Klein wants Referendum

[The Familia]

You can't always get what you want. Everyone is excluded from something weather they like it or not, and groups tell other groups what to do all the time. I can't join every group or club that I wanna join. I therefore find alternative measures. That's all I ask with the topic. For gay couples to find some alternative method of going about uniting.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by The Familia@Dec 12 2004, 12:20 PM
You can't always get what you want.

That is an amazing way of over simplifying what is being said in this thread. Tell me, you are against gay marriage because you are religious correct? What part of the bible is against two homo’s being married?

[peter12]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+Dec 12 2004, 12:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ Dec 12 2004, 12:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The Familia@Dec 12 2004, 12:20 PM
You can't always get what you want.

That is an amazing way of over simplifying what is being said in this thread. Tell me, you are against gay marriage because you are religious correct? What part of the bible is against two homo’s being married? [/b][/quote]
It may be oversimplifying it, but it certainly doesn't necessarily have to be religous. A bedrock of conservative ideology is that a minority will never be able to get everything that they want.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by peter12+Dec 12 2004, 12:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (peter12 @ Dec 12 2004, 12:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

That is an amazing way of over simplifying what is being said in this thread. Tell me, you are against gay marriage because you are religious correct? What part of the bible is against two homo’s being married?

It may be oversimplifying it, but it certainly doesn't necessarily have to be religous. A bedrock of conservative ideology is that a minority will never be able to get everything that they want. [/b][/quote]
I don't think its that minorities can never get what they want... but they have to get approval from the populace... which when a request is unreasonable or just not popular, it won't happen.

And as for not knowing what democracy, hmm... guess Poli Sci students don't know anything about democractic systems... I believe what you were thinking Claeren is tyranny of the majority... but there's a big difference between letting gays marry and gathering them all up and having them shot... the second one is protected by democracies and rightfully so... the first one is still frankly, in the realm of society who deserves a say. Because lets face it, the sun is still gonna rise in the morning and set at night if the gays don't get married... its not gonna be detrimental in any way, they can still live together, have shared finances, change their names to reflect their partners, etc.

Representatives represent their constituency, and when its something as controversial as this, the best thing to do is bring it back to the people... leaves no ill will this way and no room for error like there could be with a minority gov't ramming it through.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally posted by The Familia@Dec 12 2004, 12:20 PM
You can't always get what you want. Everyone is excluded from something weather they like it or not, and groups tell other groups what to do all the time. I can't join every group or club that I wanna join. I therefore find alternative measures. That's all I ask with the topic. For gay couples to find some alternative method of going about uniting.

Think of it this way. Marriage obviously means a lot to you. It means a lot to most people. So just because someone has chosen a different lifestyle than you they should not allowed to be a part of one of the most important moments of their life?

My biggest question still is why?

It doesn't affect your life at all if two men want to become married?

Explain to me how it has a direct impact on your life and then I can understand. Otherwise it just really doesn't make sense to me.

[FlamesAddiction]

Absolutely ANYONE is part of a minority or a majority depending on how you want to classify them.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by JiriHrdina@Dec 12 2004, 12:25 PM

My biggest question still is why?

It doesn't affect your life at all if two men want to become married?

He'd still know they are out there saying they are married. That's a problem.

[Cain]

This thread is ridiculous.

The church can dictate who gets married in the church. Thats great, but to have people from the church trying to dictate who gets married outside of the church is ludicrous.

You can't have special rights to practice what you believe within your church and at the same time take those rights away from people outside of it.

Not allowing a person to be married because of sexual orientation is discrimination. Most countries strive for equality and eliminate discrimination, not legalize it. Let the church do what it wants, but the government should be allowing gay marriages regardless.

[Thunderball]

Lets bear in mind this isn't something like slavery, ethnic oppression or women being treated as lesser persons... this is something very different, and frankly, inconsequential if refused.

Alberta has the most progressive policies on gays and lesbians in Canada... they have every right a married couple has, except the ability to unite under holy matrimony. But thats a pitfall of the lifestyle you are in, life is naturally unfair and you cannot honestly expect the world to change for tiny percentages who aren't being actually persecuted.

If this was significantly affecting someone's life in an adverse way, then yeah... but its not, its mere whining over trivial matters.

Lots of people can't have children... dare the government legislate something to make it more fair for everyone?? absolutely never. Some people can't throw a football as well as others... should the government intervene to make it more fair? no. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But really, the whole gay marriage argument is just as ridiculous. 5% of Canadians live a different lifestyle and marriage is not catered to them. Hey, when I applied for scholarships, I was only eligible for three mostly because I'm not "poor", french speaking or of visible minority (this is even before grades are considered). Thats discrimination too, by the letter of the law.

Not allowing gays to marry would only be wrong if it limited them in any obvious way, and it doesn't. Lots of hetero couples are common law, and are very happy. You dont have to be married to live together, share finances, or anything like that. If they really want recognition, pass a civil union act, but don't stomp on historical and religious tradition, that a very significant amount of Canadians profess to have.

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Dec 12 2004, 02:15 PM




Not allowing gays to marry would only be wrong if it limited them in any obvious way, and it doesn't. Lots of hetero couples are common law, and are very happy. You dont have to be married to live together, share finances, or anything like that. If they really want recognition, pass a civil union act, but don't stomp on historical and religious tradition, that a very significant amount of Canadians profess to have.

If you want to pass a civil union act then marriage, heterosexual or homosexual would have to be considered a civil union under the law, and married in the eyes of the church. This affects more people then say two men getting married. I don't, and will never understand why two men getting married get so many people bent out of shape. There are so many things in this world that people need to work on for themselves, before they start paying attention to others, and how they live there life. I hope people lose sleep over this, while I am sleeping comfortably, oh and by the way it won't be with a man, because the two guys down the street that live together have never changed my view on how I see women

[The Familia]

That's a good call Thunderball. I'm very curious as why now in the last few years Gay's want to be married? You rarely heard of this kind of stuff 10, 20, 30 years ago. In fact even befor that it was almost obsolete. Why must the gays make this an issue now? Why can't they keep doing what they were doing all those years. Gay marriages don't affect me personally, I won't lose sleep over gay marriages. Personally I'm just against the idea of altering this tradition. Too many GOOD customs and traditions have disappeared over the years. I find marriage despite all the divorce, has still remained a prestigious ceremony in my opinion. I don't wanna see this altered like so many other things.

[Red]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Dec 12 2004, 01:15 PM
Lets bear in mind this isn't something like slavery, ethnic oppression or women being treated as lesser persons... this is something very different, and frankly, inconsequential if refused.

Alberta has the most progressive policies on gays and lesbians in Canada... they have every right a married couple has, except the ability to unite under holy matrimony. But thats a pitfall of the lifestyle you are in, life is naturally unfair and you cannot honestly expect the world to change for tiny percentages who aren't being actually persecuted.

If this was significantly affecting someone's life in an adverse way, then yeah... but its not, its mere whining over trivial matters.

Lots of people can't have children... dare the government legislate something to make it more fair for everyone?? absolutely never. Some people can't throw a football as well as others... should the government intervene to make it more fair? no. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But really, the whole gay marriage argument is just as ridiculous. 5% of Canadians live a different lifestyle and marriage is not catered to them. Hey, when I applied for scholarships, I was only eligible for three mostly because I'm not "poor", french speaking or of visible minority (this is even before grades are considered). Thats discrimination too, by the letter of the law.

Not allowing gays to marry would only be wrong if it limited them in any obvious way, and it doesn't. Lots of hetero couples are common law, and are very happy. You dont have to be married to live together, share finances, or anything like that. If they really want recognition, pass a civil union act, but don't stomp on historical and religious tradition, that a very significant amount of Canadians profess to have.

Well said.
There are no visible benefits for gays or non-gays in this case, it's a matter of gays exercizig their right to challange us all just because they can. I am strongly opposed to changing our traditions just to satisfy a few rich goofs that had too much time on their hands.

The government should not allow gay marriage because they can't produce future taxpayers like MOST of hetero marriages do. How's that for a reason to deny gay marriage that's not based on the evil bible or any other religeous fear mongering nonsense that you pimplefaced university students HATE so much?

On a lighter note; when two gay men marry is there a wife and husband or two wifes/husbands? Should we start putting pressure on TV stations, press etc to filter out the words wife and husband since they may hold no meaning anymore or may be offensive to some? Does this put my female wife's favorite TV show "desperate Housewifes' at risk of getting cancelled?
When a guy at a hockey game tells you that his wife/spouse did this or that is it OK to ask him whether the spouse is a man or a woman without offending him?
So confusing........
________
WENDIE 99

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by The Familia@Dec 12 2004, 02:51 PM
That's a good call Thunderball. I'm very curious as why now in the last few years Gay's want to be married? You rarely heard of this kind of stuff 10, 20, 30 years ago. In fact even befor that it was almost obsolete. Why must the gays make this an issue now? Why can't they keep doing what they were doing all those years. Gay marriages don't affect me personally, I won't lose sleep over gay marriages. Personally I'm just against the idea of altering this tradition. Too many GOOD customs and traditions have disappeared over the years. I find marriage despite all the divorce, has still remained a prestigious ceremony in my opinion. I don't wanna see this altered like so many other things.

Yeah I was all up in arms to when slavery came to the forefront. Those bus strikes that Martin Luther King organized were ridiculous, Why couldn't they go about sitting in the back of the bus forever. (Sarcasm)
Familia, lots of traditions change because they become out dated. You can still be viewed under the church as married where gays can't if it is that important to you. I certainly understand why you guys feel the way you do but I have to see a good reason presented on why homosexuals should not get married, and until then I think they should get married.

[Hakan]

Lets bear in mind this isn't something like slavery, ethnic oppression or women being treated as lesser persons... this is something very different, and frankly, inconsequential if refused.

Ok... it actually isn't that much different at all. You may be a consequentialist and argue that the results of this discrimination are not as detrimental to those who suffered from the various discriminating policies listed above but the principle of discrimination is still there and thus is fundamentally wrong.

Alberta has the most progressive policies on gays and lesbians in Canada... they have every right a married couple has, except the ability to unite under holy matrimony. But thats a pitfall of the lifestyle you are in, life is naturally unfair and you cannot honestly expect the world to change for tiny percentages who aren't being actually persecuted.

Ok... actually Alberta is one of the least progressive.

Alberta is the only province with a leader that has publicly stated his aversion to same sex marriages. That's the opposite of progressive. Or, remember in 1998 in Vriend vs. Alberta when the Alberta Human Rights Code didn't mention sexual orientation so the government thought it was fine to fire someone from their job over their sexual orientation? Another great example of being progressive.

Lots of people can't have children... dare the government legislate something to make it more fair for everyone?? absolutely never. Some people can't throw a football as well as others... should the government intervene to make it more fair? no. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But really, the whole gay marriage argument is just as ridiculous. 5% of Canadians live a different lifestyle and marriage is not catered to them. Hey, when I applied for scholarships, I was only eligible for three mostly because I'm not "poor", french speaking or of visible minority (this is even before grades are considered). Thats discrimination too, by the letter of the law.

You're right, this argument does sound ridiculous. The whole poor discriminated against white guy argument is so fallacious and backwards that I can't believe people still bring that up anymore. Listen, the reason that poor and aboriginal and whomever else gets to have favourable admission policies to university is because of a wholly deplorable lack of representation of those people in university institutions. Is that because they're lazy or just don't have what it takes? No, it's because they've been beaten down from the beginning over real sociological differences in priviledge and from historical legacies of discrimination and oppression (see: residential schools). And frankly, I'm quite glad to have gone to a university where it wasn't 100% white men and women but had a diversity of ethnicities and backgrounds.

Not allowing gays to marry would only be wrong if it limited them in any obvious way, and it doesn't. Lots of hetero couples are common law, and are very happy. You dont have to be married to live together, share finances, or anything like that. If they really want recognition, pass a civil union act, but don't stomp on historical and religious tradition, that a very significant amount of Canadians profess to have.

It is limiting them. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Why should Christian bigots have a monopoly on the semantic meaning of marriage? And it's not stomping on religious tradition, if your religion doesn't want to marry gays then it doesn't have to!! How is that disregarding your tradition? Or should your tradition and values take precedence over other people's values? If so, read a book or something.

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Red@Dec 12 2004, 02:52 PM


The government should not allow gay marriage because they can't produce future taxpayers like MOST of hetero marriages do. How's that for a reason to deny gay marriage that's not based on the evil bible or any other religeous fear mongering nonsense that you pimplefaced university students HATE so much?

There are plenty of Hetero marriages that produce children and shouldn't be, because they do not contribute to society. If I believed in your logic Marriage should be based on how good of a child you raise. I think you should be considered more married based on the tax bracket that your son or daughter falls in. Your validity of marriage can go up and down depending upon the demotions and promotions of your son or daughter

[calf]

Originally posted by Red@Dec 12 2004, 01:52 PM
The government should not allow gay marriage because they can't produce future taxpayers like MOST of hetero marriages do. How's that for a reason to deny gay marriage that's not based on the evil bible or any other religeous fear mongering nonsense that you pimplefaced university students HATE so much?

They can adopt a child or have a surrogate mother/father.

and if they don't allow it, the government loses out on the registration fee from issuing the license too

[Red]

Originally posted by The Familia@Dec 12 2004, 01:51 PM
That's a good call Thunderball. I'm very curious as why now in the last few years Gay's want to be married? You rarely heard of this kind of stuff 10, 20, 30 years ago. In fact even befor that it was almost obsolete. Why must the gays make this an issue now? Why can't they keep doing what they were doing all those years. Gay marriages don't affect me personally, I won't lose sleep over gay marriages. Personally I'm just against the idea of altering this tradition. Too many GOOD customs and traditions have disappeared over the years. I find marriage despite all the divorce, has still remained a prestigious ceremony in my opinion. I don't wanna see this altered like so many other things.

Too many GOOD customs and traditions have disappeared over the year

Which GOD told you that they were good?
Kiddig of course.

I totally agree with you. I like to have traditions, WE ALL GREW UP WITH THEM, but are about to deny that to out children. I guess we all really hated Christmas (oops, can I say Christmas without offending someone?), we hated the Santa guy, hallowen and all the other rediculous traditions. Let's save our children and get rid of all that "old ways" line of thinking. Tell Johny when he is 2 that there is no Santa and that he was just a spokesperson for every large retail outlet etc.

Yup, we're sure doing the society a favor.

Enough ranting. I have to go and buy my son a copy of the Human Rights bill and the Contitution for Christmas so he can better prepare himself for the life of a free man that can't say anything without offending someone. I better hurry up and do it before the freedom seekers cancel Christmas.
________
Vaporizer price

[Homer_J]

The Supreme Court clearly stated that no Church would be forced to marry a gay couple. Any priest or pastor should indeed have the right to turn away any couple they or the church don't feel comfortable marrying (gay or straight). Straight couples get married by JofP all the time. Shouldn't a gay couple have the same right? I'm just wondering (Familia) if this would be considered an alternate method of uniting, or do you just mean it should have a different name? I'm assuming they still technically call this marriage, even though they were not married in a church, but if they changed the name of a JofP marriage would that make you happy? Two consenting adults who want to commit their lives to each other, should have that right and I personally don't see any problem with that. I don't care if a church chooses not to marry them (that's their right), but they should be given some option.

I think we're all better off once we realize that not everyone has the same beliefs. It's not my right to judge and it's not my right to tell others what to believe. People have the right to believe that gay people shouldn't marry. People have the right to believe that my wife and I shouldn't be married because we're an interracial, interfaith couple, but more importantly, we still had the right to choose to get married. That may not have been the case had we lived during a different period of history, when traditions were different.

If a gay couple were to get married it wouldn't change the way I feel about my wife, my marriage or my faith. It wouldn't really affect me, other than I may be asked to attend a couple more weddings (unions) next summer.

[Red]

Originally posted by calf+Dec 12 2004, 02:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calf @ Dec 12 2004, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Red@Dec 12 2004, 01:52 PM
The government should not allow gay marriage because they can't produce future taxpayers like MOST of hetero marriages do. How's that for a reason to deny gay marriage that's not based on the evil bible or any other religeous fear mongering nonsense that you pimplefaced university students HATE so much?

They can adopt a child or have a surrogate mother/father.

and if they don't allow it, the government loses out on the registration fee from issuing the license too [/b][/quote]
You are not understanding me. Most governments want you to reproduce so they can have more tax payers. Adoption has nothing to do with reproduction.
________
OREGON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

[Red]

Originally posted by Cowboy+Dec 12 2004, 02:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowboy @ Dec 12 2004, 02:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Red@Dec 12 2004, 02:52 PM


The government should not allow gay marriage because they can't produce future taxpayers like MOST of hetero marriages do. How's that for a reason to deny gay marriage that's not based on the evil bible or any other religeous fear mongering nonsense that you pimplefaced university students HATE so much?

There are plenty of Hetero marriages that produce children and shouldn't be, because they do not contribute to society. If I believed in your logic Marriage should be based on how good of a child you raise. I think you should be considered more married based on the tax bracket that your son or daughter falls in. Your validity of marriage can go up and down depending upon the demotions and promotions of your son or daughter [/b][/quote]
There are plenty of Hetero marriages that produce children and shouldn't be, because they do not contribute to society.

And that's very sad, but most do contribute so the governments have to take this calculated risk. Same thing with couples that don't want or can't have kids. The majority do and those few exceptions won't change the governments policies.
________
PREGNANT EBONY