed a special legal piece of paper to be recognized under the law would you have a problem with them too?

doesn't make sense to me. Why would swingers or bisexuals etc. need a legal piece of paper to do whatever they do? We are talking about permanent relationships here, not the casual sex your swingers or bisexuals have.

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

If Gay People Are Given Civil Rights, Then Everyone Will Want Them.

You Could Check Here To See If Your Gay
http://www.pair-annoyed.com:9090/!DL/CheckToSeeIfGay.SWF

 

[Mediana]

Re: RE: Canadians For Equal Marriage

One thing I don't get...
Why do the folks who are against this always say, "Sure, I believe in equal rights. Give them the benefits and all, but let them come up with their own name... calling it marriage will destroy family values."

What the heck difference does it make?!?

A huge difference... By altering the definition of marriage advocates of social engineering such as yourself are trying to reinvent language and rewrite history for future generations. Every recorded reference to marriage since the dawn of civilization will be falsely reinterpreted as having been inclusive to homosexuals. That's a bareface lie.

How ironic given that the practice of revisionism in any other context is all too frequently tied to a fascist mindset.

I don't agree with distorting the past to accomodate the future. Do you? Homosexuals should come up another word for same-sex marriages: call it "ssmarriage" or something. Let tradition and the historical record be.

 

[Mediana]

I consider myself happily married, although I don’t have the papers to prove it.

You're not married... but you're happily married? Did it ever occur to you that you are playing with words to the insult of the readership?

My partner and I share every basic tenet of a good and loving relationship.

Which partner would that be... your bridge partner? your business partner? your dance partner? your study partner?

The word "partner" is so broad... whats with this aversion of yours to specific terms like "spouse" or "husband/wife"? Surely if you can misappropriate the word "married" to describe your unwedded relationship, why do you insist on limit yourself to the overly broad word "partner" to describe the one to whom your are "married"?

You could at least call her (assuming its a female) your "life partner" or "domestic partner" or some other PC crystal weenie new age term ...

Your choice of language is disingenous and ambiguous. Why is that?
Do you have a problem with certitude and commitment?

Incidentally, is she your only partner, or do you have others?

No matter what name you put to it, it meets the emotional and commitment criteria of marriage.

Like those nutters who "marry" their dog or horse...

 

[Reverend Blair]

A huge difference... By altering the definition of marriage advocates of social engineering such as yourself are trying to reinvent language and rewrite history for future generations.

Bull puckey. Women can vote now, but we all know they didn;t used to be able to. By throwing up such false obstacles you are being less than truthful.

Every recorded reference to marriage since the dawn of civilization will be falsely reinterpreted as having been inclusive to homosexuals.

No. There is no reason to think so. When somebody hears about travel in the eighteenth century they don't think of airplanes.

Homosexuals should come up another word for same-sex marriages: call it "ssmarriage" or something.

Let the ultra-religious come up with their own word. The word marriage belongs to everybody.

Like those nutters who "marry" their dog or horse...

Is this an attempt to duhumanize a segment of our society or just a disply of ignorance?

You're not married... but you're happily married? Did it ever occur to you that you are playing with words to the insult of the readership?

I considered myself married before we got the official paperwork.

The only reason I didn't edit this entire attack is so that your ignorance and intolerance will remain on display, Mediana.

 

[peapod]

Where does this come from? I seriously would like to know. What is the obsession with someones sexual preferances. Sexuality is only a small part of the whole of a person. And its something private and personal. I do not understand really why it matters. Does it mean that this person is a liar, a cheat, does it mean this person will harm me? does it mean this person cannot be trusted on any level? Why does this small aspect of someone matter so much. And if it did not matter, than there would be something else. Its human nature.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

Definitions can change. Same goes for marriage. Whether a family is better with a father and a mother: it depends. I adressed this to my Antropology teacher, and he said that it is true that children need a male and a female rolemodel; but he also said that in our open society, there are individuals besides a mother or a father who can act as rolemodels too: through the television, Internet, but also through "traditional" examples as aunts and uncles, neighbors, or teachers.

But as I said: definitions can change. Nowadays, the Roman Catholic Church is considered pro-life, anti-abortion (yes, a whole different subject ...) We assume that has always been so. Wrong. What few people know is that up until the beginning of the 19th century, the Roman Catholic Church had no real problems with abortion, but through certain events, pressure from traditionalists etc. , the Church redefined their statement and began to oppose abortion. Same goes for definitions about non-Western cultures, which were initially seen as totally barbaric and primitive, but have gained respect the last decades.

There are numerous examples.

 

[peapod]

that is interesting ricky. PBS does very wonderful programs on the history of religion. Only by trying to educate yourself can you really begin to understand the real picture.

Change for many people is the biggest fear of all.

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

True.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Where does this come from? I seriously would like to know.

Like most unfounded judgements and hatreds it comes from fear and purposeful misunderstanding.