same sex marriage circus

[Leader Circle]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34

Blackdog, I don't see much hope for you. Hopefully there are some who will see the error of their ways!

[kimmy]

Why is this considered a "circus" anyways?

Well, if nothing else, the past 20 messages or so appear to be a superb answer to Cartman's question.

-k

[Sir Chauncy]

Most arguments in other sites seem religious and also that it bothers some homophobes.

I ask them why two gays getting married is a threat to them, if it lessens their own marraige.

Religion "SHOULD" have nothing to do with it. Someone elses religion is exactly that, "their" religion, and it holds no controls over me.

If religious beliefs deny gay marraige in your faith then they need not allow it, but a legal cerimony by a Government appointed person should be as legal and binding as your religious cerimony and the added feature is that it affects you Christiens marraiges , not one iota.

If it bothers your sensibilities then that is your problem. Equal rights shouldnt be decided on what bothers your sensitivities, but on equality, period.

Sir Chauncy

[ScottBrison]

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}>

I think RightWinger is going for a third term......

[ScottBrison]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the word "Lifestyle" intimates they made a choice to be this way, they didn't it happened at birth.

[August1991]

Why is this considered a "circus" anyways?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if nothing else, the past 20 messages or so appear to be a superb answer to Cartman's question.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if that's supposed to mean circus as in dancing bears or circus as in traffic roundabout (or as BD once said, NAGMT).

I thought Cartman's plea for same sex marriage was eloquent and fair-minded. I think gays and lesbians should have the right to live as any other, including the right to marry and call it a marriage.

With all that said, I am offended when people who are against gay marriage are treated as "bigots". I am offended when the Conservative Party, whose official position is gay civil union and a free vote on gay marriage, is treated as ignorant, religious fanatics and horror of horrors, "not progressive". There is a missionary-crusade mentality about the NDP/gay marriage proponents which I find offensive.

Gay civil union - or even leaving the whole question up to individual provinces - strikes me as a reasonable compromise.

Kimmy, I think, has made the point that the position of the Conservative Party is the same as the governments of Sweden, Norway and Denmark. What posters would say those governments are neanderthals? Should we consider recalling our Ambassador from Oslo to protest the way the Norwegian government treats its gay minority as second-class citizens - denying as it does their right to marry?

[Argus]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the word "Lifestyle" intimates they made a choice to be this way, they didn't it happened at birth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think by "lifestyle" people aren't referring to sexual orientation but the lifestyle which accompanies this in the minds of the general public. The freak show you can see at the gay pride parades, for example, is what a lot of people think of homosexuality and the lifetyle they lead; wildly promiscuous sexual behaviour. This isn't just a matter of what sex you sleep with. In the minds of much of the public it's a different lifestyle of gay bars, bath houses, hanging around in parks looking for strangers to give oral sex to etc. etc. That's not to say all gay men indulge in such things, but enough do that the public perception of the "gay lifestyle" is distasteful to many, and would be even if they were straight.

[Argus]

Religion "SHOULD" have nothing to do with it. Someone elses religion is exactly that, "their" religion, and it holds no controls over me.

There are millions of people in this country for whom their religion is their guide as to morality. Since their religion says homosexuality is immoral and wicked they believe it is immoral and wicked. This is not a belief they can set aside, nor should they. People make decisions based on their sense of morality. What you're really sayins is that their sense of morality is illegitimate and they should ignore it.

[ScottBrison]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya, that's why %70.4 of Canadians voted for a party that supported SSM in the last election.

[The Terrible Sweal]

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.

Riiiiight. You'd be more than willing to recognize their basic rights, if only they weren't so uppity! Nice.

[The Terrible Sweal]

How does it harm you for others to be in [a same sex marriage]? And do you recognize that your position harms them?

In every SSM discussion someone eventually asks the opponents these two basic questions. So far no answers are ever forthcoming.

If they will not or cannot engage in the essential elements of a public policy discussion, how can social conservatives hope to have the rest of us take their objections seriously?

[The Terrible Sweal]

... I am offended when people who are against gay marriage are treated as "bigots". 

What else should it be called, when someone insists that others deserve different and lesser treatment under our civic institutions?

I am offended when the Conservative Party, whose official position is gay civil union and a free vote on gay marriage, is treated as ignorant, religious fanatics and horror of horrors, "not progressive".

Since they tender no intelligible public policy reasons against the legislation, people are right to wonder what sort of mental or character deficiency is responsible for their stance.

Gay civil union - or even leaving the whole question up to individual provinces - strikes me as a reasonable compromise.

How does that comply with the criteria of reason?

[The Terrible Sweal]

There are millions of people in this country for whom their religion is their guide as to morality. Since their religion says homosexuality is immoral and wicked they believe it is immoral and wicked.

I.e. ... They are religious bigots.

This is not a belief they can set aside, nor should they.

That depends on what you mean by 'should'. They 'should' set that aside for their own good because it's irrational, useless, and distracting.

What you're really sayins is that their sense of morality is illegitimate and they should ignore it.

Depends on what you mean by 'illegitimate'.

[Black Dog]

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.

It is circular because it begs the question "why is marriage between a man and a woman?"

I gues sthe question is, why can't we redefine words? We do it all the time (see my previous example re: "the persons case"). If the current definition of marriage is a legal partnership between two emotionally and sexually affiliated individuals (male and female), does changing the gender reference change the nature of the relationship? You would have to show why the gender of the participants is an essential element of the partnership. But saying the gender is essential because that's the way it's always been is fallacious.

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?

First: the current SSM legislation change sthe civil definition of marriage, not the religious definition. If amrriag eis soley a religious term, what'sit doing in Canadian law?

Second: marriage has changed many times throughout history. the one man/one woman definition is not universal (For example, polygamy and, in some societies, polyandry were and are practiced by many societies areound the world).

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.

It will give them the right to marry and solemnize their relationships. You don't have to like it, but then, it doesn't really affect you.

[willy]

Enough with the same sex marriage debate.

Five years ago it would be unthinkable and now it is inevitable.

The Conservatives don't have enough votes to block it. It is a done deal, like it or not.

I personally have had enough of TTS calling me a bigot because of my beliefs and this discussion is going no where.

7 provinces are having gay weddings and the federal bill won’t change that.

Hey, in BC we are having gay divorces as well.

So does any one have bets on how long it will take for gay marriages divorce rate equals that of heterosexuals.? Equality in everything.

It is just sad that marriage really doesn't represent a life long commitment in our culture.

[Argus]

How does it harm you for others to be in [a same sex marriage]? And do you recognize that your position harms them?

In every SSM discussion someone eventually asks the opponents these two basic questions. So far no answers are ever forthcoming.

What you mean is that you dissaprove of and dismiss the answers they have supplied. That's not quite the same thing.

[GostHacked]

I think by "lifestyle" people aren't referring to sexual orientation but the lifestyle which accompanies this in the minds of the general public. The freak show you can see at the gay pride parades, for example, is what a lot of people think of homosexuality and the lifetyle they lead; wildly promiscuous sexual behaviour. This isn't just a matter of what sex you sleep with. In the minds of much of the public it's a different lifestyle of gay bars, bath houses, hanging around in parks looking for strangers to give oral sex to etc. etc. That's not to say all gay men indulge in such things, but enough do that the public perception of the "gay lifestyle" is distasteful to many, and would be even if they were straight.

I think the point you are trying to make is that gays are decent people just like straight people. There are more heterosexuals waiting in the park for some random stranger than gays. If anyone thinks gays will be the downfall of society, you need to give your head a good fucking shake. Not just gays are in these bath houses, gay bars ect. As a straight person I go to gay bars once in a while. A good friend of mine is a bartender there. He is a very nice guy. Also a budding artist. So consider me a factor in the whole downfall of society, you can just throw me into the gay camp and prosecute me as such.

Heteros are just as promiscuous as gays, if not more. So this argument will never work. If straights were all perfect and holy and never did anything wrong, then you can pick on the gays. Until you are perfect, don't slam others for being different.

If you do not want the term 'marriage' tainted in these ways, don't get a divorce. Only a divorce cheapens the word and ideology of marriage. How long ago was it considered bad to get a divorce? End up showing the woman as a weak person or something like that. The church even considered divorce bad untill really this century. Society is evolving. The religios freaks should evolve with the rest of society in order to keep it stable.

Reminds me of the other thread in which the person wanted more religion in politics. The government can stay out of my bedroom and the church can stay out of my bedroom.

[Black Dog]

QUOTE(The Terrible Sweal @ Jun 23 2005, 12:25 PM)

QUOTE(Melanie_ @ Jun 23 2005, 12:00 AM)

How does it harm you for others to be in [a same sex marriage]? And do you recognize that your position harms them?

In every SSM discussion someone eventually asks the opponents these two basic questions. So far no answers are ever forthcoming.

What you mean is that you dissaprove of and dismiss the answers they have supplied. That's not quite the same thing.

Which answers neither question.

[August1991]

... I am offended when people who are against gay marriage are treated as "bigots". 

What else should it be called, when someone insists that others deserve different and lesser treatment under our civic institutions?

So that makes the Norwegian government bigots? Should we not cut diplomatic relations with bigots? Should we not organize a trade embargo against such countries just as we did against apartheid?

Sweal, you are throwing the word "bigot" around a little too loosely.

[Black Dog]

Let's put it this way: not all who oppose SSM are bigots, but all bigots oppose SSM.

[kimmy]

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.

Ya, that's why %70.4 of Canadians voted for a party that supported SSM in the last election.

Was SSM the top issue in the past election? If not, then I don't think you can interpret the election results as an endorsement of SSM.

For me, SSM wasn't even in the top 10 issues on my mind when I cast my ballot. It's an issue of minor importance to the future of the country.

-k

[Leader Circle]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya, that's why %70.4 of Canadians voted for a party that supported SSM in the last election.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was SSM the top issue in the past election? If not, then I don't think you can interpret the election results as an endorsement of SSM.

For me, SSM wasn't even in the top 10 issues on my mind when I cast my ballot. It's an issue of minor importance to the future of the country.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good Point Kimmy,

5 years ago ssm was not even thinkable. Now the Liberals act like it was their idea from day one! Funny!

I still say this opens the door for more sexual deviants to make a case for whatever their issues is.

As many have said, the government should stay out of their bedroom & so should the church. What will happen is, the gov't will stay out of it and their will be more polygamists & incest freaks looking for more human rights. And why shouldn't they? They are being persecuted for their beliefs! They were born this way, they can't help it. They should not be oppressed by a bunch of bigots like us straights & gays with all our rights!!!!

Does this arguement sound familiar?

It should.... it is the same one the pro-gays are making....and who are you to say they are wrong? If we are talking about human rights!!!!

This is where this is going.....and we are going to hell in a handbasket with them all.

All we can hope is God will save us from being treated like the rest and spare us! When he actually burns Sodom & Gomorrah again.

SSM is leading us down the road to ruin with the Liberal party driving...buckle up!

[The Terrible Sweal]

How does it harm you for others to be in [a same sex marriage]? And do you recognize that your position harms them?

In every SSM discussion someone eventually asks the opponents these two basic questions. So far no answers are ever forthcoming.

What you mean is that you dissaprove of and dismiss the answers they have supplied.

No, it does not mean that. It means NO answers which describe ANY harms AT ALL. You, for example, have never answered that question. Not just to my satisfaction, but at all. What harm is there to you if SSMs occur?

[Black Dog]

I still say this opens the door for more sexual deviants to make a case for whatever their issues is.

How? What's stopping them from making their case now?

As many have said, the government should stay out of their bedroom & so should the church. What will happen is, the gov't will stay out of it and their will be more polygamists & incest freaks looking for more human rights. And why shouldn't they? They are being persecuted for their beliefs! They were born this way, they can't help it. They should not be oppressed by a bunch of bigots like us straights & gays with all our rights!!!!

SSM legislation doesn't change the Criminal Code. Nor are the prohibitions on incest or polygamy contained therein discriminatory, as they apply equally to all citizens.

In other words, you're comparing apples to plywood.

SSM is leading us down the road to ruin with the Liberal party driving...buckle up!

SSM has been a legal right enjoyed by almost 90 per cent of Canadians fro well over a year now. Yet God has so far failed to smite any of teh provinces and the territory where gay marriage is a fact of life. Is the Almighty simply waiting for the federal government's decsion before the smiting begins?

[The Terrible Sweal]

... I am offended when people who are against gay marriage are treated as "bigots". 

What else should it be called, when someone insists that others deserve different and lesser treatment under our civic institutions?

So that makes the Norwegian government bigots?

I don't know anything about the Norwegian laws. Maybe, I guess.

Should we not cut diplomatic relations with bigots?

No.

Should we not organize a trade embargo against such countries just as we did against apartheid?

I'm not ready to do that just yet.

Sweal, you are throwing the word "bigot" around a little too loosely.

August, answer my question for a change: What else should it be called, when someone insists that others deserve different and lesser treatment under our civic institutions?