Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

[Reverend Blair]

It is simply our understanding of marriage.

No. If that was the case there would be no divorce, all married couples would have large families, and I would have a coherent understanding of who many of my relatives are.

It is simply our understanding of marriage. Why is the word so "marriage" important to SS couples?

Why is it so important to you?

Like the Lesbian in the earlier post said, SS relationships are different so why should they be called the same as heter unions?

Because some lesbians want to recognised as being equal to their friends who married men. There are legal, moral, and personal implications. Meanwhile it doesn't actually harm anybody else. The lesbian in the earlier post, let's call her Eleanor Brown just because she has a name other than "lesbian", isn't being forced to get married. She can choose not to, there is nothing stopping her. her compliant is really that she doesn't want to get married and this debate is complicating her life. As a result she wishes it would go away.

It isn't about people being the same, everybody is different. It is about people having the same rights because, in spite of their differences, they are equal.

 

[Reverend Blair]

It is simply our understanding of marriage.

No. If that was the case there would be no divorce, all married couples would have large families, and I would have a coherent understanding of who many of my relatives are.

It is simply our understanding of marriage. Why is the word so "marriage" important to SS couples?

Why is it so important to you?

Like the Lesbian in the earlier post said, SS relationships are different so why should they be called the same as heter unions?

Because some lesbians want to recognised as being equal to their friends who married men. There are legal, moral, and personal implications. Meanwhile it doesn't actually harm anybody else. The lesbian in the earlier post, let's call her Eleanor Brown just because she has a name other than "lesbian", isn't being forced to get married. She can choose not to, there is nothing stopping her. her compliant is really that she doesn't want to get married and this debate is complicating her life. As a result she wishes it would go away.

It isn't about people being the same, everybody is different. It is about people having the same rights because, in spite of their differences, they are equal.

 

[Reverend Blair]

It is simply our understanding of marriage.

No. If that was the case there would be no divorce, all married couples would have large families, and I would have a coherent understanding of who many of my relatives are.

It is simply our understanding of marriage. Why is the word so "marriage" important to SS couples?

Why is it so important to you?

Like the Lesbian in the earlier post said, SS relationships are different so why should they be called the same as heter unions?

Because some lesbians want to recognised as being equal to their friends who married men. There are legal, moral, and personal implications. Meanwhile it doesn't actually harm anybody else. The lesbian in the earlier post, let's call her Eleanor Brown just because she has a name other than "lesbian", isn't being forced to get married. She can choose not to, there is nothing stopping her. her compliant is really that she doesn't want to get married and this debate is complicating her life. As a result she wishes it would go away.

It isn't about people being the same, everybody is different. It is about people having the same rights because, in spite of their differences, they are equal.

 

[tibear]

RB,

Quote:
It is simply our understanding of marriage.


No. If that was the case there would be no divorce, all married couples would have large families, and I would have a coherent understanding of who many of my relatives are.

What now your going to tell me what I think???

 

[tibear]

RB,

Quote:
It is simply our understanding of marriage.


No. If that was the case there would be no divorce, all married couples would have large families, and I would have a coherent understanding of who many of my relatives are.

What now your going to tell me what I think???

 

[tibear]

RB,

Quote:
It is simply our understanding of marriage.


No. If that was the case there would be no divorce, all married couples would have large families, and I would have a coherent understanding of who many of my relatives are.

What now your going to tell me what I think???

 

[zenfisher]

I.

The SS couples may have loving, caring relationships however, no matter what they do, their unions will never produce children. It can't.

This is why many people would like the SS couples to have something other than marriage. Call it something else because it is something else.

So....following your logic to its conclusion...hetro couples that cannot or will not have children ,shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

 

[zenfisher]

I.

The SS couples may have loving, caring relationships however, no matter what they do, their unions will never produce children. It can't.

This is why many people would like the SS couples to have something other than marriage. Call it something else because it is something else.

So....following your logic to its conclusion...hetro couples that cannot or will not have children ,shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

 

[zenfisher]

I.

The SS couples may have loving, caring relationships however, no matter what they do, their unions will never produce children. It can't.

This is why many people would like the SS couples to have something other than marriage. Call it something else because it is something else.

So....following your logic to its conclusion...hetro couples that cannot or will not have children ,shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

 

[tibear]

zen,

Please reread my post.

It says, that if everything was normal, the couple had no health issues that prevent children and the couple took no steps to prevent children that the natural outcome of their union is children. That is the basic difference between the traditional definition of marriage and the new definition that the Liberals are trying to pass.

Even if a couple can't or chooses not to have children, it doesn't change the fact that their union under ideal conditions would produce children.

 

[tibear]

zen,

Please reread my post.

It says, that if everything was normal, the couple had no health issues that prevent children and the couple took no steps to prevent children that the natural outcome of their union is children. That is the basic difference between the traditional definition of marriage and the new definition that the Liberals are trying to pass.

Even if a couple can't or chooses not to have children, it doesn't change the fact that their union under ideal conditions would produce children.

 

[tibear]

zen,

Please reread my post.

It says, that if everything was normal, the couple had no health issues that prevent children and the couple took no steps to prevent children that the natural outcome of their union is children. That is the basic difference between the traditional definition of marriage and the new definition that the Liberals are trying to pass.

Even if a couple can't or chooses not to have children, it doesn't change the fact that their union under ideal conditions would produce children.

 

[zenfisher]

Yes, but follow your logic... If you have to call it something other than marriage for same sex couples.... it stands to reason that any couple not bearing children would have to be called the same thing.Your now creating an unequal( two tiered) state of marriage in Canada. That flies in the face of everyone being equal. Your looking at this as a moral issue, when in fact it is just a matter of equality and fairness.

 

[zenfisher]

Yes, but follow your logic... If you have to call it something other than marriage for same sex couples.... it stands to reason that any couple not bearing children would have to be called the same thing.Your now creating an unequal( two tiered) state of marriage in Canada. That flies in the face of everyone being equal. Your looking at this as a moral issue, when in fact it is just a matter of equality and fairness.

 

[zenfisher]

Yes, but follow your logic... If you have to call it something other than marriage for same sex couples.... it stands to reason that any couple not bearing children would have to be called the same thing.Your now creating an unequal( two tiered) state of marriage in Canada. That flies in the face of everyone being equal. Your looking at this as a moral issue, when in fact it is just a matter of equality and fairness.

 

[tibear]

zen,

Its not "unequal".

Any heterosexual couple that marries has the ability to bear children, if the circumstances were correct.

I'm not saying that 60 year olds getting married have to have children but if those two people were 20 and healthy and took no steps to prevent pregnancy, their union would produce children.

So I'm consistent, every heterosexual marriage will produce children under normal circumstances.

 

[tibear]

zen,

Its not "unequal".

Any heterosexual couple that marries has the ability to bear children, if the circumstances were correct.

I'm not saying that 60 year olds getting married have to have children but if those two people were 20 and healthy and took no steps to prevent pregnancy, their union would produce children.

So I'm consistent, every heterosexual marriage will produce children under normal circumstances.

 

[tibear]

zen,

Its not "unequal".

Any heterosexual couple that marries has the ability to bear children, if the circumstances were correct.

I'm not saying that 60 year olds getting married have to have children but if those two people were 20 and healthy and took no steps to prevent pregnancy, their union would produce children.

So I'm consistent, every heterosexual marriage will produce children under normal circumstances.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Even if a couple can't or chooses not to have children, it doesn't change the fact that their union under ideal conditions would produce children.

Under ideal conditions I'd be living in an Woody Guthrie tune called Big Rock Candy Mountain. Turns out that my knees aren't quite solid enough to be a hobo though. Who knew?

Having been raised in the Catholic tradition I can tell you that pregnacy and marriage have nothing to do with each other. Having been raised around farm animals I can tell you that preganacy and sex are only nominally related. Having had sex more than once I can tell you that there are other reasons for participating in what you would likely term "fornication" than creating children. Having been married for a decade and a half I can tell you that neither procreation or sex have a whole lot to do with any of that.

Marriage is an official agreement between two people to take a chance on each other. No more, no less. It has nothing to do with which part fits where or the creation of children.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Even if a couple can't or chooses not to have children, it doesn't change the fact that their union under ideal conditions would produce children.

Under ideal conditions I'd be living in an Woody Guthrie tune called Big Rock Candy Mountain. Turns out that my knees aren't quite solid enough to be a hobo though. Who knew?

Having been raised in the Catholic tradition I can tell you that pregnacy and marriage have nothing to do with each other. Having been raised around farm animals I can tell you that preganacy and sex are only nominally related. Having had sex more than once I can tell you that there are other reasons for participating in what you would likely term "fornication" than creating children. Having been married for a decade and a half I can tell you that neither procreation or sex have a whole lot to do with any of that.

Marriage is an official agreement between two people to take a chance on each other. No more, no less. It has nothing to do with which part fits where or the creation of children.