The marriage "Saviours"

[bluealberta]

I guess I have to start posting the bigot remarks your bigot leader says. Maybe a picture in the sand would be easier, jez the only one among you with any balls is that fruitcake randy white, at least he does not pretend to be anything that what he is, a bigot.

Get over yourself, every party has idiots in it, I have never defended Randy White for his comments, but I sure as hell will defend his right to say it, even if I dont agree with it. At least I think I can still do this in Canada, or has that been regulated too. You are dead wrong about Harper, though. Just because someone does not agree with you means they are any of your degrading comments. Tolerance, hell. The only ones you are tolerant of are the ones who are in lockstep with you and your left wing socialist leaders. Yet you and yours hide behind the curtain of tolerance like you deserve it. It must be hell being so perfect in an imperfect world. You and the rest of the left are so smug and arrogant in your own little socialist paradise that has been proven over and over and over again not to work, but what the hell, let's try again in Canada, maybe you can screw this country even further than it has been already with the socialist mentality of the New Dumbocrats and the quasi-socialistic policies of the Liberals.

 

[bluealberta]

............or anyone who does not hold your views. Tolerance means recognising there are other views than your own, but not necessarily agreeing with them. Intolerance does not recognise any other view than their own. As a result of your continual degrading of anyone who does not agree with you, you are intolerant.

So in your world, we all should be tolerant of bigotry?

No, you should be intolerant of TRUE bigotry, not what you and yours on the left define as bigotry. You guys actually demean the word and it's true meaning by crying bigotry against anyone who does not agree with you. People who have suffered from true bigotry would laugh in your face with your definition. Rosa Sparks was a victim of true bigotry, and it was disgusting. Mississippi practiced bigotry. What you call bigotry is far from true bigotry.

 

[peapod]

whooooo nice try! No sale! Your a bigot. Have a nice day :wink:

 

[zenfisher]

Wasn't it Rosa Parks? Its rhetorical. 8O

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

Can I answer that rhetorical question, Zen?

Yes it is Rosa Parks. There did used to be a punk band that went toured the Sask/Alberta bars with the name Road Sparks. They'd call Blue a bigot too though, so I doubt he's talking about them.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

Can I answer that rhetorical question, Zen?

Yes it is Rosa Parks. There did used to be a punk band that went toured the Sask/Alberta bars with the name Road Sparks. They'd call Blue a bigot too though, so I doubt he's talking about them.

Cute, guys, like neither one of you has used the wrong name. It was late. The point is still the same, even for Rosa Parks. The band you mention probably has no idea what you are talking about, though, Rev. But they would think you were a bit off

 

[Cathou]

come on guys, stop this childish contest of who is tolerant and who's not...

seriously blue, i want to know more of your point. why it's so important to have separate name for heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage ? a marriage is marriage right ? of course the point can be turn toward me either, why i think it's important to have the same name ?

for me it's a tradition. the name means something for me, something that i've dream about a long time ago, it's part of my culture and my education. and for principle, if the civil union and the marriage get exactly the same benifits, why have separate name ? if an heterosexual couple can have a civil marriage that is not celebrate in a religion purpose, why cant i ?

 

[bluealberta]

come on guys, stop this childish contest of who is tolerant and who's not...

seriously blue, i want to know more of your point. why it's so important to have separate name for heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage ? a marriage is marriage right ? of course the point can be turn toward me either, why i think it's important to have the same name ?

for me it's a tradition. the name means something for me, something that i've dream about a long time ago, it's part of my culture and my education. and for principle, if the civil union and the marriage get exactly the same benifits, why have separate name ? if an heterosexual couple can have a civil marriage that is not celebrate in a religion purpose, why cant i ?

Cat: It's the tradition factor for me. I simply believe that marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. It's not meant to be anti-anything, nor pro-anything. I am glad you asked the question back to you as well. What I don't like is the rights/equality issue especially from those who want to leave the religious aspect out of the issue. And religion is not the issue I base my answer on. However, if religion is to be left out, then the issue becomes rights. The rights of a civil union before law, excluding religion, are the same as a tradional marriage. If the rights are equal, then there is no equality issue. Therefor my question is why the push for the term marriage for same sex civil unions? While religion forms no part of my decision, for a great many others it does, and do not these people deserve the same consideration? For some this is a very emotional and serious issue, so what about their rights? The basis of marriage over the years has been that between a man and a woman. Why not leave that as is and find, invent, whatever, another term for same sex civil unions? After all, if everything was supposed to be the same, then why the differentation between heterosexuals and gays? Why do we heteros and the gays have separate names? If we accept this, why cannot hetero unions be called marriages and gay civil uions be called something else?

And remember Cat, I do support same sex civil unions. The lifestyle is not one I am interested in, but I care less what consenting adults do on their own time and in their own bedrooms.

I hope this answers your question. I have no mathematical answer, I have no "this will happen if this is allowed to take place" scenario to give you. My belief is simply that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

There is an equality issue though, Blue. You are attempting to forbid a segment of the population from entering into the same institutions as you. You can try to quibble about the name, and you can try to blame it on tradition, but what you are really doing is trying to withhold that name and tradition from them due to your own intolerance.

Oh...and the band Road Sparks, Blue? I knew them a bit. The singer was a lesbian and she was rather outspoken. She would have called you a bigot. No doubt about it.

 

[peapod]

Gee blue, I must have this all wrong than. Rosa Parks, got me to thinking, you know I bet I can find hundreds of rosa parks in the civil rights movement of gays for the past 40 years...Bet it would be easy to find them in the gay "civil rights" movement. Course, your just the last hurdle they have to overcome.

Leonard Matlovich

Leonard Matlovich is the first service member to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians in the United States military. As a 12-year veteran in the United States Air Force, Leonard Matlovich decided to fight the ban on gays in the armed services. In 1975, Matlovich announced his sexual identity. The investigation that followed concluded that despite the fact that Matlovich was a decorated veteran, he was deemed unfit to continue his service to the military and was recommended for discharge.

By challenging the ruling, Matlovich found himself as a spokesperson for gay activism in the 1970s. On September 8, 1975, Matlovich became the first openly gay man to appear on the cover of Time Magazine. In 1978, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that it was illegal to discharge Sergeant Matlovich. In1980, the Air Force reinstated Sergeant Matlovich with back pay.

Matlovich was buried with full military honors in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C. The inscription on his headstone reads, "When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men, and a discharge for loving one."

 

[I think not]

"When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men, and a discharge for loving one."

Sad. But he made a difference.

 

[bluealberta]

Gee blue, I must have this all wrong than. Rosa Parks, got me to thinking, you know I bet I can find hundreds of rosa parks in the civil rights movement of gays for the past 40 years...Bet it would be easy to find them in the gay "civil rights" movement. Course, your just the last hurdle they have to overcome.

Leonard Matlovich

Leonard Matlovich is the first service member to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians in the United States military. As a 12-year veteran in the United States Air Force, Leonard Matlovich decided to fight the ban on gays in the armed services. In 1975, Matlovich announced his sexual identity. The investigation that followed concluded that despite the fact that Matlovich was a decorated veteran, he was deemed unfit to continue his service to the military and was recommended for discharge.

By challenging the ruling, Matlovich found himself as a spokesperson for gay activism in the 1970s. On September 8, 1975, Matlovich became the first openly gay man to appear on the cover of Time Magazine. In 1978, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that it was illegal to discharge Sergeant Matlovich. In1980, the Air Force reinstated Sergeant Matlovich with back pay.

Matlovich was buried with full military honors in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C. The inscription on his headstone reads, "When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men, and a discharge for loving one."

Interesting, no doubt. However, let's not try and equate today with 1875, okay? Things have changed a lot since then. According to the article, things changed even by 1980.

Think what you want of me, I really don't care. You don't know me, you have no idea of how I live my life. I do, the people I know and associate with do, and these people, including gays, right and left wing, have no issues with me, my beliefs, or how I treat people of all races, sexual orientations, or gender. I basically treat people as they treat me, race, sexual orientation, or gender notwithstanding. (Hmmm, nice word, maybe we can...nah, been tried :wink: ) Their thoughts mean much more to me than a nameless coward issuing insults and deratory comments on a website, all the while hiding behind a curtain of tolerance.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

What we do know about you, Blue, is that you are taking a demonstrably bigotted stance on SSM and trying to hide behind the veil of "tradition". That those traditions are based in the religious tenets of the past and that we practice the separation of church and state in this country seems to be something you and your party are incapable of understanding.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

What we do know about you, Blue, is that you are taking a demonstrably bigotted stance on SSM and trying to hide behind the veil of "tradition". That those traditions are based in the religious tenets of the past and that we practice the separation of church and state in this country seems to be something you and your party are incapable of understanding.

Bigotted only in your mind and the others on the extreme left. Reasonable people who know me know otherwise.

I am far more to the political center than you are, which at leasts gives me the opportunity to look both ways. You are so far left you can only look right. This gives me the advantage of rejecting the extreme right, just as it gives me the advantage of recognising and rejecting the extreme left. For you, on the other hand, everyone is on the extreme right.

By the way, is not categorizing me and other moderate conservatives as bigots not a sign of bigottery itself? Degrading and insulting another group sounds suspiciosly like bigottery to me and and a lot of others.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

By the way, is not categorizing me and other moderate conservatives as bigots not a sign of bigottery itself? Degrading and insulting another group sounds suspiciosly like bigottery to me and and a lot of others.

That sounds suspicously like the plea of an unrepetent bigot to me...

Open Letter to The Hon. Stephen Harper from Law Professors Regarding Same-Sex Marriage

Do you really believe that all of those law professors are left-wing extremists? Somehow I doubt it...

 

[Cathou]

come on guys, stop this childish contest of who is tolerant and who's not...

seriously blue, i want to know more of your point. why it's so important to have separate name for heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage ? a marriage is marriage right ? of course the point can be turn toward me either, why i think it's important to have the same name ?

for me it's a tradition. the name means something for me, something that i've dream about a long time ago, it's part of my culture and my education. and for principle, if the civil union and the marriage get exactly the same benifits, why have separate name ? if an heterosexual couple can have a civil marriage that is not celebrate in a religion purpose, why cant i ?

Cat: It's the tradition factor for me. I simply believe that marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. It's not meant to be anti-anything, nor pro-anything. I am glad you asked the question back to you as well. What I don't like is the rights/equality issue especially from those who want to leave the religious aspect out of the issue. And religion is not the issue I base my answer on. However, if religion is to be left out, then the issue becomes rights. The rights of a civil union before law, excluding religion, are the same as a tradional marriage. If the rights are equal, then there is no equality issue. Therefor my question is why the push for the term marriage for same sex civil unions? While religion forms no part of my decision, for a great many others it does, and do not these people deserve the same consideration? For some this is a very emotional and serious issue, so what about their rights? The basis of marriage over the years has been that between a man and a woman. Why not leave that as is and find, invent, whatever, another term for same sex civil unions? After all, if everything was supposed to be the same, then why the differentation between heterosexuals and gays? Why do we heteros and the gays have separate names? If we accept this, why cannot hetero unions be called marriages and gay civil uions be called something else?

And remember Cat, I do support same sex civil unions. The lifestyle is not one I am interested in, but I care less what consenting adults do on their own time and in their own bedrooms.

I hope this answers your question. I have no mathematical answer, I have no "this will happen if this is allowed to take place" scenario to give you. My belief is simply that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

but when you talk about tradition, basically your point is : it was that way for ever why change ? a few decade ago, people were saying : womens never had the right to vote, so keep it that way ? isnt that the same arguement ?

it's emtotional for you, but it's also emotional for me, so who's emtion should prevail on that case ? i think it's would be better that all civil marriage should be call civil union, and all marriage in church would be call marriage, in that case if youo are not religious and dont attend to any church, you go to the courth house, and you get a civil union. whatever your sexual orientation, and if you find a church that accept to marry you, then you get a marriage, whatever your sexual orientation might be... that way any church can claim that they have the monoply over the marriage sanctity because they only marry the kind of couple they want, and nobody's right is broken...

By the way guys, it's not because Blue is against gay marriage (and yes i know it's only about marriage that you are against, i dont think you are intolerent or something) that he's biggoted, saying that gays cant exist and that we must kill them all, that is biggoted to me. let him have his opinion like you have yours. one of the point of these forums is to have debates about our different opinion, if we have all the same opinion the forum wouldnt exist. you dont like his opinion, fine, try to argue with something else that : you dont think like me, so you are wrong...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Cathou,

The political party that blue ardently supports has a history, long before their current incarnation, of discriminating against gays and lesbians. If that party should come to power, they would do immense damage to the equality that gays and lesbians have fought so hard for. The current stance of preservation of the traditional definition of marriage is just political posturing to appear to be more centrist to voters than they actually are. Blue knows this, and plays their game and plays it well, but we must never forget that his is a sugar-coated extremist view that has no basis in constitutional law or of equality as protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When I have the time, do a little historical expose on the Conservative Party and their social policies to establish for all to see where these views have come from. I assure you, it will be an eye-opener...

 

[peapod]

Two cents....

Juding the worthiness of a person based on race, sex, orientation, etc. and denying them rights because of it is bigotry.

 

[bluealberta]

Cathou,

The political party that blue ardently supports has a history, long before their current incarnation, of discriminating against gays and lesbians. If that party should come to power, they would do immense damage to the equality that gays and lesbians have fought so hard for. The current stance of preservation of the traditional definition of marriage is just political posturing to appear to be more centrist to voters than they actually are. Blue knows this, and plays their game and plays it well, but we must never forget that his is a sugar-coated extremist view that has no basis in constitutional law or of equality as protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When I have the time, do a little historical expose on the Conservative Party and their social policies to establish for all to see where these views have come from. I assure you, it will be an eye-opener...

...........and you know this how exactly?
If you want to go back in history, all parties supported the law that said that homosexuality was illegal and was punishable by prison terms, so I guess we should judge all parties based on this? Things change, things evolve. I have changed my opinions on a lot of things. You can call me a bigot, extreme, etc all you want, doesn't bother me a bit. Cathou is absolutely correct when he describes bigotry. And he may have something with the church marriage civil union thing, I don't know. And he is absolutely right when he talks about respecting different opinions. That is also something the right has that the left does not, we may not agree with your opinions, but we will defend your right to have them. The left just wants to shut up anyone with a different opinion, and uses insults, degrading comments, and outright lies to accomplish their goal. As Cat says, if we all thought the same, why have a forum? If I was not here providing alternative thoughts, who would you discuss things with? I did look at FreeDominion, and did not agree with much of what was there, too far right for me, but what I did agree with, what was the point in just saying that I agreed? Pretty boring. For everything else that Vanni and the Rev and Pea lay on me, at least I am providing them a sounding board, and they are providing me a sounding board. Alternate opinions or thought are interesting. Continually being insulted and degraded is boring, but that won't get rid of me. 8)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

...........and you know this how exactly?
If you want to go back in history, all parties supported the law that said that homosexuality was illegal and was punishable by prison terms, so I guess we should judge all parties based on this? Things change, things evolve.

Ah, but you see, that strikes to the heart of the matter...the rest of Canada has been continuously evolving...but the Conservative Party chooses not to...as I said, they sugar-coat their bigotry, and call it moderate...

You haven't commented on the letter from the law professors...do you really thing they are as left-wing as you think I am?