Scotchneat

I mention the fact that gay people can procreate, because many people think that they can't. There's alot of mixed up notions out there.

Gay love is beautiful. Why do you equate it with alcoholism, torture and murder? It's just love between two people. It is gay marriage or nothing. This is about equality. It has nothing to do the churches, if they don't want to marry gays that fine, but don't try to give gay marriage an inferior status. A marriage between two gays has all the dignity of a marriage between two straights.

I'm not sure exactly how Trudeau legalized abortion. He was a devout Catholic. I'm sure he regretted the Supreme Court decision. In any case, in all countries, airports get named after politicians. It builds national pride (apparently). In the case of Trudeau, I didn't support his policies, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a great legacy. (I'm I to understand that you oppose all the Charter decisions made thus far?) He led Canada through a difficult period of change and managed to keep the country in tact. (putting the best spin I can on his gov't) . Perhaps you should focus your anger against the current gov't.

Bestiality and incest are not analogous to a normal heterosexual relationship. How is a homosexual relation different from heterosexual relationship exactly? You mention procreation. Yes, homosexuals cannot produce offspring together, but just because a person is gay does not mean that the equipment is broken. Lesbian couples can readily have children with a sperm donor. Male homosexuals may have children from a previous relationship. Therefore, gays can and are involved in raising families. And what about the infertile couples who can't have children. Should they just pack it in because their childless relationship is a mockery of a proper marriage? I recently read about some American politican stating "I oppose gay marriage for the survival of the species". What's the meaning of that statement? Everybody will become gay? As I mentioned above, gay people can procreate in any case. People will be so discouraged by the existence of gay marriage that they'll stop having children? It's raw homphobia. People used to justify the discrimination against blacks the same way. Give them equal rights and everyone will become mixed. Why would everyone become mixed? And so what if they do? The issue of gays in society is making normally rational people say some pretty crazy things.

Hugo, you are not much of a debater. You have basically admitted that homosexuality is an inherent characteristic (whether environmental or genetic or some mixture of both) and you have switched tacts by saying that Gay is not good citing a lower life expectancy. Natives in Canada have the same kind of lower life expectancy, perhaps we should ban inter-Native marriage afterall letting them marry each other just adds to the acceptance of the "Native lifestyle", which results in so much misery for so many. Perhaps if there wasn't so much stigma related to being gay, gays might be able to live healthy lifestyles like getting married and have a stable relationship.

Scars are beautiful. Didn't you see "Crash"? Gay is beautifiul too. I suggest you read the "Miracle of the Rose " by Jean Genet.

Instead of reading the thread, I went to the source and read up on Dr. Dean Hamer. Dr. Hamer is right, but your interpretation is way off base. "Heritable" means "genetically influenced" ie your genes will give you a predisposition for some behaviour but the environment will decided if you do it. So genetics is part of homosexuality (according to Dr. Hamer) but not the entire explanation because there are environmental factors (not restricted to psychological factors). Basically, you are proposing that genetics has no influence on behaviour. Take it out of the homosexuality context, few would agree with you. However, the prejudice against homosexuals is so strong that normally rational logical people are willing to tie themselves into knots to prove that it's wrong. Moreover, environment does not mean "free will" . There are many environmental factors outside a person's control. For example, if I was scarred in fire as a child, that scar would be not be my choice.

I meant that it is discrimination that homosexuals cannot marry other homosexuals. The reason that it is discrimination is that the legal definition of marriage is not just the "union of a man and a woman" , it is a "man and woman living together and having conjugal relations ie sex" . So I can live with a woman ie living with my mother, but since we don't have sex she can't assert a common law marriage nor can I. So the basis of marriage is having sex (if you don't have sex, the marriage can be annulled).@@So in the past, it was recognized that living with and having sex with a person of the opposite sex would allow you to be married and allow you to get certain benefits, but living with and having sex with a person of the same sex wouldn't. It's an arbitrary distinction and hence discrimination. The slippery slope I was referring to is FastNed argument that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, so if we change that somehow marriage will be meaningless and people will stop having families. Your slippery slope argument that we'll have to consider other types of marriages has more validity. However, we do not have accept all types of marriages. For example, there is an age requirement for marriage which is justifiable. As for the consanguinity restrictions, such restrictions are arbitrary because we can now predict the possibility of genetic disorders, but such information can't be used to prevent people from marrying or reproducing.

Is your only come back that the people on this thread have already made up their minds that being gay is a perverted choice that could easily be corrected and that I'm a "leftist" (first gay marriage then nationalizing the banks...they've got an agenda!) ? First, there's all kinds of crap coming out of Harvard, do you expect me to accept all of it? Why is it that there a whole lot of people who are sexually attracted to people of the same sex but at the same time are repulsed by homosexuality and hate homosexuals? Are they just confused? They don't want to be gay yet they keep having sexual relations with people of the same sex. Answer me that smart guy! I am not a leftist. If you want to know my political philosophy stop reading pseudo scientific crap about homosexuality and pick up a copy of the Economist.

You can go the social (quasi-religious) if you want but marriage is not a value. Bernardo and Homolka were married, did that make them good people? Marriage is a legal vehicle which can produce positive result for society just as incorporated companies can produce positive results. However, the positive results apply equally to homosexuals and heterosexual ie people take better care of themselves physically and mentally, it creates a stable environment to raise children etc. You seem to be bothered by gays using the courts to have gay marriage recognized. We have constitutional government which means that not everything is up to the whims of the legislatures. Basic rights under the constitution are ruled on by the courts. Do you really want a referendum on gay marriage? What if you lose? It will be a big set back for religious folk like yourself (I assume you are religious, otherwise why would you care?). But in any case, it is offensive to human dignity that gays are denied the right to marry, because marriage confers benefits (parental rights, survival benefits, tax etc.) on the married couple. Why shouldn't homosexuals have those benefits, if homosexuality is acceptable. Do you only tolerate homosexuals as long as you don't have to see them as normal people ie people having full rights under the law? As for the slippery slope, there is no slippery slope. I am suppose to think "gays today, next a 40 year old man will be marrying a five year old girl!" . People will still have families for better or worse etc. Basically , nothing will change except we'll have a more tolerant society.

Objectively, marriage is just a legal construct. If you want it to be a "union blessed by God" or whatever else, that's your business. You could make the mission statement of your company "Serve Lord Jesus", but that wouldn't make legally incorporated companies in general servants of Christ. Those arguing against "homosexual marriage" have to fall back on the slippery slope argument, because the majority of peole don't consider homosexuality to be wrong. Given the premise that homosexuality is okay, you have to accept that homosexuals can marry, unless someone throws a curve ball ie Yes, people can choose to be homosexuals (provided they keep it to themselves....) and being a homosexual doesn't make a person a bad person per se (but they tend to be bad people) However, marriage is different (it's either religious or quasi-religious) and if gays can marry then marriage won't be different anymore and that's bad because the fact that marriage is different separates us from the animals and civilization as we know it will collapse... I think that most people realize that marriage is not different (ie like any construct it has no inherent nature), however, they haven't thought it through, so the "sky will fall in" arguments tend to be effective. The problem is that the sky won't fall in, gays will marry and not much will change as a result. That's not to say that it is trivial. Like discrimination of any kind, the fact that gays are prevented from marrying is offensive to human dignity. However, civilization will carry on as before albeit being a little more just.

Marriage is a legal construct. You might as well say that homosexuals can't incorporate a limited liability company, because such company wouldn't be "creative" or "positive". Those arguing against "homosexual marriage" can only fall back on the "thin edge" or "slippery slope" arguments ie "Once gays are allowed to marry, all hell will break loose." It's ridiculous. Gays will marry and after all the hand wringing, we'll be wondering why it didn't happen sooner.