[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I suppose I could have almost used green text. Homosexuals want equal rights as heterosexuals. And that is a two way street. They have an equal right to marriage as I have an equal right to upholding the traditional definition of marriage.

But your "equal right" by definition requires inequality. Their's doesn't. The gay community wants something the straight community has. People like you don't want them to have it. You WANT inequality. They WANT equality.

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I
Nobody is taking advantage of homosexuals. While I agree things change over time, others do not. Maybe Christmas becomes international gift giving day, the tooth fairy deemed a pedophile, and we have our New Years in Feb just so we don't piss off the Chinese? What the eff is this passage about?

Are any of those realistic outcomes? Are you sincerely actually worried about any of that? If not - who cares.

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I
Did you even read my post? I'm not breaching anyone's rights. This is a debate about the fundamental definition of marriage which in my opinion is a heterosexual union. Like I said in my previous post, the homosexual community needs to come up with their own term. Think Coke and Pepsi, essentially the exact same product, but you cannot work for both at the same time.

But why? Why do you care? It's just a frickin word. It has NO impact on you. Fart - make up your own new word for straight marriage and you can have that one. Win-win.

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I
Again, what the eff is this passage about.

I believe that homosexuals, the homosexual community, trans-gendered people, and almost anything else most especially deserve equal rights, in Canada, in 2008.

Using the term "marriage" to describe a union is a heterosexual term.

What would happen if the next rally call was we couldn't call them gay? At some point there has to be labels and boundaries!

Does there? Why? Can't we just try to continually improve?