The marriage "Saviours"

[whicker]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

The current legal term is marriage. The opposition to changing it is coming from people who have nothing to stand on but their own religious peculiarities. We practice separation of church and state in this country.

It's marriage, call it marriage.

It isn't a marriage, it is a parody of marriage. The once term refered to union of male and female. The word was changed to accommodate status. The opposition is to the change in definition of the word to accommodate this status. The gays could have used the word union for their 'legal before the law' state and have the same status they crave without all the bitterness that they have created.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviours"

For some conservatives, I'll grant you, it is about homosex. For religious or "moral" reasons they are opposed to any recognition of the homos. For a lot of people it is more changing an institution that has been a fundemental unit of society for eons. Now "civil unions" with all the rights and priviledges of marriage is not good enough? That using a different term constitutes "discrimination"? That is what a lot of people oppose.

I totally agree with this, and I consider myself a conservative. Does this make me an "honest conservative" as well? I think so, but maybe some of you should check out the "Right Wing Alberta Bigot" site for some other posts. Thanks, Mike, awesome.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

It's far too soon to push for this but I look forward to the day 'marriage' is removed from our law books and placed back in the hands of the church, where it belongs.

...and I look forward to the day when our government cracks down on churches for descrimination and hate crimes...

What???????????? What happened to separation of church and state? You cannot be serious with a comment like that. When "our government cracks down on churches.....", I hope you remember, oh, say, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. And you think I am intolerant? Look in the mirror.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

It's far too soon to push for this but I look forward to the day 'marriage' is removed from our law books and placed back in the hands of the church, where it belongs.

...and I look forward to the day when our government cracks down on churches for descrimination and hate crimes...

What???????????? What happened to separation of church and state? You cannot be serious with a comment like that. When "our government cracks down on churches.....", I hope you remember, oh, say, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. And you think I am intolerant? Look in the mirror.

Did I say anything about separation of church and state here?

I said that the government should be cracking down on churches for discrimination and hate crime...because your filthy little bible is rife with hate propaganda, and should be recognized as the hate literature that it is...

If there were a true separation of church and state, this would have happened already...but of course that will never happen, because all you fundies would be whining that they were infringing upon your freedom of religion, and so you are free to carry on your little hate campaigns...

 

[Reverend Blair]

It isn't a marriage, it is a parody of marriage. The once term refered to union of male and female.

From a 1926 book entitled "Barns and Outbuildings for Modern Farming"

"Two or more planks can be married together for additional strength."

From "Farm Gas Engines and Tractors", 1932,

"The marriage of gasoline powered engines to farm equipment has reduced the need for farm hands."

Looks to me like the term meant joining two things together.

 

[bluealberta]

Vanni: First of all it is not my bible, I am fairly agnostic when it comes right down to it. I prefer to think of myself as more a tradionalist with respect for past insitutions and traditions that built not only this country but North America. You are certainly free to have your opinion of the bible, and while I certainly disagree with your opinion, many people have sacrificed so that you can have that right. Please extend the same courtesy to others who disagree with you. However, to call the bible hateful is quite over the top, at least in my opinion. As has been proven many times over the centuries, pretty much anyone can find anything in the bible to support their position if they look hard enough, and I suspect you are no different. BTW, I assume you have actually read the bible, thus allowing you to make your rather outlandish statements?

 

[whicker]

It isn't a marriage, it is a parody of marriage. The once term refered to union of male and female.

From a 1926 book entitled "Barns and Outbuildings for Modern Farming"

"Two or more planks can be married together for additional strength."

From "Farm Gas Engines and Tractors", 1932,

"The marriage of gasoline powered engines to farm equipment has reduced the need for farm hands."




Looks to me like the term meant joining two things together.

I know the reference Really like your answer.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

However, to call the bible hateful is quite over the top, at least in my opinion. As has been proven many times over the centuries, pretty much anyone can find anything in the bible to support their position if they look hard enough, and I suspect you are no different.

Ah, but that's the thing...I didn't have to look very hard at all, and just so you don't harbour some pre-conceived notion that I'm anti-Christian, I've found intolerance and hatred in most of the religious texts...am I looking too hard? I don't think so...but then I have the luxury of being able to read the scriptures objectively and not be clouded by faith...when you can achieve that, then you can reveal the true intent of what's written...

BTW, I assume you have actually read the bible, thus allowing you to make your rather outlandish statements?

I have, and I would suggest that you've not been paying attention...my statements are neither outlandish, nor unsupported...however, if you wish to debate this topic, there are several threads available to you, however, this is not one of them...

 

[no1important]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

Don't forget the marriage of Progressive Conservatives and the Alliance. :wink:

Seriously though. If two people get hitched reguardless of sex or if they are same sex it should be called marriage as thats what it is.

I find it quite funny these "so called marriage saviours" are worried about SSM being called marriage than trying to save marriage as 50% of marriages fall apart, if not more. Shouldn't they put their efforts into preventing divorce instead, and trying "to save" marriage that way? Instead of discriminating against a legally protected miniority group in Canada.

Could it be that the same sex couples will show the neocons that they are better at marriage than them?, and thats what the neocons are afraid of?

I find the ssm people are more kinder and tolerant than the religious right, for example- If I was gay or going to get into a same sex marriage and had to listen to the shit coming out of the neo cons mouth I would do my best to charge the lot of them with hate crimes. But they do not and that there, shows they are way more tolerant than neocons.

 

[no1important]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

I see Spain just legalized same sex marriage despite the Pope disapproval. So you anti same sex marriage people your on notice that this issue aint ever going away and more and more countries are going to legalize this. So maybe it is time to get with the programme........

Here

 

[OakServe]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

It's important that we extend equality to all. If we have only discriminating reasons for refusing to legalize same-sex marriages then we are not being fair. Nobody owns the idea of marriage or what it represents... so nobody has the right to decide who may or may not partake of marriage. What is hurt by the legalizing of same-sex marriage?

Something I find more interesting is the idea of homosexual people adopting children. Instinctively I reject the idea, I believe that homosexuality is a state, that homosexual behaviour can be infectious upon impressionable young minds. Unless evidence can be produced that %100 of homosexuality is incurred at birth, we must protect the pending heterosexual children from being exposed.

But this is only my opinion... of course if we were to remain consistent we would also have to realize that religion is also a state which is impressed upon minds. I don't think it's any more proper to allow religious couples to adopt or propagate minds until they are unimpressionable, until they are able to decide for themselves what they shall be.

We must not try to possess that which we do not own... and other humans we certainly do not own. New minds we do not own. Once a mind has defenses and strength, only then is it appropriate for us to deliberately or indeliberately petition it or attempt to impress upon it our own ideals. Legalize same-sex marriage. That is what sober humans should say, for if you are sure of your heterosexuality and of your atheisticalness, then there is nothing to fear of what choices to human beings make for themselves, it affects only them. It is not our choice to own. But we should not allow them to adopt or influence young minds, or anyone who might feel or be vulnerable. I would like very much to apply the same standard to religion. Ah, one day perhaps?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

I dunno Oakserve...every gay person I've ever met had heterosexual parents and it doesn't seem to have rubbed off on them.

 

[OakServe]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

But how many heterosexuals do you know that grew up their entire youth in a %100 homosexual family?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

Exactly as many as I know that grew up in a 100% heterosexual environment. Kids that aren't afraid of gays seem a fair bit healthier though...even less violent.

Nobody chooses or is taught their sexuality. I'm heterosexual because that's the way things are. Homosexuals are homosexuals because that's the way things are. Bi-sexuals are the way they are because they are a little luckier than the rest of us. ;-)

There's some interesting science being done in biochemistry right now. It points to nature, not nurture, being the deciding factor in who decides to stick which in what. It backs up a lot of previous science. Funny how that works.

 

[OakServe]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

Well I find it a bit hard to believe that a baby that grows up with two dads who kiss each other and do things most dads don't do would not be more inclined to homosexuality. Simply a case of monkey-see monkey-do, and when it is your parents the effect of your seemingly immortal caretakers when you are young is even more influential.

 

[MMMike]

I don't think it will make the kid gay. Gay people grew up seeing their heterosexual parents kiss, and it didn't 'straighten' them out. They will get teased terribly and beaten up at school all the time, though.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

Parents kiss? Hell, I thought they just yelled a lot and made transparent excuses for each other. Oh, wait, I didn't think that at all because I didn't grow up in a vacuum.

Actually, I would have grown up in an Electrolux if my parents had their choice. They were embarrassed by the police cars in front of the house and the half-naked girls exiting my room and my habit of wandering off for long periods of time and all of those phone calls from my friends' parents.

They never did that kind of thing after all.

 

[OakServe]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

I'm sure it has to be detrimental to youth in some way to be deprived of either the mother or the father.

Let's say I concede that maybe growing up in a gay family will not increase your chances of being "sexually confused". This would be to insinuate that we do not take any sexual or relationship cues from our parents. I find this hard to believe because I have observed that often our parents play a huge role in the defining of our character, political alignment, ideology, religion, etc. Sons often feel obligated to follow their fathers religion, political party, maybe adopt his racism or anti-immigration sentiment. So why would sexuality not also be impressed upon the son? Let us assume for a moment that your sexuality has a chance of being impressed upon your children.

If we have a choice to increase the chances of homosexuality in children or decrease the chance, then what decision would we make? There is certainly no benefit in having a homosexual population... but if we do not think it is an issue having children adopted by homosexuals then it might be said that homosexuals do no harm to society either.

I am going to venture into a sensitive area now. People do make fun of and abuse gays. This used to be very common against blacks as well... So what if the idea came up that we shouldn't let blacks reproduce as it would be cruel to bring the babies into a life of hardship. That is not my way of thinking at all, I have always believed that humans can work through any issue, that we can increase our understanding until we do not discriminate. So I must reciprocately apply this way of thinking to gay adoption. Even if children adopted by gays were hypothetically more likely to become gay themselves, it would still not be the positive solution to simply ban gay adoption.

I did not find your arguments very persuasive Reverend Blair, but upon reading what you and MMMike had to say I decided to take a closer look at my logic and prove to myself that gay-adoption is wrong. I failed to do so.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

So are you saying that I oughtta adopt some gay parents?

 

[MMMike]

Oakserve - it's good that you have an open mind to consider different ideas. Too many people do not. I think most people would agree that a mom and dad in a happy home is the ideal. But it is not reality - a kid would do better in a loving homo house than in a broken home or abusive environment.