the gay agenda.
- Thread starter snfu73
- Start date
Does that mean all those right-wingers who obsess too much are also gay? Pat Robertson, Stephen Harper, George Bush, Ted Haggard....oops we already know the answer to that one.
I can see where the term 'agenda' takes on a negative conotation. But, if human rights are an issue you're passionate about, one you want to challenge people on, then yes, claim it as your own I say. Human rights should be everyone's agenda. Let the right wingers criticise all they want frankly. It's your agenda, and it's a good one.
Not really.
It's just opinions.
You were right on about homosexual marriage being a privilege. At least in places were they aren't allowed to marry. If it were a right, every couple would be able to marry, regardless of sexual orientation, race, creed, etc. A legal marriage has to be defined, I mean a 40 year old can't marry a 12 year old, but there is no reason why same sex couples of legal age should not have that privilege.
It's not even 10% you wad. But they still have that right. If you don't like our free country then you should make other arrangements for your citizenship. Remember, Canada=free country.:wave:
Its a privellage and we can deny privellages without denying human rights.
Marriage is a religious ceremony.
Common law is a legal union.
They have the common law benefit, and do not deserve the marriage benefit EVER... I am not prepared to throw out tradition from the beginning of earth to please a few people who want a privellage.
Nope, no way, no how.
Marriage is a religious ceremony.
Common law is a legal union.
They have the common law benefit, and do not deserve the marriage benefit EVER... I am not prepared to throw out tradition from the beginning of earth to please a few people who want a privellage.
Nope, no way, no how.
I've seen studies, in my time studying psych, that have proven time and again that homophobic men become physically aroused when shown pics of gay activities. Whereas men who are not bothered by homosexuals do not have the same physical arousal reaction. I'd always guessed that was the issue, but it was nice to see studied proof. lol.
What a load.
Marriage is not a strictly religious ceremony. There is no ceremony involved in common-law marriage, no certificate of marriage. A judge can marry a couple, that is by no means a religious ceremony.
No one is asking you to throw away your traditions, what does it matter to you if another couple is married or not?
We'd have alot of turned on men here wouldnt we......geeeeez Humour can cover up hidden paranoias.........who's afraid of what?
man and woman have been marrying since the beginning of time.
We throw away that legacy to give a privellage to a few people?!!!
They get all the tax benefits through common law, and they don't deserve the privellage of marriage EVER.
We throw away that legacy to give a privellage to a few people?!!!
They get all the tax benefits through common law, and they don't deserve the privellage of marriage EVER.