Gay Marriage in Canada

Remove all ads!

Thanks, Nakia.

It must have been a different docu then, for the portrayed birds I have in mind were comparetively small, brown, and dwelled in a savanna-like environment (I think). Then again I only saw the last part of it all... so maybe other species of birds were shown before.

 

Could have been a different docu but I remember the theme was homosexual behavior in animals. So they covered a variety but iirc birds seemed to dominate.

 

To the majority, Homosexuality is either wrong or just plain disgusting, and even a stance like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” can be interpreted as we don’t want this in our face. There will indeed be a backlash, and innocent children would be harassed…

Desire to have sex is very powerful, and for some that temptation is towards members of the same sex, and it can be just as powerful as the temptation for the straight people to have sex with someone of the opposite gender. While temptation is not a choice, to yield to it is a choice. That is how I claim that homosexuality is a choice.

Yet another of many, but the people who really do have the power to make these laws don’t seem to care.

Yes, but some Christian-hating activist type may seek out such an authority to perform such a ceremony, and demand a reason when refused. Since it is not in the doctrine to remain silent on moral issues, that’s reason enough to drag this into the courts again…

No more horrific than the endless stream of excuses to justify homosexuality and gay marriage in the first place. To have Marriage mocked in such a manner, and the family soon to follow is a grave insult to Christianity…

What’s this? Science verifying something that Religion has been teaching for millennia? I notice that nobody else cares to touch that one with a 10 foot pole…

Homosexual relations are no more sinful than Adultery or Fornication. It’s just that in Christian (and I’ve heard, but have no information to support this, but other religion’s) doctrine that Marriage is a sacred covenant ordained of God between a man and a woman (regardless of what any lobby group or government spews forth), for the purpose of creating families. Homosexuality does not promote this goal (the assumption is that through natural means), and adultery is a danger to this goal. Fornication implies that the process is undertaken without sacred covenants being made.

I believe that some insurance policies and property rights regulations allow a man to list the woman he lives with as a spouse even though they never legally married. That right could easily be extended to Homosexuals without offending Religious organizations. I just don’t want that which is sacred mocked by those who want their sins legitimized.

We have freedom to choose our behaviour. You call that a quirk, I call it a decision…

IIRC, under the Law of Moses, Homosexuals and adulterers were both stoned. Both sins are grevious before the Lord. The law forbids the practice of polygamy, therefore adultery will not be legitimized any time soon. That is grounds to decline such a law to legalize Gay Marriage.

I don’t believe that the Gays are that much different from us. It’s just that one practice was legitimized in law, and another was not. It’s not about discriminating by ethnicity or the colour of your skin, it’s about deciding what practices you want sanctioned by law.

Exactly. Rearing Children is a crucial responsibility, and one that must be carefully monitored for children who will have additional needs. If a court doesn’t think that a gay couple should be trusted with that responsibility, then they shouldn’t place the child in their care.

Then Homosexuality is not likely genetic…

The way some homosexuals describe their sexuality, they make is sound like an illness. And I don’t consider the acceptance of Homosexuality as progress…

I also don’t believe they truly represent the Gay Community in an accurate fashion (no pun intended). It is the more extreme members of the community that chose to throw their sexuality in our faces, thus opening the Gay Community up to ridicule.

Right on. Way better than I could have said it. Maybe if some judges would grow a set of balls and make a ruling on moral grounds, we Christians wouldn’t be stuck with such mockery of what we believe…

 

Actually, that's how some of the whiptail lizards species procreate.

Post-zygotic mutations.

[ July 02, 2005, 09:53: Message edited by: Chimera ]

 

<sarcasm>

Sure, there are no other sorts of homosexuals than flaming queens who appear on Pride parades, just as there are no other kinds of Christians than Bible-thumping witch-burners stuck in the Middle Ages... right?

</sarcasm>

 

Yes, if it is a new queen bee raised in order to leave the hive. If the old one dies, however, one of the workers becomes a new queen bee (matures sexually).
And, BTW, if we are talking about homosexuality, do not bring up topics that are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I've seen it, and now comes my question: how did they prove the birds were homosexual? If they simply showed no interest in procreation, you could argue that every celibate person is a homosexual. Or did the homosexual birds organise gay pride parades and I missed it somehow in your post?

But you were bothered enough to participate in this thread. Now either take the stand and comment on everything you disagree with, or make your point moot.

In which case homosexuality is a mutation and therefore an ilness. I also wasn't referring to possible pathological mutations of genes (through radiation, toxicity, etc., or spontaneous mutations), most often leading to cancer.
Therefore, if anyone says that homosexuality is decided in the genes, I can argue that it results from gene mutations.

 

Is it possible to burst your spleen from laughing too hard?
Since when does a mutation equal an illness?

 

dmc, would it help if those birds roamed the Canadian savanna? I am sure I saw a moose trundle into the picture at one point.

toughluck, you heard the mod. This hijacking is over.
How was it proven those birds were gay? Dunno. Maybe they toured Europe now and then and deliberately relieved themselve over the Vatican? Would suit some people and their idea of homosexual behaviour fine.

I dont know. Its too long ago. By taking note of the fact those birds courted their own sex, is my humble guess.

Anyhoo, I am out of here.

 

They are neither. Is this one of your

 

Why are we nit picking about this kind of stuff??? For pete's sake -- and for what it's worth, Chimera... I think you're being quite rude.

 

I wonder what is everyone's standpoint on the issue at hand.

After everything considered, it harms the country. Gay couples will not provide children of their own (barring miracles, or spontaneous partenogenesis, which aren't likely to happen). It definitely isn't "forward thinking", but much more yielding to pressure from groups advocating absurd legislations. If a gay couple wants to live together, so be it. If they want to raise children, who can give them such right? If God (or nature for the atheists here) intended only heterosexual couples to have children, it would be logical to follow the obvious thing: heterosexual couples are the ones that should bring children up, as they provide the optimal environment.
About staying on topic: This topic does not provide real opportunity for discussion. I guess only Canadians can comment on whether it's a good thing, because no matter how much we debate, they won't be changing the law anytime soon (at least not because of our talking here), nor will it speed up or slow down the process in other countries. We can argue whether it will, or debate the chances of Canadian Honkers avoiding Canada because of the legislation. There simply is no real root to discuss, so it's logical that other discussions will stem off. And the one that is starting here is good enough (and seems civil enough) to be perhaps taken from here, and given a new thread.

 

True - but how does this law harm the country? The gay couples are going to have the same number of children they did before the law came in. And having children is hardly the only way that people can contribute to a country.

 

Niether of the two extremes do their respective gruops any credit. I would not be surprised if the majority of Homosexuals don't care to have their sexuality thrown in the face of everyday society. A person's sexual activity is very personal (at least that's the impression I've always been under), and usually there is no tasteful way to broadcast it to any who can't avoid hearing about it. Isn't that the real reason that the big f-word is replaced by four asterisks here on SP, and a few other words considered impolite?

Likewise, The Bible is to be read, not thumped. Burning someone at the stake (again from what I've heard about being burned alive) is extremely painful, and I can think of nothing but hatred or contempt that would motivate someone to actually caust that degree of pain. This is a far cry from the love that is advocated throughout the teachings of Jesus Christ. I've also hear the word of God likened unto a rod of iron. In the analogy, it is like a banister along a straight and narrow path leading back to the presence of God, not a beatstick to bring a bunch of non-believers into line.

The point is, that it's not about the extremes, but the rank and file of both sides. They come from positions which may, ultimately, be irreconcileable. Some compromise could have been made, but the Religious are upset (I myself am pissed off) that the Government has mocked us by giving total victory to the other side.

Once again, a bunch of arrogant, corrupt politicians think that it's best to do what will be popular with a loud minority, rather than a quiet majority. They think they know better than God (or nature according to the Aetheists) about right from wrong, natural from unnatural. It mocks those faithful to Multiple religious beliefs (will this screw the Liberals when they finally get turfed?) to give the illusion of human rights to their nation.

I believe the original purpose of this thread was to allow an initial rant from a Canadian opposed to this new law, and open the floor here in AoLS to discuss the law. Response from the locals seems mostly positive, siting that they approve of giving the Gay community a new freedom, with a smattering of opposition. Will the law change? Not bloody likely. Governments really don't care what the individual says, only what will get them enough votes to get re-elected. As for a new thread, it sounds more like this off shoot would be more for AoDA...

 

From a PBS show (Religion & Ethics) Jan 2004:

Gee, it's already happening, and it's legal too!

What mature kids! And this one too!:

Sounds like it would have been much better for Hope to have been raised by her cocaine addicted birthmother to me! But wait, what does science say about this?

But wait, here come the conservatives to the rescue:

So what do you faggot fathers say about that, huh?

But the conservatives rally to the attack:

What does science say about that?

Dammit, science thwarts religious dogma yet again! But what does the American Psychological Association have to say?

What, unsubstantiated cultural bias you say?

Oh no! How can this be?

Dammit, all American Psychologists, Psychiatrists, and Social Workers must be godless, librul comnists! Certainly, homos are too busy finding new sex partners, seducing children, and worshiping Satan to make good parents. Aren't they?

Oh no, once again I fell victim to unsubstantiated cultural bias! But...but... what about the children? Certainly they don't grow up normal?

But then again, we all know that the Book of Deuteronomy suggests stoning homosexuals, so it *must* be wrong. So I'll collect some stones and head out to my local gay pride parade, but first: I'll stone my friend Rafi for climbing on Mt Sinai (Exodus 19:12); I'll sell my sister into slavery according to (Ex 21); I'll stone any kid I hear saying bad things about their parents (Ex 21:17) or disobeying them (Deuteronomy 21:18-21); those Wiccans and Voodoo chicks are done for (Ex 21:18); all those red state farm boys getting just a little too intimate with the sheep (Ex 21:19); anyone working on Sunday (Saturday?) will get a few stones from me (Ex 31:15, 35:2); anyone having committed adultery (Leviticus 20:10) (hear that Guiliani!), esp with their mother-in-law (Lev 20:14); any wizards better go running (oh no, that doesn't include DnD does it?) (Lev 20:27); whoever takes the name of the lord in vain, Jesus Christ, they're done for (oops) (Lev 24:16); any non-priest approaching the altar (Numbers 1:51); anyone who suggests to you that you worship another religion, even friends or family (Deuteronomy 13:6-9); any woman who gets married and is discovered not to be a virgin (Deut 22:20-21)... Why, I think I'll start by stoning my Indian girlfriend (Hindu = graven images), but then again, will I have to stone myself right afterwords for having fornicated with her last night?

 

Bion, do you have enough stones?

 

Well, I've got the stones, but I don't have the stones. Or is it the otherway around...