Canadians For Equal Marriage

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Canadians For Equal Marriage

Cosmo...
Now that SSMs are legal pretty much everywhere in Canada, we can move on to phase II of the Master Plan.

There's this really cute mallard I've got my eye on, but he won't settle for anything less than marriage. So if you ever decide to make an honest woman out of your ol' lady, and you find yourself with some time on your hands, perhaps you can join me in my new cause. I'm thinking protests, sit-ins, parades.....

You mean you've figured it out?? Have you been talking to Mediana's buddies behind our backs to learn the finer points of animal marriages?? Personally, I was a bit scared of the duck ... humans aren't the only mammals you can't always trust in intimate places

But ok ... count me in. I've got these cool spike heel ducky boots I can wear. Shall we include a little S&M as well since I do have the leather and various accoutrements? I could loan you a spike collar you can wear and have your new marllard friend lead you around?

 

[LadyC]

Tough to post a reply when I can't see the screen through tears of laughter!

On a totally unrelated note... how many more unsuspecting "breeders" do you have to sign up before you earn the food processor, Cosmo? I was thinking it would make a lovely wedding gift...

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Canadians For Equal Marriage

Tough to post a reply when I can't see the screen through tears of laughter!

On a totally unrelated note... how many more unsuspecting "breeders" do you have to sign up before you earn the food processor, Cosmo? I was thinking it would make a lovely wedding gift...

Actually, LadyC, it's a toaster oven. I had to ask "my old lady" how many conversions you need before you get the prize and she insists it's only one. I think that's too easy. But maybe farm animals upgrade you to food processors???

 

[LadyC]

Nah - farm animals are pretty happy for any extra attention, so they're not worth as many points as, say, a principled conservative.

Hmmm... Principled Conservative. Notice they're the only ones who seem to feel a need to make the distinction?

 

[Mediana]

There Mediana...I even answered the off-topic red herrings and straw man theories you tossed in. Happy?

If anybody is quilty of tossing in a red herring, it is you.

Have a look at LadyC's original question.

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?!?

Note how the issue, as you yourself put it, of "gays having the same rights as the rest of us" is not what's in dispute; rather it is whether or not those rights should extend to altering the tranditional definition of the word "marriage".

I say let them find another word to define their union. Such is the case in France, where the word "pacsage" has been adopted to define non-traditional unions.

 

[LadyC]

Mediana...
But why should they have to find their own word when a perfectly good word already exists? I wanted to be married, I like the idea of marriage... I don't think I'd feel any differently if I were gay.

Remember the old saying - if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck - chances are good it is a duck.

I think the same logic applies here.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Note how the issue, as you yourself put it, of "gays having the same rights as the rest of us" is not what's in dispute; rather it is whether or not those rights should extend to altering the tranditional definition of the word "marriage".

If they have the same rights then they can do the same things. People get married. It isn't altering the traditional meaning at all because that meaning still remains. It is just expanding that meaning to be more inclusive.

Don't worry, Mediana...we won't make you marry somebody with the same parts you already have.

 

[peapod]

Medina who do you think you are kidding, its not the word "marriage" that bothers you. That is so lame, another boring argument, but that is just my opinion of course. Its just another way of dancing around what is really going on inside your head.

Please just look at the good book. They had polygomy, male and female slaves, my favorite is it was ok to screw your brother in law if your husband was dead, if you did not have childern. And even tho the good book says homosexuality is naughty and not nice (Christmas spirit there :wink: ) where does it say they could not marry?
I could actually pity people like you, if was not for your hate mongering. What a place this world would be if love was defined by your narrow presceptive.
You and other have no power, life evolves and changes, you cannot stop it, and frankly I am glad it does, I did not like my brother in law, and I don't have childern, the idea of screwing him I personally would find "morally wrong" just my morals tho :wink:

Cheers and beers
Peapod

 

[Mediana]

Medinia the only thing dangerous around here is your narrow mind.

Actually, focused intellect would be a more appropriate term.

You are intelligent, what a shame. I suppose you dismiss science as well.

On the contrary. I greatly value science since it is a body of knowledge which serves to bolster my argument.

I suggest you read steven pinker. He is a expert. But your line of thinking is "regardless of the facts", its what make you dangerous.

And what would those facts be? The fact that the institution of marriage is the intellectual manifestation of a biological imperative to find a mate and reproduce? The fact that homosexuals can only hope to parody marriage given that it is biologically impossible for them to "mate" with their same-sex "mate"? Hard to argue against science...

Try opening your mind and actually thinking for once instead of blathering on about your morality, which is bankrupt as far as I can see.

You cite Pinker as your champion, but you fail to grasp that his ideas on biological determinism run contrary to your view of humans as unfettered beings.

Pinker once said: "The skill of being a good liar is to weave an occasional lie into a largely truthful matrix, so people won't simply write you off as not worth paying attention to."

That's exactly what you weenies have done by promoting the notion that marriage is whatever you want it to be.

Also I have always found in life those who do blather on and on about their morals, usually when the "test" comes and it usually does, really don't have what you would call "the right stuff".

So glad to disappoint you. My marriage vow is intact and my "right stuff" is doing great and still going strong.

 

[Mediana]

Re: RE: Canadians For Equal Marriage

Mediana...
But why should they have to find their own word when a perfectly good word already exists?

Because they can do a better job of fulfilling their needs and expectations with a new word instead of dissociating an established word from its biological, historical, traditional and pan-cultural roots.

I wanted to be married, I like the idea of marriage... I don't think I'd feel any differently if I were gay.

You would think and act differently. For starters, your attitude towards "breeders" and the dominant straight culture as a whole would be different.

Remember the old saying - if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck - chances are good it is a duck.

I think the same logic applies here.

And if it looks like a swan, sounds like a goose and walks like a heron - simply change the definition of a duck accordinly to match, right?

 

[peapod]

Top 12 reasons why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespan.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

murphy...sorry I mean medina...I am not arguing with you anymore, from now on I am going to send monty python in to answer you...oh by the way do you know which memeber of the monty python group was "gay"...

 

[Rick van Opbergen]

All peapod?

 

[Mediana]

murphy...sorry I mean medina...I am not arguing with you anymore, from now on I am going to send monty python in to answer you...oh by the way do you know which memeber of the monty python group was "gay"...

Alas, poor peabrain... sorry I mean peapod... your parting words speak to your shallow egotism. Do you not know what it is to debate? Obviously not since you persists in deluding yourself you have the power to dictate the terms of an open debate.
You see, in a debate you are supposed to respect your opponents right to formulate arguments and counter-arguments. Instead you've gone out of your way without cause to depict any opinion or observation contrary to your own as being ignorant, malicious and hateful.
Fortunately for me and sadly for you, this is an open forum where people need not acquiesce to the tyranical devices of political correctness.

You deserve zero marks for style and only half marks for substance.

I look forward to the Monty Python.

 

[LadyC]

Mediana....
Your entire post smacked of personal attack. I guess that means you don't know what it is to debate either, eh?


I look forward to her Monty Python, too. Maybe that's because I understand why she posts it.

 

[peapod]

Picture this if you can:

The setting: a mental hospital in Portland, Oregon, in the 1950s. The
terrified, ill-treated inmates cower under the evil Nurse medinia, who is
all-seeing, all-controlling. Enter the hero, Peapod Patrick McMurphy, a
brawling, loud mouth lumberjack who, is there to induce a revolution. The
slowly escalating conflict is played out in a simple four-part structure,
building towards an inevitable and moving climax. "One Flew Over the
canadian content Nest" is narrated in the first person by Reverend Blair ,
a half-Indian thought by all to be deaf-mute, and his extended flashback of
events allows 007 to mix reality and hallucinations to brilliant effect. By
presenting the mental hospital, explicitly, as a microcosm of broader
society, 007 urges us to consider our own lives in the light of the events
he describes.

Its simple structure belies the fact that "One Flew Over the canadian
content Nest" is a feast of allegory: of good versus evil, man versus
machine, sexual freedom versus repression; of McMurphy himself as humorously
subversive Christ figure, as bringer of fertility, and many more - and watch
out for the white whale shorts and stuttering ricky, "Faulknerian brain
burning", and even some hidden rhymes at the end of part 3!
I am always the hero in my movies, but I seriously doubt that you consider
McMurphy a hero, no I am pretty sure
you consider nurse rachett the real hero. But would it not be scary if you
did think McMurphy was the hero, I mean
that would be scary right

 

[Andem]

Ok, well let's keep this thread on topic and off of the ranting at each other.

Mediana, onto the debate. Peapod's post, although toned by a bit of sarcasm, did bring up some very valid points like:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

Actually, most of the points had very valid points behind them.

 

[Cosmo]

RE: Canadians For Equal M

Mediana ... Peapod just phoned me and is terribly upset. I had to courier over a couple valium for the pod! She says your comment about giving her half marks for substance are completely wrong. She says she has absolutely NO substance and finds your characterization unfounded and inaccurate.

And Peapod ... I, too, am crushed. What is my role in the "One Flew Over the canadian content Nest"?? Surely I must play some part in this drama. Can I be Candy Starr? She's definitely got the best shoes in the entire film!! I also nominate Paco for the role of Doctor Spivey, a morphine addict who is blackmailed by Ratched to acknowledge her authority.

And, as a side note, you are the perfect Peapod McMurphy. You even have the smile down pat!!

 

[peapod]

Yes thank you candy starr...giving me substance was totally uncalled for, it is hitting below the belt. Thank you for the valium, I shall recover now....a lobotomy is not required at this time.

And yes you are very correct I am Peapod McMurphy...I have the grin, the toque, and I can raise my eyebrows with a sly grin to..

Vintery, mintery, cutery, corn,
Apple seed and apple thorn;
Wire, briar, limber lock,
Three geese in a flock.
One flew east,
And one flew west,
And one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

 

[aupook]

So this is what peapod was ranting about. I have no problem with gay people, as long as they pay for lunch.

PS They do like me, but they can't afford me.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canadians For Equal M

Peapod was ranting? No!

You should make her buy you lunch. :lol: