Fruit Cops

[crazymf]

http://www.herald.ca/Front/504265.html

Brokeback mounties.

"He kind of stood out from the rest," Const. Connors said.

Which part stood out? Too much info!!!!

Please God, take me now.....

[geoffrey]

Oh who cares?

If cops are going to be gay, or anyone for that matter, I'd rather see it in a commited relationship than the old status quo of wild sex parties with rampant AIDS spreading through the population.

I'm not a fan of gay marriage, I'm rather against it. I'm sure I've expressed my views on zero government involvement in whatever the relationship is called, and instead, just have the government administer civil benefits to whatever arrangement of heterosexual or homosexual partners.

None the less, these guys are halarious. They were making jokes about it, definitely not PC jokes either and everything on a CBC interview. This isn't a power to the gays movement concept, which makes it better than usual.

[Guest Warwick Green]

SSM is really here if such a light-hearted story can be written about it.

Good luck to them.

Don.

[crazymf]

Right. It's just a sign of the times and the general move toward a permissive society where anything goes.

Who really cares you ask? I guess no one, nowadays......

Another reason to feel shame at being Canadian. That's my point for the thread.

RCMP should be held to a certain standard in society. Yes, they were hilarious, but a pair of flaming faggots doesn't really do much for the integrity of the force. They look straight out of village people(pardon the pun). But then again, that's just my opinion.

[Guest Warwick Green]

It doesn't affect anybody other than the persons involved. Like many I support the legalization of same-sex realtionships although I do have some concerns about how homosexuality is portrayed in the schools and also same-sex adoptions, although I woud rather have a kid brought up in a loving same-sex household than an abusive heterosexusal one.

SSM is becoming a non issue.

[geoffrey]

SSM is still an issue with me, I don't approve of it.

But that doesn't mean I don't approve of people being happy. I don't see in any way how having gay officers discredits the force. Maybe you could elaborate crazymf?

We've come along way since the force was all white males (unmarried to boot). We now have women, minorities in the group, I don't see how this is different.

It won't affect the way they perform their duties, they work out of different detachments and aren't in any supervisory positions over each other.

Hey, its there business, I personally don't care what they do, its now within the law (a law I happen to disagree with). It seems they likely won't make it an RCMP type wedding, so they realise the realities of the situation.

Like I've said in previous posts on the SSM issue, the only way that we can respect human rights and religious freedom is to have government not involved in marriage. Governments would administer civil benefits and people would call their arrangements whatever they choose to. That's real freedom, marriage is an outdated term for many people, so they'd just hang out in their 'arrangements.' Those that value marriage would still be married in a Church type setting. Either way, this allows people to have the choice to live how they wish, with no impact on anyone else.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Those that value marriage would still be married in a Church type setting

I value marriage - I am married myself - but I was not married in a "a Church type setting".

[Black Dog]

Right. It's just a sign of the times and the general move toward a permissive society where anything goes.

Who really cares you ask? I guess no one, nowadays......

Another reason to feel shame at being Canadian. That's my point for the thread.

If the actions of two people (actions which have no affect on you whatsoever) are enough to provoke feelings of shame, well, you have a sad life.

RCMP should be held to a certain standard in society. Yes, they were hilarious, but a pair of flaming faggots doesn't really do much for the integrity of the force. They look straight out of village people(pardon the pun). But then again, that's just my opinion.

I can think of a lot worse.

By the way, is homophobic language okay now? Pathetic.

geoffery

Like I've said in previous posts on the SSM issue, the only way that we can respect human rights and religious freedom is to have government not involved in marriage. Governments would administer civil benefits and people would call their arrangements whatever they choose to. That's real freedom, marriage is an outdated term for many people, so they'd just hang out in their 'arrangements.' Those that value marriage would still be married in a Church type setting. Either way, this allows people to have the choice to live how they wish, with no impact on anyone else.

What about non-church goers who want to be married? The reason civil unions won't fly is marriage has more meaning for people. The idea of a symbolic commitment between two individuals transcends the religious connotations and is far more meaningful than the beauracratic sounding "civil unions".

IMO, the current set up is an ideal balance between human rights and religious freedoms: those churches that want to marry gays can, those that don't don't have to. Simple.

[Naci Sey]

Am I the only one who read the thread title and thought the topic was 'cops nabbing people for pesticide infractions' - or some such FOOD-related crime?

Having learned what it is about, I don't see the big deal. I mean, so what?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Am I the only one who read the thread title and thought the topic was 'cops nabbing people for pesticide infractions' - or some such FOOD-related crime?

Having learned what it is about, I don't see the big deal. I mean, so what?

Like you I assumed some poor bugger had been tossed in the bucket for using insecticides on his apple tree. But it turns out that it's only two Mounties doing what a lot of other people are doing -- getting married.

[Cameron]

Am I the only one who read the thread title and thought the topic was 'cops nabbing people for pesticide infractions' - or some such FOOD-related crime?

Having learned what it is about, I don't see the big deal. I mean, so what?

I thought the same thing. I was expecting a story about people smuggling oranges across the border or something. Damn!

It's funny, everyone says 'who cares, it's no big deal about two men getting married..we have been over this in Canada'. If it's no big deal, why was it front page news down here....again, who cares.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Am I the only one who read the thread title and thought the topic was 'cops nabbing people for pesticide infractions' - or some such FOOD-related crime?

Having learned what it is about, I don't see the big deal. I mean, so what?

I thought the same thing. I was expecting a story about people smuggling oranges across the border or something. Damn!

It's funny, everyone says 'who cares, it's no big deal about two men getting married..we have been over this in Canada'. If it's no big deal, why was it front page news down here....again, who cares.

Hey, guy, this is Nova Scotia. When a dog bites a man it gets in the newspapers.

[geoffrey]

Those that value marriage would still be married in a Church type setting

I value marriage - I am married myself - but I was not married in a "a Church type setting".

So call it marriage and value it, my point is that individuals should decide what they want to call it. The relationship doesn't change. The state doesn't need to sanction gay 'marriage' but it also doesn't need to prevent gays from expressing their relationship in whatever terms they see fit.

geoffery

Like I've said in previous posts on the SSM issue, the only way that we can respect human rights and religious freedom is to have government not involved in marriage. Governments would administer civil benefits and people would call their arrangements whatever they choose to. That's real freedom, marriage is an outdated term for many people, so they'd just hang out in their 'arrangements.' Those that value marriage would still be married in a Church type setting. Either way, this allows people to have the choice to live how they wish, with no impact on anyone else.

What about non-church goers who want to be married? The reason civil unions won't fly is marriage has more meaning for people. The idea of a symbolic commitment between two individuals transcends the religious connotations and is far more meaningful than the beauracratic sounding "civil unions".

IMO, the current set up is an ideal balance between human rights and religious freedoms: those churches that want to marry gays can, those that don't don't have to. Simple.

Non-church goers can get married if they want to call it marriage. It doesn't require a Church for people to call it whatever they want. If they believe that a marriage can be done by a justice of the peace, then they can get the justice of the peace to marry them. Who cares? The government doesn't need to support or ban certain arrangements. Of course, the limit would be on exploitive relationships, such as polygamy or 14 year olds marrying the 40 year old situation.

My point is that the govenrment doesn't need to extend anything beyond benefits to people, the actual terms and names of the relationships should be left up to individuals to decide. I'm suprised a civil rights support like yourself would disagree with such a position BD, its the most open and progressive concept I've heard advocated so far.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Those that value marriage would still be married in a Church type setting

I value marriage - I am married myself - but I was not married in a "a Church type setting".

So call it marriage and value it, my point is that individuals should decide what they want to call it. The relationship doesn't change. The state doesn't need to sanction gay 'marriage' but it also doesn't need to prevent gays from expressing their relationship in whatever terms they see fit.

I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that the feds should get out of the marriage business. They should simply define the relationships to be covered by the Income Tax Act, Divorce Act, etc and let the persons involved call their relationship what they want. Even the CPC believes that gays and straights should have the same legal rights.

[geoffrey]

There you go Warwick, on the same page.

The government shouldn't defend or change marriage in any way. Let people call their arrangements what they wish along the lines of their beliefs, taxes shouldn't matter in that equation.