Hugo Posted September 13, 2003 Report Share Posted September 13, 2003 To be honest, it's fast becoming a non-issue anyway. The numbers of gays actually marrying since it was legalised has been pathetic, and it includes Americans and Canadians from other provinces who went to Ontario to tie the knot. My point stands. Homosexuals are ridiculously promiscuous, as a rule, and have as much use for commitment and monogamy as a fish has for a bicycle. This is why they aren't rushing to marry. That being said, sure, let gays marry. Let fish ride bicycles. Apparently, neither will make a scrap of difference to the realities of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuclear Posted September 20, 2003 Report Share Posted September 20, 2003 Under Judeo-Christian Morality, Having sex is considered wrong outside of wedlock. One of the reasons people marry, aside from lifelong commitment is to have intercourse and children. Considering homosexuality is considered immoral as a whole under those morals, they have no desire to marry because why would they want to legally bind themselves to one 'mate'(if you could call it that)....the real reason they want it is so two guys living together or two girls living together can get tax breaks.... Does that mean back wehn I was in college that my roommate and I, although neither of us were/are gay and are both happy with our girlfriends, couldn't we get 'married' just for taxes becuase we live in the same room? Heck, even if I could have, I wouldn't have..... TheWatcher has a good point. If you were to call a gay union something different, I personally wouldn't be as offended. I think it bothers me because of my religious beliefs and I feel they are being attacked by a marriage between gays. If there was a different word, perhaps it would make me and others opposed to it feel better. I'm not condemning anyone btw, it's not my place to judge...Just making a poltical statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainiac Posted October 17, 2003 Report Share Posted October 17, 2003 Typically in Canada, when a couple divorces, the custody of the child goes to the woman, and the man makes support payments. I am not saying that is fair, that’s just the way it is. Custody of the child goes to the primary care giver, not the woman. This is determined by who spends the most time with the child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 Dear Hugo, My point stands. Homosexuals are ridiculously promiscuous, as a rule, It seems to me that your point is from a perspective against homosexuality. Promiscuity in the 'gay community' must be in, large part, attributed to the fact that same sex couples were frowned upon, spat upon, or burned at the stake for millenia. It would have been well nigh impossible for same-sex couples to have monogamous relationships because they would have been 'found out'. The only safety homosexuals had, and indeed for some, still have, is anonymity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 Promiscuity in the 'gay community' must be in, large part, attributed to the fact that same sex couples were frowned upon, spat upon, or burned at the stake for millenia. I cited a study in another thread, done in Holland, that showed that as social acceptance for gays grew, the problems of disease and extreme promiscuity grew progressively worse. It would have been well nigh impossible for same-sex couples to have monogamous relationships because they would have been 'found out'. Think about what you've said. When homosexuals were repressed, it makes more sense to be monogamous. If you were a Jew hiding in Nazi Germany, would you a) have just one person know about it, a person you could trust, or go to a public place and tell a series of anonymous strangers? What if the guy that the oppressed homosexual picks up in a bath house turns out to be a vice cop? That's why, as social tolerance has increased, homosexual behaviour has grown ever more extreme. Now that gays are more free, they are more free to be uninhibited and do as they will, and apparently, that includes sleeping with over 1000 men in almost 1/3 of cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainiac Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 My point stands. Homosexuals are ridiculously promiscuous, as a rule, and have as much use for commitment and monogamy as a fish has for a bicycle. This is why they aren't rushing to marry. Heterosexuals are ridiculously promiscuous as well, as a rule. Homosexuals don't corner the market on that one. They might not be rushing to marry for a number of reasons. That is unless you have talked to every homosexual in North America and they all told you that they are not getting married because they just want to screw around. Who knows, maybe they value marriage more than heterosexuals do. We get married for some very stupid reasons, most of which have nothing to do with commitment and monogamy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 Heterosexuals are ridiculously promiscuous as well, as a rule. Homosexuals don't corner the market on that one. Incorrect. There is a world of difference between the two. 28% of homosexuals have had over 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Most of them will have had more than 500. Less than 2% of homosexuals can be considered even semi-monogamous (10 lifetime partners or less). Whatever the reason, there is no comparison between heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity - they are on different scales. A straight girl who'd slept with 50 men would probably be considered "easy", and that being generous, but a homosexual man who'd slept with 50 men would be considered almost chaste. "Homosexual relationships last 1-1/2 years on average... Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years." -- Dr. Maria Xiridou, Amsterdam Municipal Health Service "67 percent of [heterosexual] first marriages last 10 years, and 50 percent last 20 years." -- National Center for Health Statistics, 2001 "Of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting anywhere from one to 37 years, all couples with relationships more than five years had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity." (emphasis mine) -- David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, "The Male Couple" (themselves homosexual) "77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows" -- Journal of Sex Research, 1997 As to why they aren't rushing to marry, if they have too much respect for the institution (which I doubt) then that's basically an admission that their behaviour is unacceptable for married people - they cannot maintain so much as a facade of commitment or monogamy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debo Posted October 21, 2003 Report Share Posted October 21, 2003 Wether you are for or against same sex marriage, I was wondering how people feel about religious officials, such as the pope or that bishop in Alberta, publicly trying to influence the decision of our elected officials. I would say the Bishop is a citizen and has a vote, but the Pope threatening eternal damnation somehow irritates me. We criticize other nations and try to exert pressure, mostly for trade reasons or human rights abuses, and it is acceptable for them to criticize us fo the same. Is critisism of our public laws open to religious pressure, and should they be? Would you vote for a MP that chooses his stance on issues, by the dictates of a religious leader? Maybe the Pope sees this as a human rights abuse. Think I would if I were in his position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debo Posted October 21, 2003 Report Share Posted October 21, 2003 Ronda saying that letting two perfectly law abiding decent gays to marry will lead to little boys being legally sodomized by child preadors is fear mongering at its worst.its obviously not going to happen so why do you keep trying to pretend its related? there is NO consent issue with gay marraige, so it should have no effect on the consent of children. especially considering how touchy society is about protecting kids. why do you keep making such bizarre and distastfull claims? do you think that letting women become people and not just property will cause men sexually rejected by thier wives to go on raping rampades through society? do you think that blacks when allowed to have sex with whites will lower the IQ of the nation and lead to the end of the white race? because these all sound about equally plausable.. is this the only negative effects that people use to scare up support for preventing gay marriage? i just dont think its a reasonable discussion to have... Sirriff You are so wrong. Here in the US we have that sorry NAMBLA and the ACLU teamed up, God only knows how that will turn out. But if you want to look only at the legal aspect, how fair would it be to allow gays to marry and not a farmer and his horse, or, a mother and her son, and how about those that want more than one partner, you would be eroding the safe gaurds against these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.