same sex marriage circus

[cybercoma]

Let's get down to it here. What does everyone really think?

[ScottBrison]

IMHO: Anything less than full marriage = religious persecution. Which has no place in law.

[Leader Circle]

It is wrong, we are changing our laws to accomidate a small number of people.

It makes me sick, that such a small group of people could cause such a shit storm.

Canada is full of a bunch of pushover pussies.

When will we take a stand on ANYTHING?

I think I will start the constitutional right to marry your pets!

What a country!

[The Terrible Sweal]

What a comment.

Won't take s stand? You mean won't take the stand you want.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Why do gays want to marry? "Marriage" is and always has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. If you want to change the definition of words, why don't we also change the definition of the word "heterosexual" to also include people who have sex with people of the same sex? It's the same thing.

I have no problem with gay people. I just don't understand why any self respecting gay person would want to try to act not-gay. By definition, the gay lifestyle is a different lifestyle. Gay people should celebrate that and embrace their own definitions and traditions instead of attempting to hijack existing traditions.

[Cartman]

It makes me sick, that such a small group of people could cause such a shit storm.

I agree. Let them marry and be done with it.

I really fail to see what is the big deal here. We are talking about a small number of people who want to have the same symbolic and legal representation that heterosexuals enjoy. Why should marriage be an exclusive club?

I could see if a person was angry if they started selling Nobel Peace prizes at Wal-Mart for $29.94, but when you marry, you have not really done something unique. Get over yourself 'cuz many people marry. It is not like including a section of society into the definition of marriage tarnishes your marriage. I for one will find my marriage just as important as ever. Life will go on folks. If you disagree, I suggest you consider the impact of heterosexual divorce upon the stellar, flawless image of marriage.

Why is this considered a "circus" anyways?

[August1991]

Cartman, I simply must agree with you.

[Argus]

IMHO: Anything less than full marriage = religious persecution. Which has no place in law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religious persecution? What a load. First we have it as a basic human right, now religious persecution. What next? A crime against humanity?

The biggest reason I'm not fully supportive of gay marriage is the fanaticism and self-righteousness, not to mention ludicrous sense of self-importance among the majority of the stronger supporters of gay marriage.

[Shakeyhands]

It is wrong, we are changing our laws to accomidate a small number of people.

It makes me sick, that such a small group of people could cause such a shit storm.

Canada is full of a bunch of pushover pussies.

When will we take a stand on ANYTHING?

I think I will start the constitutional right to marry your pets!

What a country!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ladies and Gentlemen... The Conservative Party of Canada.

[Black Dog]

It is wrong, we are changing our laws to accomidate a small number of people.

No kidding. I mean, first it was the Chinese. Then women.

Now this outrage. My god, what do these minorities think this is? A democracy?

Marriage" is and always has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. If you want to change the definition of words, why don't we also change the definition of the word "heterosexual" to also include people who have sex with people of the same sex? It's the same thing.

I've pointed out before the argument that the word marriage has always meant "man and woman" is circular. As I said then:

simply assuming that the conclusion is true in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion.

Also:

There's a distcinction between marriage as a colloquial term or marriage as a legal term. Take the example of women's rights. Did the legal definition of "persons", which, for centuries, excluded women therefore make women non-persons? Did changing their legal status suddenly elevate women to personhood? No. Women were always persons, in spite of legal definitions to the contrary. So, legal definitions are not fixed.

I was on a roll that day.

I have no problem with gay people. I just don't understand why any self respecting gay person would want to try to act not-gay. By definition, the gay lifestyle is a different lifestyle. Gay people should celebrate that and embrace their own definitions and traditions instead of attempting to hijack existing traditions.

What is the legal definition of a partnership between two emotionally and sexually affiliated individuals of the same gender called?

[Cartman]

The biggest reason I'm not fully supportive of gay marriage is the fanaticism and self-righteousness, not to mention ludicrous sense of self-importance among the majority of the stronger supporters of gay marriage.

True enough. Self-righteous people (moral crusaders) often bug me too but this is not a quality unique to gay activists or lefty types. The right has also been self-righteous when it comes to deficit/debt reduction.

[August1991]

It is wrong, we are changing our laws to accomidate a small number of people.

It makes me sick, that such a small group of people could cause such a shit storm.

Canada is full of a bunch of pushover pussies.

When will we take a stand on ANYTHING?

I think I will start the constitutional right to marry your pets!

What a country!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ladies and Gentlemen... The Conservative Party of Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gimme a friggin' break. Civil union is manageable. Best of all, let provinces solemnize marriages - as the constitution states.

The biggest reason I'm not fully supportive of gay marriage is the fanaticism and self-righteousness, not to mention ludicrous sense of self-importance among the majority of the stronger supporters of gay marriage.

Argus, they're modern missionaries on a Crusade. They're going to change the world.

English Canada's Left is an odd mixture of self-righteous, simple, unorgasmic Lutheran Protestants and hard-done-by, left-out, Mom-never-loved-me Irish Catholics. IOW, English Canada's Left is sexually frustrated.

I think that we should "Live and Let Live" but I'll be damned if I join a Crusade, NDP or otherwise. I think Argus is right, and more important - Argus has every right to express an opinion.

[Cartman]

English Canada's Left is an odd mixture of self-righteous, simple, unorgasmic Lutheran Protestants and hard-done-by, left-out, Mom-never-loved-me Irish Catholics. IOW, English Canada's Left is sexually frustrated.

As a self-declared english lefty I am not sure why I am laughing.

Hey, I thought the right was sexually frustrated and the left too promiscuous (i.e. hippies).

Is French Canada's left truly sexually satisfied August (i.e. Lévesque, Duceppe)?

[Black Dog]

The biggest reason I'm not fully supportive of gay marriage is the fanaticism and self-righteousness, not to mention ludicrous sense of self-importance among the majority of the stronger supporters of gay marriage.

I know I get tired of hearing hysterical pronouncments about how not legalizing same sex marriage will jeapordize all marriages; lead to rampant outbreaks of bestiality, incest and polygamy; and inevitably lead to the breakdown of society itself. Oh wait. Sorry, those are arguments advanced by same sex marriage opponnents. No fanaticism or self-righteousness there, nosiree.

As for self-importance, what could be more pompous, persumptuous and self-aggrandizing than those who claim to know the mind of God?

But hey, god forbid a bunch of people who have been traditionally marginalized, ridiculed, ghettoized, abused and discriminated against actually take a strong stand on an issue that matters to them. And if they must, can't they do it quietly so as not to upset our delicate sensibilities?

[Cartman]

As for self-importance, what could be more pompous, persumptuous and self-aggrandizing than those who claim to know the mind of God?

[JerrySeinfeld]

It is wrong, we are changing our laws to accomidate a small number of people.

No kidding. I mean, first it was the Chinese. Then women.

Now this outrage. My god, what do these minorities think this is? A democracy?

Marriage" is and always has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. If you want to change the definition of words, why don't we also change the definition of the word "heterosexual" to also include people who have sex with people of the same sex? It's the same thing.

I've pointed out before the argument that the word marriage has always meant "man and woman" is circular. As I said then:

simply assuming that the conclusion is true in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion.

Also:

There's a distcinction between marriage as a colloquial term or marriage as a legal term. Take the example of women's rights. Did the legal definition of "persons", which, for centuries, excluded women therefore make women non-persons? Did changing their legal status suddenly elevate women to personhood? No. Women were always persons, in spite of legal definitions to the contrary. So, legal definitions are not fixed.

I was on a roll that day.

I have no problem with gay people. I just don't understand why any self respecting gay person would want to try to act not-gay. By definition, the gay lifestyle is a different lifestyle. Gay people should celebrate that and embrace their own definitions and traditions instead of attempting to hijack existing traditions.

What is the legal definition of a partnership between two emotionally and sexually affiliated individuals of the same gender called?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL! Definitions are not "arguments". It is not circular to define a word. If the argument were "circular" as you say, there would be no need for legislation to change the definition.

As far as "what a gay union" is called, heck, call it whatever you want, just don't call it what it isn't: marriage!

[Canuck E Stan]

Same sex marriage...old hat.....let's get to the fun stuff, "plural" marriage as those who do it call it, now that's what marriage is all about. Who's in favour?

[Leader Circle]

It is just more proof that Canada will fall for anyone with a voice and the right public appeal.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...71179_114862071

The Liberals are now extending the house of commons sitting until this bill is

passed.

"On Tuesday, Liberal House Leader Tony Valeri said the government is declaring Bill C-38, which would change the legal definition of marriage in Canada, a matter of national interest."

If it truly is a matter of national interest, lets have a referendum!!!

Lets see what John Q Canadian thinks of same sex marriage. Bet it would die and the world would be a better place!!

Instead, we will bow to what a few people want and change our laws. It is disgusting.

[crosu]

Let's get down to it here.  What does everyone really think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Same sex marriage tells me four things:

1. the number of gays is significant and can influence the elections result

2. the number of normal people that are willing to vote is decaying

3. there is some potential business from selling gay specific products

4. the governmental bureaucrats are smelling new departments waiting for them

I admit that I’ve probably missed a few other paths for making money from services for gays. However, has nothing to do with religion and everyone should be free to choose its life style. Most likely we will see in the future other groups of people in disgrace today, being reviewed by politicians and corporations.

[Melanie_]

The definition of marriage has changed so many times, I'd like to know what the "traditional" definition means to people. Not so long ago, marriage between a man and a woman meant a woman had no right to property, her children, or even her own body. Not many marriage ceremonies use the word obey in the woman's vows anymore, but it was still an option when I got married 20 years ago. Our society has recognized that "traditional" marriage marginalized women, and has adapted to give women equal footing (or so we are told). So, having evolved in the past, why should it not evolve again?

It does my marriage no harm for others to be committed to each other, mix or match. The only people who can compromise my marriage are myself and my husband.

The other thing I have noticed here is many people talking about choices and lifestyles. That is just not accurate. Sexual orientation is not about choice - I don't think many would choose to be persecuted, disowned, discriminated against, etc, if they could choose otherwise. Whether it is a product of nature or nurture, gay people simply are gay.

[mcqueen625]

What is even more disgusting to me is having an appointed, unaccountable judiciary telling our elected officials how our laws are to read, and then giving them deadlines to comply with those rulings. Then we have the PM of the most corrupt government in the history of Canada, stating that as far as he is concerned the Supreme Court has the final say. I'm sorry but I voted for a politician so that he/she would be accountable for their decision, I did not vote to allow that politician to transfer that responsibility onto an appointed, unaccountable judiciary. If this is going to contiue happening, maybe it's time we got rid of the Parliament of Canada, and The Senate, and our Provincial Legislatures, and simply elect the judiciary instead. At least we would have a system in place whereby those that are making the decisions can be held accountable for any decisions that they make. That's call democracy! I'm not sure what we should call the system we now have other than a dictatorship.

I too could care less if they want to legalize same-sex civil union's I just don't believe that it should be called a marriage, because the term marriage is a religious terminolgy which predate modern society and even Canada. It is a universal term, meaning the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, a term that has this same meaning right around the world. How can Canada change a terminology referring to something that is universal and not Canadian, but religious?

The passage of Bill C-38 is not going to magically make these types of union's any more acceptable by the people who oppose this Bill. So, what will it's passage have gained them? Certainly not respect, because in order to get respect one has to give respect, and proponents of this Bill seem to have a total disrepsect for the opinions of anyone who does not agree to give up what they have been taught religiously all of their lives, and turn to support for this Bill. I know that it certainly won't become more pallitable for me, or for any other's in my Faith Community who does not agree with this initiative. Like it or not my Faith teachings will not change, and neither will my acceptance of anyone involved in such a relationship.

Call me homophobic, and hateful if that suits the proponents of same-sex marriage, but hateful I am not. Hateful is what the proponents of same-sex marriages are, that want to foist their opinions onto me, and anyone who does not agree with them. If they think that using derogatory terminolgy when I refuse to accept their lefestyles, will somehow make me more accepting of their lifestyle choices. Not happening people!

[Melanie_]

Hateful is what the proponents of same-sex marriages are,  that want to foist their opinions onto me, and anyone who does not agree with them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mcqueen, no one is foisting anything on you. No one is telling you that you should be in a same sex marriage. How does it harm you for others to be in one? And do you recognize that your position harms them? Your faith doesn't have to change, but when you expect others to live by the dictates of your faith and not their own beliefs, you are foisting your faith on them.

Also, marriage is not a solely religious term, many people are married by justices of the peace, or even Elvis.

[Melanie_]

Same sex marriage...old hat.....let's get to the fun stuff, "plural"  marriage as those who do it call it, now that's what marriage is all about. Who's in favour?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only a man would suggest it! Believe me, one husband is trouble enough.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Hateful is what the proponents of same-sex marriages are,  that want to foist their opinions onto me, and anyone who does not agree with them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mcqueen, no one is foisting anything on you. No one is telling you that you should be in a same sex marriage. How does it harm you for others to be in one? And do you recognize that your position harms them? Your faith doesn't have to change, but when you expect others to live by the dictates of your faith and not their own beliefs, you are foisting your faith on them.

Also, marriage is not a solely religious term, many people are married by justices of the peace, or even Elvis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a lawyer and I'm all for gay marriage: next comes gay divorce. 50% rate if they're anything like straight couples lol.

[newbie]

...It is a universal term, meaning the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, a term that has this  same meaning right around the world...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mcqueen625, part of the definition of marriage, according to my Webster dictionary, includes "any close or intimate union." It also says nothing about this ceremony being religious in nature. Just my 2 cents.