California legalizes gay marr... ZOMG!!!! MY EYES!!!!! IT BURNS!!!

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by J pold

So than what is the difference between a heterosexual couple that are unable to have children getting married and a homosexual couple getting married? They both can’t reproduce which seems to be the main reason in your opinion

Are there marriages equally worthless?

No sense in replying, you've already decided what I think.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Gozer

. TO ME, marriage is a celebration of the union of a man and a woman under god

So Atheists/Agnostics shouldn't get married either?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

If they get 'Marriage' can we have 'Gay' and 'Queer' back to use in every day conversation?

You really give words a lot of power

Gay is not considered offensive as far as I've noticed, Queer is a little more offensive but again I've never been much for PC.

I tend to err on the side of say whatever you want, within reason. If you want to walk around calling people Queers, more power to you.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by troutman

So Atheists/Agnostics shouldn't get married either?

God doesn't require their belief.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I think what he was trying to get at is that all homosexual couples will never be able to reproduce in the 'normal' sense. Sure there are some exceptions for for hetero couples but that is the way that our species natural propagates.

This is not my reasoning, just trying to decipher the post...

Fair enough but I’m talking about an example that involves only two couples, one hetro, one homo, neither with the ability to reproduce…if they want to get married is there a difference? Based on Gozers reasoning there isn’t

The bottom line remains…they can’t reproduce

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Why is gay community so obsessed with conforming with the hetro community? I think that independent of the animosity that had been directed at 'you' in the past, 'you' wouldn't be so against with coming up with your own title.

'you' = homosexual community

Could it be because of the animosity that 'we' have received in the past and still continue to receive every day that 'we' don't want our own title?

'We' struggle every day to integrate ourselves into society so as not to be on the receiving end of such hatred. Having 'us' enter into a union intended to be like marriage, but not allowed to be marriage just segregates 'us' and continues to indicate to some closed-minded folks that gay people are not like the rest of the world and it is ok to discriminate against 'us' and continue to perform hate crimes against 'us'.

'We' and 'us' = GLBT Community

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I expect in 40 years our kids (especially the gay ones) will look back and say "I can't believe the gay community in 2008 was so selfish as to demand that society bend over backward for them on such an arrogant technicality. What an abuse of civil liberties and freedom of expression it was. Thank god things now are much better."

Bend over backwards? What did you do? What did we do as a society?

I didn't do anything. I don't know anyone else who did anything. The government changed a law a few years ago and nothing happened. Life went on just like it was going before.

What effect did this have on your life? It's been this way for a while now so the changes must be pretty evident by now. What changed for you? How have you been inconvenienced, harmed or otherwise abused by the law that allows same-sex marriages?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by J pold

Fair enough but I’m talking about an example that involves only two couples, one hetro, one homo, neither with the ability to reproduce…if they want to get married is there a difference? Based on Gozers reasoning there isn’t

The bottom line remains…they can’t reproduce

Yeah, we get it Aristotle. You disagree.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Thor

You really give words a lot of power

Gay is not considered offensive as far as I've noticed, Queer is a little more offensive but again I've never been much for PC.

I tend to err on the side of say whatever you want, within reason. If you want to walk around calling people Queers, more power to you.

Not really, I was just trying to add some humor into this thread. It was getting a little tense for me.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I'm not sure what "my equal right" means above. You have an opinion you are expressing, but I don't see how it is a "right". Your opinion is to deny the right to marry to other groups. That isn't an issue of you having an equal right to them.

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.

Many traditions and conventions change over the course of time. Society becomes enlightened. Slavery, equal rights for women, child labor laws. All things that "traditionally" took advantage of other groups.

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?

You have the right to your opinion. But your opinion does not extend so far as to preclude the rights of others in a society where all members are equal.

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.

That's good... but you just don't think they should have the same legal rights as you do? Why not? If your answer is "because they are gay" then you are discriminating against them on the basis of something that rises to the level of race (if you think people are born gay) or religion (if you think people choose to be gay). In either case discrimination = bigotry.

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!

Should interracial marriages have a unique word?

If they're gay, then it would be the same word as I have been alluding to. Its not meant to be derogatory.

In our society when two adults decide to enter a legal arrangement whereby they essentially allow their significant other to make decisions as part of a family union, why should it be different simply because they are the same sex?

Its not different in any way, shape, or form except for the title of the institution (ie, not marriage, but something else).

Except they want to be treated exactly like everyone else - equality. That includes the use of words. They don't want to call a life long commitment to each other a "civil union". They want to call it "marriage".

Marriage is a heterosexual term.

For example - How is denying gays the right to marry any different than saying "Asians should be allowed to enter civil unions, but because most of them are from Eastern cultures, they shouldn't use the term "marriage".

In Canada we don't profile by race or sexual orientation. We also don't blurr the lines of common sense to appease minorities, although we tend to fail miserably in this regard.

It's 2 adults who want to be treated the same as everyone else. What's the problem?

No problem, and they will be treated completely equal in their union that is not titled as a "marriage."

How is it an abuse of civil liberties and freedom of expression to want to be treated just like everybody else? Discrimination should be fought wherever it is found.

I agree, which is why in Canada we allow legally recognized bonds between two persons of the same gender. It gives them all the rights and privileges of traditionally defined heterosexual marriage.

If you tell me that I shouldn't be treated the same as everyone else because of my religion, gender, color, or presence of a disability, you would be discriminating. What's the difference with sexual orientation?

For the last time, I am not suggesting homosexuals be treated differently.

And before anyone acuses me of any kind of bigotry, I lived for a year in the gay nexus of Canada (Jarvis and Gerard St. in Toronto), partied like a madman on Church Street at Halloween (imagine the red-mile, but its a gay outdoor costume party. Actually, it was a killer party!) and had the biggest pride parade I have ever seen go right by my front door.

I got nothing against homosexuals, am not weirded out by gay men acting gay or hitting on me (I actually think its a compliment), and all around don't even notice them as anything different unless I see two dudes kissing and wonder how scratchy it must be?

But again I say, "marriage" is a heterosexual term. I know plenty of very gay people that feel the same too.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Gozer

God doesn't require their belief.

What does that even mean?

If a couple has a totally secular wedding, would you consider them to be married?

[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?

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by Gozer

That is not true, and only escalates tension in a civil debate.

I think gays are perfectly fine human beings, but same sex marriages are not perfectly fine marriages. TO ME, marriage is a celebration of the union of a man and a woman under god (with an implied duty of expanding the community, but that is not a prerequisite which would preclude the unwilling/unable).

Boy-boy marriage doesn't fit MY definition, THAT DOESN'T MEAN I THINK THEY'RE EVIL!

Why is gay community so obsessed with conforming with the hetro community? I think that independent of the animosity that had been directed at 'you' in the past, 'you' wouldn't be so against with coming up with your own title.

'you' = homosexual community

Have you ever gotten in an argument about the definition of any other word, ever? If so, what word? If not, why does the definition of marriage have to stand up against societal progress while all other words do not?

Why do you have to see it as a gays conforming to the hetero community. Why the "we were here first" attitude? Why can't you see it as expanding HUMAN RIGHTS to ALL HUMANS?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Frankster

'We' struggle every day to integrate ourselves into society so as not to be on the receiving end of such hatred. Having 'us' enter into a union intended to be like marriage, but not allowed to be marriage just segregates 'us' and continues to indicate to some closed-minded folks that gay people are not like the rest of the world and it is ok to discriminate against 'us' and continue to perform hate crimes against 'us'.

'We' and 'us' = GLBT Community

If you think a word is going to change their minds, you're dreaming.

[MissTeeks]

If it's all about the "traditional" meaning of the word "marriage", I guess us women should go back to becoming our husband's property and only being chosen for marriage because some guy wanted my large dowry and I should get back into the kitchen and make him some dinner. Because that was the original definition of marriage, was it not? But that changed, so why can't it change to include the marriage between two people of the same sex?

[czure32]

I cant believe htis has gone on for nearly 6 pages
who cares what its called either way. I dont particularly understand the hetero point of view that "marriage" is a "hetero" only word.

In the words of Bobby Slayton (I believe) "Let them get married, homosexuals deserve the right to be miserable and have someone else take half their stuff, just like the rest of us"

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

Have you ever gotten in an argument about the definition of any other word, ever? If so, what word?

The N word.

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

Why do you have to see it as a gays conforming to the hetero community. Why the "we were here first" attitude? Why can't you see it as expanding HUMAN RIGHTS to ALL HUMANS?

I don't see calling homosexual unions "marriage" a right. Rights are bestowed upon individuals, not communities.


You have the right to marry, not marry, and/or enter into any other union you please.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

If it's all about the "traditional" meaning of the word "marriage", I guess us women should go back to becoming our husband's property and only being chosen for marriage because some guy wanted my large dowry and I should get back into the kitchen and make him some dinner. Because that was the original definition of marriage, was it not? But that changed, so why can't it change to include the marriage between two people of the same sex?

You'll have to have that debate with someone who considers marriage as such.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by Gozer

If you think a word is going to change their minds, you're dreaming.

It will not change their minds, but by not allowing the GLBT community to use that word, we are being further segregated.

Marriage is not religious. It is something allowed by the state.

The celebration of the marriage can be religious.

There is nothing that FORCES a church or religious leader to perform a gay marriage.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Frankster

This is incredibly not true. Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgendered (GLBT) people have been ridiculed and the subject of hate and hate crimes for longer than the marriage "issue" has been around.

In fact, with the recent hate crimes statistics that came out, the percentage of violent hate crimes against any group was highest in the GLBT community...I highly doubt that has to do with the marriage debate and more to do with bigotry and homophobia.

Fair enough. But there will always be hate crimes from bigots and homophobes.

I meant the more insidious, less obvious kind that happens in the line at Tims, or on the train for example.