how would you vote.....

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Apr 11 2005, 01:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Apr 11 2005, 01:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Apr 10 2005, 10:56 PM
I'm sick of the Canadian system of government, its clear that it dosen't work.

Relative to most countries in the world, the Canadian governement works quite well. You could go just about anywhere, and I'm sure more citizens in most countries would gladly trade. Sometimes living in such a comfortable country, we forget just how bad things are from a global prespective.

I also believe that Canada had more growth than any other G-7 country in the past decade. That tells me that the Canadian governent DOES work. [/b][/quote]
Sorry I don't buy that, Canada grows inspite of its government, not because of it.
We're the only country probably in the world where the government can steal from us, screw its people over royally, try to put a oppressive environmental policy in place and we continue to grow.

Of course I could be wrong, the Liberals could push through Kyoto and crumble the wests economy.

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Apr 10 2005, 11:42 PM

And what, pray tell, is the inherent difference between a same-sex married couple and an opposite-sex one? And if your answer is, "One can reproduce and one can't", then what is the difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one where either the husband or wife is sterile? Would you deny the right to marry to opposite-sex couples who are unable or unwilling to have children? Would you create a seperate but equal classification for them too, such as "Non-procreating heterosexual civil union"?

The inherent difference is that a heterosexual couple can have sexual relations in a way that involves a male sexual organ interacting a female sexual organ while a homosexual couple cannot. That is what the word "marriage" means in the English language (and its translation in any other languages) and has been since the beginning of civilization whether you like it or not.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Incinerator@Apr 10 2005, 09:22 PM
The inherent difference is that a heterosexual couple can have sexual relations in a way that involves a male sexual organ interacting a female sexual organ while a homosexual couple cannot. That is what the word "marriage" means in the English language (and its translation in any other languages) and has been since the beginning of civilization whether you like it or not.

Marriage means Male sexual organ interacting female sexual organ?

Which dictionary are you reading?

And if you wanna talk about the beginning of civilization, you will lose your argument quick. There have been many times and places that have accepted homosexuality equally. For example the Greeks.

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+Apr 11 2005, 04:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ Apr 11 2005, 04:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Incinerator@Apr 10 2005, 09:22 PM
The inherent difference is that a heterosexual couple can have sexual relations in a way that involves a male sexual organ interacting a female sexual organ while a homosexual couple cannot. That is what the word "marriage" means in the English language (and its translation in any other languages) and has been since the beginning of civilization whether you like it or not.

Marriage means Male sexual organ interacting female sexual organ?

Which dictionary are you reading?

And if you wanna talk about the beginning of civilization, you will lose your argument quick. There have been many times and places that have accepted homosexuality equally. For example the Greeks. [/b][/quote]
Obviously you've missed the point, marriage means the people in it will be able to do what a male and a female together can do. I didn't think I would need to elaborate so much given that most people reading this board would/should have enough common sense to decipher that post above.

And please read more history books before you even mention the word Greek and the "Beginning of Civilization" in the same sentence. Near/beginning of democracy maybe, civilization? gimme a break.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Incinerator+Apr 10 2005, 10:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Incinerator @ Apr 10 2005, 10:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Apr 10 2005, 11:42 PM

And what, pray tell, is the inherent difference between a same-sex married couple and an opposite-sex one? And if your answer is, "One can reproduce and one can't", then what is the difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one where either the husband or wife is sterile? Would you deny the right to marry to opposite-sex couples who are unable or unwilling to have children? Would you create a seperate but equal classification for them too, such as "Non-procreating heterosexual civil union"?

The inherent difference is that a heterosexual couple can have sexual relations in a way that involves a male sexual organ interacting a female sexual organ while a homosexual couple cannot. That is what the word "marriage" means in the English language (and its translation in any other languages) and has been since the beginning of civilization whether you like it or not. [/b][/quote]
From what dictionary did you get that definition?

I've got a few dictionaries lying around (Oxford Concise 1929, Oxford Reference 1995, 1996, Webster's 1960 and 1989) and none of them make any reference whatsoever to male or female sexual organs under the defintion of marriage.

I'm not a linguist but I have a sneaking suspicion that "the beginning of civilization" pre-dates the invention of the word "marriage". Maybe not though. What year did the "beginning of civilization" occur? If I know that then I can probably figure out whether the word "marriage" came before or after.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Incinerator@Apr 10 2005, 09:57 PM
Obviously you've missed the point, marriage means the people in it will be able to do what a male and a female together can do. I didn't think I would need to elaborate so much given that most people reading this board would/should have enough common sense to decipher that post above.

And please read more history books before you even mention the word Greek and the "Beginning of Civilization" in the same sentence. Near/beginning of democracy maybe, civilization? gimme a break.

I should have enough common sense to decipher that despite what you wrote making no sense, you were refering to something else. Perhaps you should have the intellegence to write whatever you are refering to instead of writing something that makes no sense.

And where did I say that the Greeks were the beginning of civilization? I'm looking back over that posts and still can't find it.
Unless my computer monitor is playing tricks on me you wrote

"and has been since the beginning of civilization whether you like it or not. "

I do beleive that the Greeks existed sometime since the beginning of civilization, and did not have the same definition of marraige as you and your mysterious dictionary, so you are wrong, whether you like it or not.

[Incinerator]

I should have enough common sense to decipher that despite what you wrote making no sense, you were refering to something else.# Perhaps you should have the intellegence to write whatever you are refering to instead of writing something that makes no sense.

Perhaps you should learn how to read within context and not nitpick at individual words like a 3 year old and cry to mommy when the world don't agree with you.

And where did I say that the Greeks were the beginning of civilization?# I'm looking back over that posts and still can't find it.

And if you wanna talk about the beginning of civilization, you will lose your argument quick. ----> There have been many times and places that have accepted homosexuality equally. For example the Greeks.

It's true, you really can't read within context, even your own writing.

_______________________________

The fact of the matter is that marriage is a social construct designed to tie a man and a woman together so that neither of them will have guilt-free, consequence-free sexual relations outside of this partnership, enabling them to devote themselves to each other and their children (should they have any). The members of this union we call marriage is labelled "husband" and "wife", not "husband 1" and "husband 2" nor "wife 1" and "wife 2". So you can spin all you want for however long you want. You can rewrite the laws, heck you might even convince dictionary publishers to add a little asterik to their entries on marriage, but in the end an apple is still an apple and macaroni is still macaroni, it matters not whether you or anyone else wants to call an apple "orange" or macaroni "spagetti".

You may keep talking if you like, but I've had my final word.

[snowdude]

Right now i would vote like this:

1) NDP-could use the 1.75 from my vote
2) Green
3)Liberal
4)I'd spoil it
5) Con--ugh, just not for me

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Incinerator+Apr 10 2005, 10:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Incinerator @ Apr 10 2005, 10:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Perhaps you should learn how to read within context and not nitpick at individual words like a 3 year old and cry to mommy when the world don't agree with you.
[/b]

It's not a word or 2 that I'm nitpicking at. Your entire definition of marraige is a huge stretch beyond anything ever found in any dictionary and sounds more like a personal rant than a definition. That is what I'm nitpicking at. You can disagree with me all you want, all I ask is that you try not to make things up and back up your wild claims.

As far as the Greek thing goes, I still don't understand how you think I'm saying Greeks=Beginning of Civilization.
I simply pointed out the Greeks as an example of a society that has existed sometime between the dawn of time and now that clearly does not share your defintion of marraige. If the Greeks are troubling for you I can supply many more examples that don't fit you definition in various ways.

Originally posted by Incinerator@Apr 10 2005, 10:49 PM
The fact of the matter is that marriage is a social construct

Thank you for prooving my point. Marraige is a social construct and like any social construct it is viewed and defined differently by different societies and in different times. By definition of being a social construct marraige is not set in stone and not unniversily difinable.

<!--QuoteBegin-Incinerator@Apr 10 2005, 10:49 PM
but in the end an apple is still an apple and macaroni is still macaroni, it matters not whether you or anyone else wants to call an apple "orange" or macaroni "spagetti".[/quote]
Not Social Constructs. Do you see the difference now?

[V]

Incinerator, I really applaud your backing of traditional marriage, but I truly don't believe you have a leg to stand on if you don't fight your case from a religious standpoint.

The truth is, if you are a Christian, marriage is marriage and shouldn't be tampered with. If you truly read the Bible and believe in what is written you cannot possibly be in favour of seeing same sex marriages. Sure, we might bear the ridicule of Rouge and others, but that really shouldn't bother us in the grand scheme of things.

But if you don't profess to be a believer in a religion, there is not really any good reason out there to keep gays from marrying. There are no means, logical, moral or otherwise that you can use to prove that there is no room for such a change in legislature.

So I wish you'd stop trying to logically argue the merits of traditional marriage, because frankly, you are losing badly. For the average non-religious citizen marriage is a part of society, and as society changes, its constructs will change as well. It's common sense. No dictionary nazi is going to slow down these changes.

I personally don't care what the gays are doing on their own time. I only become increasingly nervous when I see the freedom of religion laws being rewritten by the courts. The judges are so worried about the minorities being slighted that they are pounding away at the rights of the majority.