Gay marriage on TV

[cybercoma]

I don't think the issue will ever go away. The majority of perple will always feel uncomfortable with something that is different and particularly when it is in the character that is the essence of animal existence.

I have not followed this wedding plan, but it sounds to me like a provocation - a thumbing of the nose - just like that which still incenses a great many people; the Gay Pride parades where most watchers go to see the "Freaks.".

Like it or not; right or wrong, the majority of people still do not accept homosexuality and it is not just the bigots. Talk to anyone who will confide honestly. Most will say that, in spite of their public pronouncements, they are still uncomfortable with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tend to agree with you, eureka. We cannot legislate morality and because something is legal, that does not make it moral. The State cannot order people to like or even respect other people. Simply put, gays want to be able to use the word marriage because they want to be respected. I don't think changing the meaning of a word can do that.

As to this television programme, the last time I watched daytime TV, it seemed to me there were weirder subjects than two guys getting married. ("My boyfriend had an affair with my daughter's husband but I forgive him.")

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is just it, people can be tolerant of gay relationships but they don't have to LIKE them. People have every right to be uncomfortable with the things that make them uncomfortable. Telling people the HAVE to accept homosexuals through legislation will just serve to infuriate those who are morally opposed to it.

[cybercoma]

· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This reminds me of a famous basketball player who, several years ago, boasted about the number of women he had slept with over the years. I can't remember his name, but he was very well known among basketball fans. My point is that promiscuity is not found only among gay men, and the stats quoted here don't preclude gay men from being monogomous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wilt Chamberlain.

[Black Dog]

Well, that would certainly be an explosive show. No doubt it would end with a bang.

It's nice to know that, in an uncertain world, we can always count on Argus' rabid hatred of Muslims.

It's raving nonsense to pretend the media haven't been pushing the gay agenda for years. Virtually the entirity of the major media is an enthusiastic supporter of homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

Yeah, when will these bleeding hearts in the media stop their senseless championing of human rights and equality unde rthe law? Bastards!

What is this "gay agenda" I keep hearing about, anyway? Have you read it? If so, maybe you can fill us in as to what it contains.

Big shrug. The word no longer has any meaning anyway. Lefties have been shrieking it out at the top of their lungs at anyone and everyone who disagrees with them for decades now. If you don't agree with the lefties you hate the poor, want to destroy Canada, hate homosexuals, hate immigrants, etc. etc. It's a tired, mindless old refrain on the part of the mindless dross that makes up the reactionary left.

...

Either you love homosexuality so much that you wouldn't even mind bending over and taking one up the backside, or you're an evil homophobe who might as well be wearing a sheet.

Taking notes, people? Don't settle for bargain-basement strawmen: go with the best. Contact Argus c/o Mapleleafweb for all your strawman needs.

It's ironic that this is very much the same mentality as George Bush espouses. You're either with them 100%, or you're their enemy. There is, for example, no room in their minds for people who might be uncomfortable with the homosexual lifestyle of promiscuity, or people who cherish the notion of the man/woman family, or people with religious beliefs, or anyone who dislikes court-driven legal changes or media driven sociatal change or simply is reacting to their smug, sanctimonious preaching.

Big shrug. You can believe whatever hateful, ignorant, back-ass-wards, superstisious gobbilty-gook you want. The issue is really a simple one of equality under the law, a right we are all guaranteed yet is being systematically denied to some. Fortunmately, for the vast majority of Canadians, gay marriage is a fact of life. The sky has not fallen, the ground has not opened beneath the 7 provinces and two territories with gay marriage. It's an issue that afects a small minority (gays who wish to marry) yet another vocal gropu has decided to stick their noses in where it doesn't belong. It's kinda funny (but not in a ha-ha way) that it's people like Argus-that is "conservatives"-who are the one's advocating for more government interference in individual's lives.

"Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime

Where'd you nick that from?

In surveys of gay men, between 40% and 60% of the men questioned were currently involved in a steady relationship (e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Harry, 1993; Jay & Young, 1997; Peplau & Cochran, 1981; Spada, 1979). In studies of lesbians, between 45% and 80% of women surveyed were currently in a steady relationship.

Another set of studies (Binson 1985, Dolcini 1993), showed that gay men had an average of 6.5 sexual partners in the past 5 years and that "homosexual and bisexual men are much more likely than heterosexual men to be celibate."

In studies* of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. In a parallel study, of a random sample of primarily straight men, the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.

*J Billy-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60; R Fay-1989, Science 243:338-348

Most other studies show that the discrepancy between the mean and median is indicative of a small sub-population of gay males who tend towards high rates of sexual partners, skewing the mean, while the majority of gay men tend to have rates about the same as heterosexual males.

This is just it, people can be tolerant of gay relationships but they don't have to LIKE them. People have every right to be uncomfortable with the things that make them uncomfortable. Telling people the HAVE to accept homosexuals through legislation will just serve to infuriate those who are morally opposed to it.

You are correct: people have every right to be uncomfortable with the things that make them uncomfortable (like my thing with Stephen Harper's hair). But the proposed gay marriage legislation doesn't say ANYTHING about having to like homosexuality, only that gay relationships be accorded the same legal recognition as everyone else's. You don't have to like it. But it really doesn't affect you, so why worry? It's nice outside: get out and enjoy the weather!

[PocketRocket]

I have the next big blockbuster reality show. My big fat sheep wedding. Where a man & his sheep can finally be wed.

Reminds me of a joke....

What's the difference between Mick Jagger and a scottish sheep-herder???

Jagger sings "Hey, you, get offa my cloud"

The sheepherder says "Hey, McCloud, get offa my ewe"

[takeanumber]

Bravo Black Dog.

A fabulous post.

[The Terrible Sweal]

There is, for example, no room in their minds for people who might be uncomfortable with the homosexual lifestyle of promiscuity, or people who cherish the notion of the man/woman family, or people with religious beliefs, or anyone who dislikes court-driven legal changes or media driven sociatal change or simply is reacting to their smug, sanctimonious preaching.

But look, on any close examination, none of those motivations is rationally defensible in the context of public policy.

Don't like gay promiscuity? Not your business. But hey, maybe marriage would lead to less promiscuity.

Cherish the 'man/woman family'? Okay, tell me how homosexuality or SSM poses any realistic threat to it.

Dislike court driven legal changes? Move to Russia. We're a society of laws. Too bad.

[Redneck Savage]

There is, for example, no room in their minds for people who might be uncomfortable with the homosexual lifestyle of promiscuity, or people who cherish the notion of the man/woman family, or people with religious beliefs, or anyone who dislikes court-driven legal changes or media driven sociatal change or simply is reacting to their smug, sanctimonious preaching.

But look, on any close examination, none of those motivations is rationally defensible in the context of public policy.

Don't like gay promiscuity? Not your business. But hey, maybe marriage would lead to less promiscuity.

Cherish the 'man/woman family'? Okay, tell me how homosexuality or SSM poses any realistic threat to it.

Dislike court driven legal changes? Move to Russia. We're a society of laws. Too bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a democracy, aren't legal changes decided on by the house of commons and not by provincial judges? Judges in 7 provinces seem to be making the laws and not interpreting them.

Homosexuality is not a threat, it is what allowing marriage of homosexuals will lead to. The latest meeting of the Liberals was to keep others from being like O'Brien and leaving. What was agreed on was this: Noone will be charged for discrimination if they choose not to allow SSM in their church/hall/event center. Judges, Justice of the peace, ministers & priests will be able to deny SSM at their discretion. How long will this last? As long as it takes to pass this bill. Then, the first judge or minister to deny a gay couple of marrying will be slapped with a lawsuit and those Liberal agreements made to save the party and appease the anti-gay MP's will be over-turned. What a pityful trick by Martin, the devout Catholic!!! Funny!

[Black Dog]

In a democracy, aren't legal changes decided on by the house of commons and not by provincial judges? Judges in 7 provinces seem to be making the laws and not interpreting them.

In Canada we have laws devoted to the protection of minority rights. Courts across Canada have determined that laws prohibiting SSM violate the "law of the land". So these judges are interpreting the laws to ensur ethey are constitutional.

Homosexuality is not a threat, it is what allowing marriage of homosexuals will lead to.

You mean homosexual marriage? 'Cause that's all the legislation will lead to.

The latest meeting of the Liberals was to keep others from being like O'Brien and leaving. What was agreed on was this: Noone will be charged for discrimination if they choose not to allow SSM in their church/hall/event center. Judges, Justice of the peace, ministers & priests will be able to deny SSM at their discretion. How long will this last? As long as it takes to pass this bill. Then, the first judge or minister to deny a gay couple of marrying will be slapped with a lawsuit and those Liberal agreements made to save the party and appease the anti-gay MP's will be over-turned. What a pityful trick by Martin, the devout Catholic!!! Funny!

Pardon my French, but this is a crock of shit. You're telling me that the watering dowen of the Bill's language to appease anti-SSM supporters is a trick? What are you basing this on, exactly?

It's clear you don't know how laws work. If the changes you mention make it into the law, then they cannot be reveresed on a whim. And if the changes cannot hold up against potential constituional challenges, they have no business being in the bill.

[Redneck Savage]

In a democracy, aren't legal changes decided on by the house of commons and not by provincial judges? Judges in 7 provinces seem to be making the laws and not interpreting them.

In Canada we have laws devoted to the protection of minority rights. Courts across Canada have determined that laws prohibiting SSM violate the "law of the land". So these judges are interpreting the laws to ensur ethey are constitutional.

Homosexuality is not a threat, it is what allowing marriage of homosexuals will lead to.

You mean homosexual marriage? 'Cause that's all the legislation will lead to.

The latest meeting of the Liberals was to keep others from being like O'Brien and leaving. What was agreed on was this: Noone will be charged for discrimination if they choose not to allow SSM in their church/hall/event center. Judges, Justice of the peace, ministers & priests will be able to deny SSM at their discretion. How long will this last? As long as it takes to pass this bill. Then, the first judge or minister to deny a gay couple of marrying will be slapped with a lawsuit and those Liberal agreements made to save the party and appease the anti-gay MP's will be over-turned. What a pityful trick by Martin, the devout Catholic!!! Funny!

Pardon my French, but this is a crock of shit. You're telling me that the watering dowen of the Bill's language to appease anti-SSM supporters is a trick? What are you basing this on, exactly?

It's clear you don't know how laws work. If the changes you mention make it into the law, then they cannot be reveresed on a whim. And if the changes cannot hold up against potential constituional challenges, they have no business being in the bill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just watch, it is a trick to appease the anti-gay MP's. It will be open to civil suits I am sure, whoever tells a homosexual they can't be married in their institution will be sued. They will have the power once this bill becomes law. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. I am so tired of hearing about gay rights, it makes me wanna throw up.

[Riverwind]

Just watch, it is a trick to appease the anti-gay MP's. It will be open to civil suits I am sure, whoever tells a homosexual they can't be married in their institution will be sued. They will have the power once this bill becomes law. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. I am so tired of hearing about gay rights, it makes me wanna throw up.

Useless scare mongering.

Why haven't feminists sued the Catholic church for discrimination?

Answer: it is easier to find a church that accepts woman clergy.

Same thing will be true for gays. There are more than enough churches that are willing to marry gays that it would not be worth the effort.