Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

[Gabre34]

Can you people stop making such a fuss about it please.


The fact is that SSM will pass and it'll be allowed. Period.

I strongly oppose to it, but what makes this country one-of-a-kind is the voice of the people: How it makes such tremendous influence on the government.

So if the people want to legalize SSM, let it be. We can't change anything to it. As I said, I am strongly opposed to all of it but if it's what the people want, I don't mind. If the people wouldn't want it, they wouldn't vote "for". But they will. BIG DEAL. Just suck it up.

Gabre34

 

[tibear]

Cosmo,

You, I can respect. Your consistent in your arguement. In all circumstances you believe that adults should be allow to marry in any configuration.

The problem I have is when people use moral arguements to deny marriage to certain people but scream blue murder when others use moral arguements against SSM.

 

[tibear]

Cosmo,

You, I can respect. Your consistent in your arguement. In all circumstances you believe that adults should be allow to marry in any configuration.

The problem I have is when people use moral arguements to deny marriage to certain people but scream blue murder when others use moral arguements against SSM.

 

[tibear]

Cosmo,

You, I can respect. Your consistent in your arguement. In all circumstances you believe that adults should be allow to marry in any configuration.

The problem I have is when people use moral arguements to deny marriage to certain people but scream blue murder when others use moral arguements against SSM.

 

[Cosmo]

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

Cosmo,

You, I can respect. Your consistent in your arguement. In all circumstances you believe that adults should be allow to marry in any configuration.

The problem I have is when people use moral arguements to deny marriage to certain people but scream blue murder when others use moral arguements against SSM.

Well, thanks, tibear ... although I cannot take too much credit here. This is one issue where I happen to agree with your sentiments that using moral arguments is inappropriate (if that is, indeed, what you meant).

To quote Peapod, though, I too contain "multitudes". I am a person of contradictions. Some of my beliefs would certainly not follow your logic. I am comfortable living with disparate perspectives and would undoubtedly be unable to explain their logic to your satisfaction. In the end, though, it is I who live with my convictions. While I often enjoy a good debate, it's all for fun and not in any attempt to influence how others think. Usually, at any rate.

The exception is when issues directly affect my life, as does SSM. Some of the arguments presented here got on my last nerve, thus the earlier tirade.

Now, just to stir things up, I must post something I came across recently. Made me stop and think a bit. Written by Eleanor Brown, a writer who happens to also be lesbian:

"I wanted gay marriage to be banned in Canada. I refused to watch the House of Commons debate on the opposition party-introduced motion that marriage be restricted to a union of two people of the opposite sex. The "discussion" would be filled with earnest friends-of-homosexuals sighing and calling for teary tolerance and mass hugging.

The debate would be filled with politicians who'd already made up their minds, arguing for the cameras. With nobody actually listening to each other. For true equality, they would blubber (because some of their best friends have been discriminated against), marriage must include same-sex unions.

Most importantly, I knew that what I really wanted to hear would not surface. I wanted to hear supporters and allies of gay and lesbian people talk about the importance of nurturing a nascent gay and lesbian culture. I wanted to hear about the importance of diversity and tolerance in Canada, placed squarely in the context of valuing difference. Accepting that forcing everyone into the same mainstream mold is not what multiculturalism is truly about. I wanted a gay perspective that cheerily announced that marriage is a hetero cultural institution -- and heteros can keep it.

I wanted politicians to vote to keep marriage heterosexual as a way of giving us the right to be different, of celebrating who are."

Gotta admit she has a point. Rather than accepting the diversity, the politicans are more comfortable assimilating gay culture into the heterosexual mold. Shades of Borg? I don't know. But it is worth thinking about. It won't stop me from going ahead and getting married, but it does raise some questions for me.

 

[Cosmo]

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

Cosmo,

You, I can respect. Your consistent in your arguement. In all circumstances you believe that adults should be allow to marry in any configuration.

The problem I have is when people use moral arguements to deny marriage to certain people but scream blue murder when others use moral arguements against SSM.

Well, thanks, tibear ... although I cannot take too much credit here. This is one issue where I happen to agree with your sentiments that using moral arguments is inappropriate (if that is, indeed, what you meant).

To quote Peapod, though, I too contain "multitudes". I am a person of contradictions. Some of my beliefs would certainly not follow your logic. I am comfortable living with disparate perspectives and would undoubtedly be unable to explain their logic to your satisfaction. In the end, though, it is I who live with my convictions. While I often enjoy a good debate, it's all for fun and not in any attempt to influence how others think. Usually, at any rate.

The exception is when issues directly affect my life, as does SSM. Some of the arguments presented here got on my last nerve, thus the earlier tirade.

Now, just to stir things up, I must post something I came across recently. Made me stop and think a bit. Written by Eleanor Brown, a writer who happens to also be lesbian:

"I wanted gay marriage to be banned in Canada. I refused to watch the House of Commons debate on the opposition party-introduced motion that marriage be restricted to a union of two people of the opposite sex. The "discussion" would be filled with earnest friends-of-homosexuals sighing and calling for teary tolerance and mass hugging.

The debate would be filled with politicians who'd already made up their minds, arguing for the cameras. With nobody actually listening to each other. For true equality, they would blubber (because some of their best friends have been discriminated against), marriage must include same-sex unions.

Most importantly, I knew that what I really wanted to hear would not surface. I wanted to hear supporters and allies of gay and lesbian people talk about the importance of nurturing a nascent gay and lesbian culture. I wanted to hear about the importance of diversity and tolerance in Canada, placed squarely in the context of valuing difference. Accepting that forcing everyone into the same mainstream mold is not what multiculturalism is truly about. I wanted a gay perspective that cheerily announced that marriage is a hetero cultural institution -- and heteros can keep it.

I wanted politicians to vote to keep marriage heterosexual as a way of giving us the right to be different, of celebrating who are."

Gotta admit she has a point. Rather than accepting the diversity, the politicans are more comfortable assimilating gay culture into the heterosexual mold. Shades of Borg? I don't know. But it is worth thinking about. It won't stop me from going ahead and getting married, but it does raise some questions for me.

 

[Cosmo]

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

Cosmo,

You, I can respect. Your consistent in your arguement. In all circumstances you believe that adults should be allow to marry in any configuration.

The problem I have is when people use moral arguements to deny marriage to certain people but scream blue murder when others use moral arguements against SSM.

Well, thanks, tibear ... although I cannot take too much credit here. This is one issue where I happen to agree with your sentiments that using moral arguments is inappropriate (if that is, indeed, what you meant).

To quote Peapod, though, I too contain "multitudes". I am a person of contradictions. Some of my beliefs would certainly not follow your logic. I am comfortable living with disparate perspectives and would undoubtedly be unable to explain their logic to your satisfaction. In the end, though, it is I who live with my convictions. While I often enjoy a good debate, it's all for fun and not in any attempt to influence how others think. Usually, at any rate.

The exception is when issues directly affect my life, as does SSM. Some of the arguments presented here got on my last nerve, thus the earlier tirade.

Now, just to stir things up, I must post something I came across recently. Made me stop and think a bit. Written by Eleanor Brown, a writer who happens to also be lesbian:

"I wanted gay marriage to be banned in Canada. I refused to watch the House of Commons debate on the opposition party-introduced motion that marriage be restricted to a union of two people of the opposite sex. The "discussion" would be filled with earnest friends-of-homosexuals sighing and calling for teary tolerance and mass hugging.

The debate would be filled with politicians who'd already made up their minds, arguing for the cameras. With nobody actually listening to each other. For true equality, they would blubber (because some of their best friends have been discriminated against), marriage must include same-sex unions.

Most importantly, I knew that what I really wanted to hear would not surface. I wanted to hear supporters and allies of gay and lesbian people talk about the importance of nurturing a nascent gay and lesbian culture. I wanted to hear about the importance of diversity and tolerance in Canada, placed squarely in the context of valuing difference. Accepting that forcing everyone into the same mainstream mold is not what multiculturalism is truly about. I wanted a gay perspective that cheerily announced that marriage is a hetero cultural institution -- and heteros can keep it.

I wanted politicians to vote to keep marriage heterosexual as a way of giving us the right to be different, of celebrating who are."

Gotta admit she has a point. Rather than accepting the diversity, the politicans are more comfortable assimilating gay culture into the heterosexual mold. Shades of Borg? I don't know. But it is worth thinking about. It won't stop me from going ahead and getting married, but it does raise some questions for me.

 

[tibear]

Cosmo,

I know that many people don't agree, but my position is that "marriage" and children are implicitly tied together. I'm not being smart or trying to push down your relationships but trying to put forward my beliefs that hetersexual and homosexual relationships are different.

Let me explain. I understand that many couples that marry don't have children, either they can't for medical reasons or simply choose not to have them. However, my believe, which is shared by many others is that the natural outcome of every marriage is children.

By using the word natural, I'm saying that if every heterosexual couple that got married were: medically able to have children and not took steps to prevent having children the outcome of their relationship would be children. A couple of examples, two 60 year olds get married, probably beyond her childbearing years, however if that same couple were 20 instead of 60 their union would have children. A couple who use artificial birth control, if they stop using birth control then their relationship would similaryly produce children.

I will agree that marriage is much more than just child producing, it is a loving relationship of two people supporting each other in good and bad times. Yes, many people still have a marriage even if they don't have children. However, having said all of that, theirs is a marriage because they are man and woman and if everything was natural their union would produce offspring.

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.

 

[tibear]

Cosmo,

I know that many people don't agree, but my position is that "marriage" and children are implicitly tied together. I'm not being smart or trying to push down your relationships but trying to put forward my beliefs that hetersexual and homosexual relationships are different.

Let me explain. I understand that many couples that marry don't have children, either they can't for medical reasons or simply choose not to have them. However, my believe, which is shared by many others is that the natural outcome of every marriage is children.

By using the word natural, I'm saying that if every heterosexual couple that got married were: medically able to have children and not took steps to prevent having children the outcome of their relationship would be children. A couple of examples, two 60 year olds get married, probably beyond her childbearing years, however if that same couple were 20 instead of 60 their union would have children. A couple who use artificial birth control, if they stop using birth control then their relationship would similaryly produce children.

I will agree that marriage is much more than just child producing, it is a loving relationship of two people supporting each other in good and bad times. Yes, many people still have a marriage even if they don't have children. However, having said all of that, theirs is a marriage because they are man and woman and if everything was natural their union would produce offspring.

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.

 

[tibear]

Cosmo,

I know that many people don't agree, but my position is that "marriage" and children are implicitly tied together. I'm not being smart or trying to push down your relationships but trying to put forward my beliefs that hetersexual and homosexual relationships are different.

Let me explain. I understand that many couples that marry don't have children, either they can't for medical reasons or simply choose not to have them. However, my believe, which is shared by many others is that the natural outcome of every marriage is children.

By using the word natural, I'm saying that if every heterosexual couple that got married were: medically able to have children and not took steps to prevent having children the outcome of their relationship would be children. A couple of examples, two 60 year olds get married, probably beyond her childbearing years, however if that same couple were 20 instead of 60 their union would have children. A couple who use artificial birth control, if they stop using birth control then their relationship would similaryly produce children.

I will agree that marriage is much more than just child producing, it is a loving relationship of two people supporting each other in good and bad times. Yes, many people still have a marriage even if they don't have children. However, having said all of that, theirs is a marriage because they are man and woman and if everything was natural their union would produce offspring.

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.

 

[peapod]

Actually I have it on good authority from toby the talking horse that two contradictory ideas can be both true at the same moment...
Tibear what you have a problem with is people who do not see things in black and white like you. You are so narrow because you are a zealot. Your jihad is easy to see. Gabre 34 is right. Its going to pass.
You should really examine your own fears of change instead of regurating the same thing over and over again. The next generation coming up does not define marriage the way you do, it will be their world and they will define it.

By the way your defination of marriage is logical, cold, empty...and without any mulitudes...

 

[peapod]

Actually I have it on good authority from toby the talking horse that two contradictory ideas can be both true at the same moment...
Tibear what you have a problem with is people who do not see things in black and white like you. You are so narrow because you are a zealot. Your jihad is easy to see. Gabre 34 is right. Its going to pass.
You should really examine your own fears of change instead of regurating the same thing over and over again. The next generation coming up does not define marriage the way you do, it will be their world and they will define it.

By the way your defination of marriage is logical, cold, empty...and without any mulitudes...

 

[peapod]

Actually I have it on good authority from toby the talking horse that two contradictory ideas can be both true at the same moment...
Tibear what you have a problem with is people who do not see things in black and white like you. You are so narrow because you are a zealot. Your jihad is easy to see. Gabre 34 is right. Its going to pass.
You should really examine your own fears of change instead of regurating the same thing over and over again. The next generation coming up does not define marriage the way you do, it will be their world and they will define it.

By the way your defination of marriage is logical, cold, empty...and without any mulitudes...

 

[Cosmo]

However, my believe, which is shared by many others is that the natural outcome of every marriage is children.

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

Hmmm ... Somebody should have told that to some friends of ours who just had a baby boy. Two women, BTW, who used the same fertility clinic and techniques as countless het couples.

Geez, Tibear ... you make it sound like herd of cattle. Not all marriage is limited to breeders. If I were straight, I would be offended by your definitions. Makes me glad my relationship is broader than simple procreation of the species. Your spouse must really enjoy the emotional aspect of your commitment. :roll:

 

[Cosmo]

However, my believe, which is shared by many others is that the natural outcome of every marriage is children.

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

Hmmm ... Somebody should have told that to some friends of ours who just had a baby boy. Two women, BTW, who used the same fertility clinic and techniques as countless het couples.

Geez, Tibear ... you make it sound like herd of cattle. Not all marriage is limited to breeders. If I were straight, I would be offended by your definitions. Makes me glad my relationship is broader than simple procreation of the species. Your spouse must really enjoy the emotional aspect of your commitment. :roll:

 

[Cosmo]

However, my believe, which is shared by many others is that the natural outcome of every marriage is children.

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

Hmmm ... Somebody should have told that to some friends of ours who just had a baby boy. Two women, BTW, who used the same fertility clinic and techniques as countless het couples.

Geez, Tibear ... you make it sound like herd of cattle. Not all marriage is limited to breeders. If I were straight, I would be offended by your definitions. Makes me glad my relationship is broader than simple procreation of the species. Your spouse must really enjoy the emotional aspect of your commitment. :roll:

 

[tibear]

Peapod,

My definition is no different than that of SSM but it also includes the ability to have children. That is the only difference.

BTW, what is your reaction to Cosmo's post from the Lesbian who does see SS couples as different from heterosexuals couples??

 

[tibear]

Peapod,

My definition is no different than that of SSM but it also includes the ability to have children. That is the only difference.

BTW, what is your reaction to Cosmo's post from the Lesbian who does see SS couples as different from heterosexuals couples??

 

[tibear]

Peapod,

My definition is no different than that of SSM but it also includes the ability to have children. That is the only difference.

BTW, what is your reaction to Cosmo's post from the Lesbian who does see SS couples as different from heterosexuals couples??

 

[tibear]

Cosmo,

Your friends had a child but it is NOT a child from their relationship. It can't be.

My spouse and I have a wonderful relationship. Thanks for your interest.