Yeah. Fun wasn't it. I love being a burr under pigheaded bigots' saddles.
Fun. Wow.
Why are you against Gay marriage?
- Thread starter Rawisbetter!
- Start date
Fun. Wow.
It just occurred to me that Pissup may be a girl, but I doubt it.Originally Posted by L Gilbert
Nope. Maple's ok and I like her. She voices her opinion but she also at least accepts others opinions and evidence. Pissup won't accept anyone else's opinions and refuses evidence or post any that substantiate his positions and he makes outrageous claims. Huge difference between Maple and Pissup.
Eh1, dintcha think it was fun?
By golly, folks, shouldn't get so worked up; especially over some poor dumb bigot's rantings.
By golly, folks, shouldn't get so worked up; especially over some poor dumb bigot's rantings.
Oh yes, you didn't even need to disagree with him just ask him for proof and he went off the deep end.
Personally, I don't care if some couple wants to get married. I also don't care if that couple is actually a male (or female) couple that wants to get married - it's none of my beeswax. But I do care when a married homosexual couple wants to adopt children to make the family complete. When "Mom" and "Dad" are of the same gender, a child would possibly accept it as a standard. I think in such situation homosexual parents will raise homosexually oriented children, that's what worries me. Well, I may be wrong though.
Last edited:
With marriage as an institution flailing about in the West, and out-of-wedlock kids becoming the norm - and with them all the endemic problems they bring - the last thing we needed was another nail in the coffin. Gay activists have got what they wanted. They can marry and have their witless parades in most small and large Canadian cities now. But is our society stronger for it? Hey, who cares. Another minority is free. Scatter the fairydust please. We're all on our way to Wonderland!
See, the way I see it, is that marriage will not be healed simply by holding it away from the minority homosexual group. As far as I'm concerned, having one more area of society to help uphold the sanctity of marriage, can only be a good thing. All the married gay couples I know take their commitment ten times more seriously than most straight couples. I have yet to see a single one divorce, or to see them strained by affairs, like I see throughout my straight acquaintances.
Karrie, let us hope! But the current poverty debate in Canada is also a debate on marriage. The Globe's Margaret Wente opines well on this in the Saturday edition. Fatherless kids, single parent households are the driving force behind poverty stats in Canada. If marriage was taken more seriously we'd have a great deal less poverty in Canada. And a wonderful remission from its whiners. Marriage is a key plank in the development of a civil society. Changes in it should be thought out very, very carefully.
I can see how that would play into the issue of poverty. When I ran my dayhome, I took care mainly of the kids of single moms. They had to bust their arses to keep up, and only one of them was able to actually collect any child support from deadbeat dad. In my opinion, this is yet another area where gay families will outshine hetero families in their commitment. To be able to bring a child into a homosexual union requires serious, deliberate thought and an honest desire to raise a child, unlike hetero women and men who are able to simply stumble into the family way, and take it for granted.
Again, you might be right. I must admit little sympathy with poverty organizers. If they simply insisted their followers kept their pants on and, if they couldn't, beseeched them to at least not tumble with goofs, we might have a chance. As it stands, poverty is the child of personal irresponsibility. And why I have to help foot the bill for someone else's foolishness I don't know.
Gay marriage might prove to be a successful innovation. I still can't help wonder though if it wouldn't be here if it hadn't been shepherded by a PM who obviously, more than any of his predecessors of the last 50 years, is likely bisexual. Martin has always struck me that way. A bit of a conflict of interest if he actually is.
Gay marriage might prove to be a successful innovation. I still can't help wonder though if it wouldn't be here if it hadn't been shepherded by a PM who obviously, more than any of his predecessors of the last 50 years, is likely bisexual. Martin has always struck me that way. A bit of a conflict of interest if he actually is.
curio I thought that was the whole thing in the states, its NOT legal in any state. I may be mistaken but I thought that was the problem in 04 in boston and virginia and some western state. The feds took away the states rights to allow civil unions.
It's been researched and found there's no evidence linking homosexual people to whatever brand their parents are. Otherwise we wouldn't have homosexuals in the first place, right?Sаbine;775114 said:
You have tthat right. There are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more splitups between heteros than there are between gays (on a per capita basis).
People seem to think that after marriage they'll still be him and her. The concept that marriage creates 1 new entity out of 2 is long gone. It should not be her and me, it should be us.
Well, to be fair, a bisexual man trying to bring gay marriage in, is no more of a conflict of interest than a straight man trying to keep gay marriage out. Who would be a fair person to say yes or no to it? Everyone's human, and thus no one is truly impartial.
SelfActivated
Wasn't sure about individual rights under Federal Law....and that would be immigration. Even married partners have to apply separately....a husband just can't bring his bride into the country.... nor can a woman bring her husband in....still have to apply for alien status no matter what.
Here's what I found on one website...PlanetOut....
Thursday, December 21, 2006 / 10:01 AM
New Jersey's governor signed legislation Thursday giving same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage allowed under state law -- but not the title.
When the law goes into effect Feb. 19, New Jersey will become the third state offering civil unions to same-sex couples and the fifth allowing them some version of marriage.
Connecticut and Vermont also offer civil unions for same-sex couples, while Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry, and California has domestic partnerships that confer marriage rights under state law.
"We must recognize that many gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey are in committed relationships and deserve the same benefits and rights as every other family in this state," Gov. Jon S. Corzine said in signing the legislation.
The Legislature passed the civil unions bill Dec. 14 in response to a state Supreme Court order that same-sex couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court in October gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.
Gay couples welcomed the civil unions law, but some argued that not calling the relationship "marriage" created a different, inferior institution.
The civil unions law grants same-sex couples adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights and the right not to testify against a partner in state court.
They won't, however, be entitled to the same benefits as married couples in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Gay partners won't be able to collect deceased partners' Social Security benefits, for example, said family lawyer Felice T. Londa, who represents many same-sex couples.
Donna Harrison of Asbury Park, who has been with her partner, Kathy Ragauckas, for nine years, isn't exactly celebrating the bill signing, though she said she and Ragauckas will probably get a civil union certificate.
"Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings," she said.
The gay rights group Garden State Equality has promised to push lawmakers to change the terminology to "marriage." Others are considering lawsuits to force full recognition of same-sex marriage.
The New Jersey bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.
Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems a reasonable approach, but he said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than gay marriage is preferable.
"For most, people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief," the governor said. "So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law."
Social conservative groups and lawmakers opposed the measure, reasoning it brings gay relationships too close to marriage, but it easily passed the legislature. Some have vowed to push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but Democrats who control the legislature said such proposals won't be heard. The three-day waiting period required by the law is the same as with marriage licenses. Licenses will be valid for 30 days, and ceremonies can be officiated by anyone who performs weddings, including clergy and mayors. As with marriages, civil unions will have to be witnessed by one additional adult.
Wasn't sure about individual rights under Federal Law....and that would be immigration. Even married partners have to apply separately....a husband just can't bring his bride into the country.... nor can a woman bring her husband in....still have to apply for alien status no matter what.
Here's what I found on one website...PlanetOut....
Thursday, December 21, 2006 / 10:01 AM
New Jersey's governor signed legislation Thursday giving same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage allowed under state law -- but not the title.
When the law goes into effect Feb. 19, New Jersey will become the third state offering civil unions to same-sex couples and the fifth allowing them some version of marriage.
Connecticut and Vermont also offer civil unions for same-sex couples, while Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry, and California has domestic partnerships that confer marriage rights under state law.
"We must recognize that many gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey are in committed relationships and deserve the same benefits and rights as every other family in this state," Gov. Jon S. Corzine said in signing the legislation.
The Legislature passed the civil unions bill Dec. 14 in response to a state Supreme Court order that same-sex couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court in October gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions "marriage" or something else.
Gay couples welcomed the civil unions law, but some argued that not calling the relationship "marriage" created a different, inferior institution.
The civil unions law grants same-sex couples adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights and the right not to testify against a partner in state court.
They won't, however, be entitled to the same benefits as married couples in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Gay partners won't be able to collect deceased partners' Social Security benefits, for example, said family lawyer Felice T. Londa, who represents many same-sex couples.
Donna Harrison of Asbury Park, who has been with her partner, Kathy Ragauckas, for nine years, isn't exactly celebrating the bill signing, though she said she and Ragauckas will probably get a civil union certificate.
"Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings," she said.
The gay rights group Garden State Equality has promised to push lawmakers to change the terminology to "marriage." Others are considering lawsuits to force full recognition of same-sex marriage.
The New Jersey bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.
Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems a reasonable approach, but he said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than gay marriage is preferable.
"For most, people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief," the governor said. "So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law."
Social conservative groups and lawmakers opposed the measure, reasoning it brings gay relationships too close to marriage, but it easily passed the legislature. Some have vowed to push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but Democrats who control the legislature said such proposals won't be heard. The three-day waiting period required by the law is the same as with marriage licenses. Licenses will be valid for 30 days, and ceremonies can be officiated by anyone who performs weddings, including clergy and mayors. As with marriages, civil unions will have to be witnessed by one additional adult.
THIS is the real fight. Why should lifemates be excluded because they are same sex? Their still lifemates no matter what.
Question.)
If its wrong for religious groups to make people of other beliefs act in a way they deem morally correct, why is the reverse correct? Forcing a religious group who you view as acting morally incorrectly to behave in the manner you see as morally right?
The Church trying to block gay marriage is an example of the first, Trying to force a church to conduct a gay wedding is an example of the second.
You can view it as correct because you do think the majority should be able to enforce majority on the minority, but don't act like its some kind of fairness, its just your time to turn the tables and do unto others as was done unto you.
If its wrong for religious groups to make people of other beliefs act in a way they deem morally correct, why is the reverse correct? Forcing a religious group who you view as acting morally incorrectly to behave in the manner you see as morally right?
The Church trying to block gay marriage is an example of the first, Trying to force a church to conduct a gay wedding is an example of the second.
You can view it as correct because you do think the majority should be able to enforce majority on the minority, but don't act like its some kind of fairness, its just your time to turn the tables and do unto others as was done unto you.