Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bonded

There is a reason that argument was over ruled as it presumes procreation as the reason to block gay marriage, why marry when you can't have kids. The charter adapted when needed.

I never said that argument was the basis for current law, as you say the charter has been reinterpretted. Textcritic asked for a good argument, and I though providing one used by Justice La Forest would be reasonable.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Bonded

It cheapens the decision. Political correctness is not fighting to get protections and access to rights. Political correctness would be not calling someone a fag. People wanted change and got it. I sincerly do not think that the majority remained silent and just went along with it for the sake of appearance.

The denial of rights seems to be steeped in religion and tradition. All I know if I had a gay child I would want then to enjoy thr same things as myself.

Even without the possibility of a child, what gives you the right to impose your viewpoint on the life's of other people. What is your argument for stopping something they want to do. Is it because it confuses you and makes you feel weirded out?

Get over it, life is weird. Adapt and let others enjoy their time on this rock.

It does cheapen the decision, does it not? Is that not what I have been trying to say, that the value of same sex marriage is primarily in cheap political points?

I'm not, in any way, imposing my viewpoint on you. I'm rejecting your imposition of your viewpoint on me. Because I do not see it's value relative to the potential losses to what I value.

Unfortunately, any potentially gay child you may have cannot enjoy the same things as you do, because he could not enjoy heterosexuality. It's not the same thing and it doesn't have to be, stop trying to make it be the same.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

That Americans are fat is a fact, and I threw it in for fun because while there's a Chick-Fil-A appreciation day, something tells me there's not a salad appreciation day in Ameica.

Americans are well aware "you don't win friends with salad".

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It does cheapen the decision, does it not? Is that not what I have been trying to say, that the value of same sex marriage is primarily in cheap political points?

I'm not, in any way, imposing my viewpoint on you. I'm rejecting your imposition of your viewpoint on me. Because I do not see it's value relative to the potential losses to what I value.

Unfortunately, any potentially gay child you may have cannot enjoy the same things as you do, because he could not enjoy heterosexuality. It's not the same thing and it doesn't have to be, stop trying to make it be the same.

I don't think the decision was made for political correctness, you do. Secondly, your viewpoint is an imposition, gay marriage does not affect you in a material way, whereas, banning gay marriage materially affects people and stops them from doing something.

Finally, if I have a girl, then she could not enjoy having a penis, should I deny her rights as well?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You mentioned the original ideal of marriage was for the "purpose of ensuring progeny" here: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=369

Historically, procreation was the primary purpose of marriage. In a world where marriage is mainly about companionship and access to government benefits, maybe it doesn't matter whether two individuals entering it can procreate. On the other hand, if the function and purpose of something changes, maybe it's not that thing any more, but rather something else.

I actually think a reasonable compromise would be for the gov't to get out of the marriage business altogether and allow any two human beings to register a civil union with the government. Then NGOs can administer marriages as they see fit, whether that's the Catholic Church or the local lawn bowling club.

This. 100% this.

There is marriage, and there is companionship. The two are similar, but not the same. Common-Law marriage is an example of something that is similar, but not the same as traditional marriage. Same sex marriage would be something even further down that line. In my mind, so much further that it doesn't warrant being "called" marriage. I am not against them having the same rights and privileges as anyone else, but to call it marriage because of political correctness is not right. It's political. And to allow politicians and anyone else the ability to change the meanings of something that is at the root of many people's lives just because people don't want to appear to be a bigot is not right. Who knows what else they will want to change? All they gotta do is falsely call you a bigot, and voila, the next thing is different. The next right is fundamentally altered.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Unfortunately, any potentially gay child you may have cannot enjoy the same things as you do, because he could not enjoy heterosexuality. It's not the same thing and it doesn't have to be, stop trying to make it be the same.

This isn't about enjoying enjoyable things. Its about being able to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. A gay person can experience heterosexuality, in fact I'm sure many of them have. What they can't experience is being fully and legally committed to their chosen partner under the sanctity of marriage. How is that right?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Knalus

This. 100% this.

There is traditional music, and there is contemporary music. The two are similar, but not the same. Techno is an example of something that is similar, but not the same as traditional music. Dubstep would be something even further down that line. In my mind, so much further that it doesn't warrant being "called" music. I am not against Dubstep having the same instruments and computers as anyone else, but to call it music because of political correctness is not right. It's political. And to allow politicians and anyone else the ability to change the meanings of something that is at the root of many people's lives just because people don't want to appear to be a bigot is not right. Who knows what else they will want to change? All they gotta do is falsely call you a bigot, and voila, the next thing is different. The next right is fundamentally altered.

fyp.

And Dubstep is really gay.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I don't think the decision was made for political correctness, you do. Secondly, your viewpoint is an imposition, gay marriage does not affect you in a material way, whereas, banning gay marriage materially affects people and stops them from doing something.

It didn't stop Rock Hudson or Elton John back in the day.

Finally, if I have a girl, then she could not enjoy having a penis, should I deny her rights as well?

What a bizarre analogy.

She'll miss out on benefits but not rights.

She won't have the benefit to pee standing up. Or to father a child.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by MattyC

This isn't about enjoying enjoyable things. Its about being able to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. A gay person can experience heterosexuality, in fact I'm sure many of them have. What they can't experience is being fully and legally committed to their chosen partner under the sanctity of marriage. How is that right?

Because it isn't marriage, it's something else.

Previously Makarov used the analogy of the fact that women gained the right to personhood. We didn't start calling them men, though. We didn't call a newly personhooded lady "mister". It would have been incorrect. They now had the same rights as men, but they were clearly ladies. We didn't need to call them "sir" in order for those rights to be real.

That is what I can't get my head around. Why the need to call it marriage? It isn't and cannot actually be marriage, because that isn't what marriage means. They can have everything they want except the name marriage, but it's not enough. It's not about rights. It's about the name. I'm not about to start duckspeaking and calling it marriage now, when it just isn't. No amount of wishing will change that. Even if I caved, and started calling it marriage, that wouldn't actually mean it is marriage. It is something else.

[Barnet Flame]

I really don't get where these Republican-Christian nutjobs are coming from. If you are serious about reducing instances of gay sex, surely the best way of achieving that is by advocating gay marriage.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

fyp.

And Dubstep is really gay.

That is weirdly not far off.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

It didn't stop Rock Hudson or Elton John back in the day.



What a bizarre analogy.

She'll miss out on benefits but not rights.

She won't have the benefit to pee standing up. Or to father a child.

Maybe a bit strange, but his argument was that a gay son could not enjoy heterosexuality and therefore his marriage is different and not the same, and thus, should not be allowed to marry. Just extending his argument.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Knalus

That is what I can't get my head around. Why the need to call it marriage? It isn't and cannot actually be marriage, because that isn't what marriage means. They can have everything they want except the name marriage, but it's not enough. It's not about rights. It's about the name. I'm not about to start duckspeaking and calling it marriage now, when it just isn't. No amount of wishing will change that. Even if I caved, and started calling it marriage, that wouldn't actually mean it is marriage. It is something else.

and now we are down to the name, why wouldn't it be marriage, cause your church say it isn't so?

I actually used to accept the whole naming argument until I realized that by not allowing the culturally steeped word of language, it was still denying naming rights to gays and still exclusionary. I still haven't seen a reason from you besides that you personally don't like it.

[MarchHare]

That is what I can't get my head around. Why the need to call it marriage? It isn't and cannot actually be marriage, because that isn't what marriage means. They can have everything they want except the name marriage, but it's not enough. It's not about rights. It's about the name. I'm not about to start duckspeaking and calling it marriage now, when it just isn't. No amount of wishing will change that. Even if I caved, and started calling it marriage, that wouldn't actually mean it is marriage. It is something else.

Why wouldn't it be marriage? Can you please expand on your reasoning there?

Also, will you answer my previous question about how you are personally affected and how the quality of your own marriage has been diminished in the last seven years since gay marriage has been legalized in Canada?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Knalus

This. 100% this.

There is marriage, and there is companionship. The two are similar, but not the same. Common-Law marriage is an example of something that is similar, but not the same as traditional marriage. Same sex marriage would be something even further down that line. In my mind, so much further that it doesn't warrant being "called" marriage. I am not against them having the same rights and privileges as anyone else, but to call it marriage because of political correctness is not right. It's political. And to allow politicians and anyone else the ability to change the meanings of something that is at the root of many people's lives just because people don't want to appear to be a bigot is not right. Who knows what else they will want to change? All they gotta do is falsely call you a bigot, and voila, the next thing is different. The next right is fundamentally altered.

The marriage you and I take part in shouldn't even be called marriage according to your logic. "Traditional" marriage was destroyed when they began allowing divorces that didn't need to go through the Pope. Maybe you could call modern marriage Quarriage. A quarter of a marriage? Because it's certainly not "traditional" marriage -- in the sense that it's never changed -- and probably shouldn't be called as such.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Knalus

That is weirdly not far off.

Congratulations. You've identified a satire. clap clap clap

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You mentioned the original ideal of marriage was for the "purpose of ensuring progeny" here: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=369

Historically, procreation was the primary purpose of marriage.

This is part of my point. That primary purpose has dramatically changed in the modern world. I would submit that in our society, there is only a tiny fraction of the population that enters marriage for the purpose of having children.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

In a world where marriage is mainly about companionship and access to government benefits, maybe it doesn't matter whether two individuals entering it can procreate. On the other hand, if the function and purpose of something changes, maybe it's not that thing any more, but rather something else.

That could very well be, but I suspect this is not the case. The fact remains that when one describes the purpose and function of marriage in the modern world that this description will be relational in nature for the promotion of intimate companionship. I think that you will find this is indeed the primary shape of what marriage has become.

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I actually think a reasonable compromise would be for the gov't to get out of the marriage business altogether and allow any two human beings to register a civil union with the government. Then NGOs can administer marriages as they see fit, whether that's the Catholic Church or the local lawn bowling club.

This would seem on the surface to be a solution, but given that marriage has been adopted into the Christian tradition as a sacrament, it will never fly.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

The marriage you and I take part in shouldn't even be called marriage according to your logic. "Traditional" marriage was destroyed when they began allowing divorces that didn't need to go through the Pope. Maybe you could call modern marriage Quarriage. A quarter of a marriage? Because it's certainly not "traditional" marriage -- in the sense that it's never changed -- and probably shouldn't be called as such.

False logic. A person living during the time you are describing would view two Chinese buddhists as being married, as long as it was a man and a woman. My family and culture were not catholic when what you described happened.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Knalus

False logic. A person living during the time you are describing would view two Chinese buddhists as being married, as long as it was a man and a woman. My family and culture were not catholic when what you described happened.

You have stated that if they changed the definition of marriage to allow gays to marry, it would not be marriage, but something different. You didn't explain why, of course, but you've done your best to avoid a lot of questions in this thread, so that's not much of a surprise, though it may form a communication problem.

"Traditional" Christian marriage forbade divorce. You haven't actually defined what you mean by "traditional" marriage, though, even while using it repeatedly, so I'm forced to assume you mean marriage custom that has been passed down generation to generation for a very long time.

"Traditional" marriage, once upon a time, as I said, forbade divorce between a man and a woman, at least as far as Catholicism, and different forms of Protestantism is concerned, which admittedly I'm taking for granted is what we're talking about here, as it's what the Western moral heritage is founded upon. You can go ahead and include remarrying in there, as well.

However, the rules for marriage changed. Divorce and remarriage rights and rules were altered and tweaked. It, however, still remained marriage, even after altering the custom. Marriages done after these changes did not become something different from marriage; they remained as marriages.

So, explain to me why, if marriage is changed again, will what gays participate in not be marriage (because it's a "changed form of marriage), while what you participate in be marriage (yet another "changed" form of marriage)?

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I am not against them having the same rights and privileges as anyone else, but to call it marriage because of political correctness is not right. It's political.

It's not about political correctness. It's about caring about other people's quality of life. It's about realizing that, hey, we don't have a reason to deny another person basic rights so why are we doing it?

I am not in favour of inter-racial marriages, gay rights, gender equality, and against domestic violence because of political correctness, for example. Wow.