Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

[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.

 

[SirKevin]

tibear, maybe you have already addressed this, so I might just be jumping in here looking silly in which case I apologize, but -

Your defintion of marriage includes the [natural] ability to procreate, which is fair enough.

The problem is, why is that what you want applied legislatively?

I guess, essentially, the issue boils down to why can't a same sex couple who obviously have a different definition of marriage than you still have a marriage? This is your own personal morality, and legislating personal morality is quite dangerous.

 

[SirKevin]

tibear, maybe you have already addressed this, so I might just be jumping in here looking silly in which case I apologize, but -

Your defintion of marriage includes the [natural] ability to procreate, which is fair enough.

The problem is, why is that what you want applied legislatively?

I guess, essentially, the issue boils down to why can't a same sex couple who obviously have a different definition of marriage than you still have a marriage? This is your own personal morality, and legislating personal morality is quite dangerous.

 

[SirKevin]

tibear, maybe you have already addressed this, so I might just be jumping in here looking silly in which case I apologize, but -

Your defintion of marriage includes the [natural] ability to procreate, which is fair enough.

The problem is, why is that what you want applied legislatively?

I guess, essentially, the issue boils down to why can't a same sex couple who obviously have a different definition of marriage than you still have a marriage? This is your own personal morality, and legislating personal morality is quite dangerous.

 

[tibear]

RB,

By your defintion your are correct. Unfortunately, many Canadians don't share your view.

That's the problem. It is a very divisive issue. Another abortion issue.

SK,

Call the union something else and you would probably have much greater support.

Your also right that some people think this is immoral and the point I've been trying to make is that very few people believe in not have some moral boundary on sexual relationships. What makes this the "right" line??

 

[tibear]

RB,

By your defintion your are correct. Unfortunately, many Canadians don't share your view.

That's the problem. It is a very divisive issue. Another abortion issue.

SK,

Call the union something else and you would probably have much greater support.

Your also right that some people think this is immoral and the point I've been trying to make is that very few people believe in not have some moral boundary on sexual relationships. What makes this the "right" line??

 

[tibear]

RB,

By your defintion your are correct. Unfortunately, many Canadians don't share your view.

That's the problem. It is a very divisive issue. Another abortion issue.

SK,

Call the union something else and you would probably have much greater support.

Your also right that some people think this is immoral and the point I've been trying to make is that very few people believe in not have some moral boundary on sexual relationships. What makes this the "right" line??

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

Call the union something else and you would probably have much greater support.

Erm, why do issues of equality need support?

Your also right that some people think this is immoral and the point I've been trying to make is that very few people believe in not have some moral boundary on sexual relationships. What makes this the "right" line??

Well again I'm compelled to point out that what "very few people" and "most people" think on this issue does not matter.

What makes this the right line? Why does there have to be a line? Can't we just address things situation to situation and be socially aware of what is going on around us, and what is needed?

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

Call the union something else and you would probably have much greater support.

Erm, why do issues of equality need support?

Your also right that some people think this is immoral and the point I've been trying to make is that very few people believe in not have some moral boundary on sexual relationships. What makes this the "right" line??

Well again I'm compelled to point out that what "very few people" and "most people" think on this issue does not matter.

What makes this the right line? Why does there have to be a line? Can't we just address things situation to situation and be socially aware of what is going on around us, and what is needed?

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

Call the union something else and you would probably have much greater support.

Erm, why do issues of equality need support?

Your also right that some people think this is immoral and the point I've been trying to make is that very few people believe in not have some moral boundary on sexual relationships. What makes this the "right" line??

Well again I'm compelled to point out that what "very few people" and "most people" think on this issue does not matter.

What makes this the right line? Why does there have to be a line? Can't we just address things situation to situation and be socially aware of what is going on around us, and what is needed?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

My view is that many Canadians don't have to share my view, just quit trying to shove their view down my throat. Considering that most gay men are on my side, you should be happy with that. You wouldn't want them to start playing tit for tat, would you? ;-)

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

My view is that many Canadians don't have to share my view, just quit trying to shove their view down my throat. Considering that most gay men are on my side, you should be happy with that. You wouldn't want them to start playing tit for tat, would you? ;-)

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper says he'll pro

My view is that many Canadians don't have to share my view, just quit trying to shove their view down my throat. Considering that most gay men are on my side, you should be happy with that. You wouldn't want them to start playing tit for tat, would you? ;-)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

tibear,

Why don't you just admit that you are an **edited name calling**, and then we can all get on with playing those crazy forum games that Peapod dreams up...

...because SSM is a no-brainer...the fact that it will pass has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with equality...

...and marriage has little to do with tossing a penis into a vagina to inseminate the ovum...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

tibear,

Why don't you just admit that you are an **edited name calling**, and then we can all get on with playing those crazy forum games that Peapod dreams up...

...because SSM is a no-brainer...the fact that it will pass has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with equality...

...and marriage has little to do with tossing a penis into a vagina to inseminate the ovum...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

tibear,

Why don't you just admit that you are an **edited name calling**, and then we can all get on with playing those crazy forum games that Peapod dreams up...

...because SSM is a no-brainer...the fact that it will pass has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with equality...

...and marriage has little to do with tossing a penis into a vagina to inseminate the ovum...

 

[tibear]

Vanni,

If you don't mind, please give me your "ideal" definition of marriage. Please be precise and ensure it has no moral teaching being "rammed down people's throats".

 

[tibear]

Vanni,

If you don't mind, please give me your "ideal" definition of marriage. Please be precise and ensure it has no moral teaching being "rammed down people's throats".

 

[tibear]

Vanni,

If you don't mind, please give me your "ideal" definition of marriage. Please be precise and ensure it has no moral teaching being "rammed down people's throats".

 

[peapod]

I really like the part where they say most canadians...again no idea how the majority of canadians feel :roll: It will be the will of the people and I think they have said how they feel, nothing any "neo" conservative spews is going to change that. I guess this is going to go on for 210 days eh? this is what they are good at :wink: well maybe we will have to vote closure.. , but hey lets give them 210 days.