AndyMan 7 #51 September 24, 2003 Quote That statement is completely untrue! Remster lives in Canada... where so far six monthes of legalized gay marriages has not brought eternal damnation to the populist... _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #52 September 24, 2003 QuoteRemster lives in Canada... where so far six monthes of legalized gay marriages has not brought eternal damnation to the populist... I know! I meant that the common law marriage = regular marriage statement was untrue.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arlo 0 #53 September 24, 2003 Quote[But what he is saying holds some validity and that's that a gay couple may be able to raise a child... but they would not be able to in a perfect world (perfect world being one where every parent is willing and able to raise their own children) what makes you guys believe that you have to be a parent in a "perfect world"? not all of us give a shit to have kids and my little world is quite pleasant as is. don't assume everyone wants a kid. don't assume everyone that has a kid should. and while i'm at it, that's a great way to start out your life as an adopted child: "yeah, you're only here because somebody fucked up, but we'll keep ya..." or "we can't have our own, so we'll just take you." arlo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #54 September 24, 2003 QuoteExactly. In short, a gay couple has no way to prevent human extinction. To extend the lifespan of the human race. I apologize if this comment offends anyone, but that's a very basic analysis of the situation, and how a homosexual couple differs from a heterosexual one. Right and with a world population of 6 billion people and growing, we really need to worry about that. Plus, if we do not allow gay people to get married, they will become straight and start having babies I really do not understand the issue. If gay people want to get married, gay people should be able to get married. We allow civil weddings, so the christians really should not have an issue with it, since not all weddings are performed in church as it is. For non-christian-anti-same-sex-marriage people , what do you care? How does it effect you? A gay couple is married, they ahve made a strong commitment to eachother....how does that affect your life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #55 September 24, 2003 Quotehas not brought eternal damnation to the populist... you mean we're not all going to hell!?! Damm... I better stop sinning all the time since I was sure I was done for anyways...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #56 September 24, 2003 Hey, after having done it myself a number of times, I look at the time of a "heated" post. I figured you were in the bag a little. A formal apology was not necessary, but it is gratefully accepted anyhow. I think the civil union thing is a good one. It allows any two people to assign the other as their heir and authority to make decisions on their behalf when they are incapacitated. If you want your partner to be able to make those choices and be your beneficiary, you should be able to do that as easily as straight couples can by getting married at the County Clerk's office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #57 September 24, 2003 Quotewhat makes you guys believe that you have to be a parent in a "perfect world"? not all of us give a shit to have kids and my little world is quite pleasant as is. don't assume everyone wants a kid. don't assume everyone that has a kid should. What a bunch of bull. Don't believe a word of it. Arlo dreams of the day she can have a single-wide w/ a dirt porch and 11 little tykes running/crawling around while she chain smokes and knits beer can hats in her housedress. Blues, Dave ABG#1"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arlo 0 #58 September 24, 2003 HEY! you weren't supposed to tell them about our wedding plans... a edited to add: and get it straight, biyotch. it's not a 'housedress' it's a MOO-MOO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #59 September 24, 2003 QuoteArlo dreams of the day she can have a single-wide w/ a dirt porch and 11 little tykes running/crawling around while she chain smokes and knits beer can hats in her housedress. I bet you just gave the rednecks a semi with that....Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mujie96 0 #60 September 24, 2003 If we're all going to burn in hell with the Catholics anyway, shouldn't someone who chooses a life partner of the same sex be able to give them the same support a straight person gives their spouse? Health insurance, life insurance, the power to call to and change the cell phone plan... I'm not a big fan of monogamy (neither are most married people, I notice) but I support gay marriage just because the option should be there if a couple wants that level of committment and they are in no way less worthy of the "fringe benefits" that come with it because they're short a penis or a vagina. I said penis AND vagina in one post. So there!!!! PS Saying that gay people don't provide the same benefit to society that a straight couple does is pretty much a declaration that "You're different than me so you're not as good." Different isn't better or worse, its different. Just keep swimming...just keep swimming.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #61 September 24, 2003 Quoteand while i'm at it, that's a great way to start out your life as an adopted child: "yeah, you're only here because somebody fucked up, but we'll keep ya..." or "we can't have our own, so we'll just take you." Obviously, that's not a great way to start your life, either of those things would be incredibly insensitive to say to a child, but they're both true from an objective point of view. 1. My parents adopted my brother because they could have no more of their own, and weren't looking forward to a third miscarriage. 2. My brother was made available because his mom fucked up in having him (she wasn't ready). It ain't pretty but it's the truth. He's loved though and he loves his home and understands his background.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #62 September 24, 2003 Quote And again, my reply was with regards to Canada too.... Oh I know it Remmy, and like I said, there are subtle differences. Thought some may still beleive there are some issues to iron out from one province to the next, I think, for the most part, what we've got set up now is pretty fair. All I'm pointing out here is that in Canada, if you are common-law, you are treated pretty much the same as being married with a few minor differences here and there. Wether gay or hetero, a couple are common-law spouses and are entitled to all the benefits of a common-law marriage if: "they have co-habited for a period of no-less than 3 years... or, if they have a child and are in a relationship of some permanance." If anything, the gay community should be looking into making certain changes to the rights of common-law couples if they feel they are not being treated fairly. IMHO, they should not be fighting for the right to be officially married because a gay marriage is not a marriage... I'm not being mean, unfair or anything, it's just that a marriage is between a man and a woman. If you have to change the definition of what a marriage is, then why do you want it so bad? If the answer is because there are certain rights a married couple get that common-law couples don't (money talks), then look at expanding your rights, not switching groups. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #63 September 24, 2003 QuoteA formal apology was not necessary. I like formal apologies. They clear the air, at least when both parties are WILLING to let the air clear. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #64 September 24, 2003 Quotebecause a gay marriage is not a marriage... to your definition, maybe not. To the Supreme Court of Canada, it is. I personnaly dont see the big deal...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #65 September 24, 2003 Quotewhat makes you guys believe that you have to be a parent in a "perfect world"? not all of us give a shit to have kids and my little world is quite pleasant as is. don't assume everyone wants a kid. don't assume everyone that has a kid should. I think you misunderstood. It's not that you have to be a parent in a perfect world... It's perfectly fine if you don't want kids... but in a perfect world, you wouldn't get pregnant if you diddn't want to... then you wouldn't have to give the kid up because you don't want to have it.... Then there wouldn't be a kid born, whose folks don't "give a shit to have kids" BUT went and had one anyway by acident. See what I'm getting at? In "perfect world" adoption would not exist... and thusly, a gay couple would not have this option. Quoteand while i'm at it, that's a great way to start out your life as an adopted child: "yeah, you're only here because somebody fucked up, but we'll keep ya..." or "we can't have our own, so we'll just take you." Hey, that's the case, tell the kid whatever it is you want to tell them (you don't necesarily have to scare them for life lol). But that is the case. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #66 September 24, 2003 QuoteQuotebecause a gay marriage is not a marriage... to your definition, maybe not. To the Supreme Court of Canada, it is. I personnaly dont see the big deal... NO, there was one gay couple married in Ontario, where this may have set some sort of president, it has not changed the definiton of a regcognisable marrige. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pyke 0 #67 September 24, 2003 First of all, Narcimund - I commend your courage. I respect that this forum is an open, comfortable environment to "air" these kinds of viewpoints, but given what I have seen in the past with talking about homosexuality and skydiving...very couragous of you!! Second, I was raised in the Bay Area and was there at the height of the "gay cancer" and all the ensuing education/knowledge that came out of understanding the "gay lifestyle". Quoteyour attitude is exactly the same as all those people in Africa who spread aids around. "What Society thinks of me, I dont care. I just want to do what I want to do and I dont care about anybody else. I only care about ME, ME,, ME ME This is a VERY, VERY ignorant way of viewing what has happened with the AIDS epidemic. It is true that for a period of 5 years in the late 80's early 90's there was more a prolific spread of AIDS in the gay community, but it has NEVER been "their attitude" that has caused it...it was being uneducated. AIDS continues to spread faster than any other disease in the minority, HETEROSEXUAL communities than anywhere sociological group in the world. Your licence number gives me insight to your age and I do not fault you for your "old school" thoughts, but your facts are wrong, and your perception is deficient. Lastly, Narcimund..."marriage" is and ALWAYS has been about commitment. It is a commitment that one makes to another. It is not for society to ever judge what that commitment means to those in it. It is also not AT ALL up to the "state" to decide what makes that commitment REAL. We have long sought to remove "church and state" from our greater society. [see recent issues surrounding "ten commandments memorial in courthouse"] Our own President has even attempted to go on "record" as defining what a marriage IS. That not only infuriated me, but made me laugh. The man himself can't even give a coherent, off the cuff speech - and he's trying to define greater society!! (my own political views, but the point is made) It is not within his scope of power...nor is it IN THE CONSTITUTION that "marriage is between man & woman". The fact that the President even went on "record" with that reiterates ties to "christian idiology" that started this country, but has always been something we, as a UNION tried to document staying away from. It is in the Bible that a man and woman can be married. But let's look at that fact...it is in the King James "Christian" Bible that "marriage" is a "union between man and woman". So, given we are a country that recognizes different religions openly, and different viewpoints (see First Amendment), that we HAVE to accept different lifestyles - whether that be monogamous or not, GAY or not. And, that doesn't mean you have to believe in the Bible to see yourself as normal, or vice-versa. Let the so-called "christians" believe what they will, and respect them for it - and move on. Myself, I think the Bible is simply just a "book". It's a nice read...tells a good story...and has some nice insights. One thing it IS NOT is complete. My sister is in a same-sex monogamous relationship and is incredibly happy. Through her eyes, and with my own, I have seen many "couples" that live a lifestyle of love, happiness, romance, and comfort. With straight eyes that would be seen as "normal". Because they are gay it is seen as "QUEER". It is that fact, alone, that mystifies me. Who are we to judge what happiness, love, family, and comfort OUGHT to be. [gets off soapbox] Okay - that's probably more than enough on the topic....moving right along...I can't imagine anything more wonderful that a girl-girl "marriage"...that means 4 BOOBIES are always in the same bed!!! I call that a party!!! Kahurangi e Mahearangi, Kiwi, RB #926, AFF-I, FAA Snr. Rigger, RN/BSN/Paramedic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #68 September 24, 2003 Quoteit has not changed the definiton of a regcognisable marrige. What I said is that the exclusion of gay marriges from the definition of marriges was judged invalid by the Supreme court. Its now up to the government to come up with a definition that will be valid. Its not a question of precedent. Its a question of rights.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #69 September 24, 2003 QuoteIf heterosexuals have to suffer through being married, it's only fair that homosexuals should too. I was thinking something along those lines but not exactly. Why would somebody want societal pressures of getting married? The idea of marriage is failure for the most part these days. With a 58% divorce rate I think its meaningless. Marriage was originally invented by religious groups and then adopted by government. None of the religous groups I know of allow homosexual acts. So how could somebody expect them to want to marry homosexuals. In the end I am for an all around massive cutback on marriage. By that I mean get the governent to back off. Too many people get married without thinking it through. They think if it doesn't work I can always get a divorce. They can't possibly imagine the nightmare that this will entail if they need to go through it. Common law marriage is the biggest bogus that a politician could have ever come up with. It also proves that they (the government) are trying to advocate marriae which is obviously a failing institution. Can somebody tell me why they would want this imposed on them?If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #70 September 24, 2003 QuoteIf heterosexuals have to suffer through being married, it's only fair that homosexuals should too. Heh. Exactly. The question shouldn't be one of gay marriage, but gay divorce. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #71 September 24, 2003 QuoteNO, there was one gay couple married in Ontario.... ONE? Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're way behind the times. It's a flood and it includes B.C. as well. I know one couple personally who made the 6 hour drive north and came back governmentally married. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #72 September 24, 2003 I'd like to state a couple fo things. Gay unions? I'm all for it. My libertarian thinking of personal freedoms says, "Go for it." If you do it to bring in more money, hell, even better, just so long as it is not governmental benefits that I think should be paid to nobody, anyway. Next, there is no true freedom of contract. Back in the early 1900's, there used to be, when the US SUpreme Court found a freedom to contract in the Lochner case. Then, the US Supreme, in its progressive wisdom, decided that people can't contract for what they want. This was the progressive era, where people were actually willing to contract to work longer hours and for less pay. The Court found that when a governmental interest, i.e., politics, is involved, that the freedom to contract can be limited. So, thanks to progressive thought, you cannot contract for gay marriage. Why? Because of the underlying policy of power. Unless the thinking of Lochner is reinstated (there will be little chance of that happening, for in legal circles, "Lochnerize" has become a verb along the elines of "Borking" and "Lutzing") then some other way to do it must be found. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #73 September 24, 2003 You're uses of the words logic and objective interest me. You say that adoption logically and objectively is a result someone else's fuckup. I understand where you're going with that statement. If ALL births were planned, there would be no unwanted babies. (accidental death of both parents and all other exceptions excluded for sake of argument) But then you use that argument to support your position that 2 people who love each other shouldn't have the same rights/benefits as 2 other people who love each other. (logical and objective) If it's your opinion (or your religion's) position that marriage is for procreation, has no inherent benefit to society, is a sin, etc. - that's NOT logical or objective. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goose491 0 #74 September 24, 2003 There's only ever one first. There was one who set the precedent.... not one and only one gay, married couple! sheesh! I don't see the big deal either.. but if it's about rights, then fight for additional rights as a common-law couple. There are already too many marriages anyway, YES the marriage was created by the church, YES it was adopted by the government. So how is it that the government can just CHANGE the definition? True that not all marriages are performed in the church anymore... does that negate the fact the "the wedding" originates from a religious ceremony? Does it change what it's all about? Apparently so. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pammi 0 #75 September 24, 2003 Ever see "Chasing Amy"? Love that movie. I think if someone can find someone to love and love them back, more power to them, regardless of who it is. I, personally, would like to say I wouldn't care whether it was legalized or not, but I'm not much of a romantic about the concept of marriage. I couldn't have cared less if Merrick and I had got married or not. And if he'd been a woman, I would've still fallen in love with the person he is and hopefully he'd been a hot woman so I could've been attracted to him as well! He's my soulmate either way and who I belong with. I can see why you'd want it legal though because of other reasons, such as covering your significant other with your insurance and other such things. But other then that, it's no one's business who's in my bed, or yours Pammi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
