Canada - The True Home of Freedom!

[Flatlander]

I see your point, and raise you one.

How different is the view of today's average heterosexual toward homosexuals vs. the view of the 1930's average caucasian toward an African American in the US of A?

What needed to be done to change that? What needed to be done to change you?

 

[Tgace]

Cant answer for "the average". Personally, hmmmm...I dont honestly sit and "think" about the issue much. As long as people are minding their own business they dont bother me. Do I think that homosexuality being is being "pushed" in the media? Yes. Do I think theres an adgenda there? Yes. Two guys holding hands or giving a quick kiss in public dosent "upset" me. Groping and frenching? As wrong as a hetero couple doing that in public. Get a room. If the marriage issue was put up to a vote how would I vote. No. Do I "approve" of the "lifestyle" No. Do I think others should care what I think? No. I have my opinions, agree with them or not, but in the long run Im not going to pull out my hair regardless of what happens.

 

[Kane]

I have been reading some of this thread and I have noticed many people have made references to people who are against gay marriages are people who let religion govern them too much. I am NOT religious, and I still think marriage should stay between a man and a woman. That is how it has always been. Let gays get married is like saying that it is okay to marry your sister or brother. Now doesn't that just sound sickening to you? Why not legalize marriage between a man/woman and a child? A lot of religions support marriages for younger peoples so isn't that infringing on their rights too? If we are going to do all that why not legalize marriages between a man and a crocodile or something?


Personally though, I wouldn't mind homosexuals having a union as long as they don't call it marriage. It is disgraceful. Make up a different name or something. I just can't believe everyone thinks being against gay marriages means you are a religious fundamentalists.

I cannot furthermore believe that people think that being antigay marriage is like being racist or sexist. Honestly, soon people will be putting people in jail for killing a fly. I really hope the US doesn't follow in Canada or Western Europe's path (no offense to anyone from those places).

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Some notes on the history of marriage

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
http://marriage.about.com/cs/history/a/futuremarriage.htm

Same Sex marriage FAQ: http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/a/samesex.htm

Many more links available there.

 

[PeachMonkey]

It amazes me how easily you people can take a sentence, re-write it, and make it say somthing else, and try and pass it off as the same original statement.

I wasn't passing it off as the original statement at all, actually. I was pointing out how insulting and inaccurate it was for you to blame the situation on "liberal freaks", and the fact that laws are the way they are because the vast majority of domestic violence involves men beating up on women.

If my only gripe with you was that we have opposing political views and I backed YOU into a corner and beat the crap out of you with a blunt object, would you feel that as a martial artisit you should have found a way to deal with the conflict without "hitting back"?

I don't mean this to be insulting, but rather as someone who is sad that you were beaten, so I want to preface it carefully. I don't let angry people back me into corners, in public or private, and I manage conflict to avoid letting situations escalate to that level. There are some fights that, as you've pointed out in a number of ways, that you lose if you even enter them, so you have to make sure that you're never in the position to have that situation foisted upon you. That's part of what we're taught as martial artists, isn't it?

My attitude isn't that you should sit there and let someone beat you up, male or female -- it's that you shouldn't put yourself in a situation where someone's bad temper will cause you to take a beating that you can't respond to. Martial arts aren't just about how we fight our way out of things.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I am NOT religious, and I still think marriage should stay between a man and a woman. That is how it has always been.

Actually, it's not, but thanks for playing.

Let gays get married is like saying that it is okay to marry your sister or brother. Now doesn't that just sound sickening to you? Why not legalize marriage between a man/woman and a child? A lot of religions support marriages for younger peoples so isn't that infringing on their rights too? If we are going to do all that why not legalize marriages between a man and a crocodile or something?

Thank you for revealing your bigotry. In your eyes, homosexuality is deviant (as in: marriage and sex between siblings, or even pedophilia) and homosexuals are subhuman (and should cavort with crocodiles and other wild animals).

Personally though, I wouldn't mind homosexuals having a union as long as they don't call it marriage. It is disgraceful. Make up a different name or something. I just can't believe everyone thinks being against gay marriages means you are a religious fundamentalists.
I cannot furthermore believe that people think that being antigay marriage is like being racist or sexist. Honestly, soon people will be putting people in jail for killing a fly. I really hope the US doesn't follow in Canada or Western Europe's path (no offense to anyone from those places).

No offense to other Westerners, just to gays, for whom being treated like an outside class is like killing flies.

No worries, Kane, you don't come off like a religious fundamentalist -- just a disgusting bigot.

 

[Deuce]

I'm not against or for gay marriages for the simple fact that I'm in no way offended or affected by it.

But, I do agree with Kane that it shouldn't be called a marriage. To me, marriage is when a man and a woman come together and have a family. Granted, some hetero couples don't have children, not because they can't, but because they don't won't too. This defeats the purpose of marriage according to my definition and feelings of the term. Then you have married hetero couples that want but can't have children. They may have a child producing disability and decide to adopt, but they still got married for the purpose of raising a family.

Homosexual couples should have the same union rights as married heterosexual couples, but in my mind it shouldn't be called a "marriage". I think marriage is more than just spending your life with someone you love, but also involves the family aspect of it and the biological ability or "hardware" (whether it works or not) to have a family.

I just want to mention that I'm not against couples getting "married", straight or gay, with or without children, but my idea of what marriage is may be similar to those who oppose or are offended by such unions. Just my opinions and something to think about.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. The logic behind, "hate crime," legislation (with which one does not necessarily agree at all) is this: it is particularly dangerous for the whole society to have thugs deliberately targeting minority groups.

2. Under the law, there is nothing theoretically wrong with defending yourself against a woman with a phone. Better martial arts practice (one isn't claiming that they would've been able to execute it, just sayin') would've been to get out before the telephone bit, or to get out of the room, or to take the phone away.

3. Many folks these days claims that shadowy "liberals," won't let them (insert complaint here). Usually, it's nonsense. For those moments in which the theory is beat by practical reality, however, it should be noted that sexism--persistent degradation of women coupled with the idealization of ideas such as, "motherhood," and, "beauty"--is what creates a situation in which the cops think that only the man is capable of assault.

4. Not religious, eh? So, now we're arguing for basing the denial of legal rights and Constitutionally-grounded liberties on one's taste. Brilliant. One can sympathize with the emotion, having been raised in the 1950s--so, think through what your problem is, and get over it. Cowboy up. Hell, some of us have to tolerate the existence of that grinning, Bible-thumping, death-squad organizing, fascist collaborator Ollie North. So there's that if you want to be revolted, or hell, get on the National Socialism website. They're horrified (like little girls screaming, "EEEEEK! A BUG!!!") about all sorts of people...gay, black, Catholic, whatever.

5. Martial artists are supposed to be examining themselves and thinking through things that distress them, eh?

 

[kenpo tiger]

Most of the gay couples I know talk about a 'commitment' ceremony, not a 'marriage' ceremony. As to having the 'hardware' to produce children, what about the hetero couples who do and can't? Hmmm. Does that make their union *different* because they adopt -- as homosexual couples might, should they choose to? I disagree with Peach's assertion that you're a bigot. I just think that your opinion isn't taking into account the entire picture and all the ramifications therewith. You are entitled to have your opinion, of course, as we all are.

Techno, I'm wondering why this woman was angry at her husband in your house. I'm concerned that you would not do anything proactive to protect yourself against the beating -- which I'm sorry you felt you had to take. It has been pointed out what you could have done, so I won't.

 

[Deuce]

Then you have married hetero couples that want but can't have children. They may have a child producing disability and decide to adopt, but they still got married for the purpose of raising a family.

I see marriage as a man and a woman raising a family, even if they need to adopt. Adopting a child when unable to make one yourself is sort of like buying a wheelchair because you're paralyzed. They're both situations where your body won't let you do the things that you biologically should be able to. It's not that a gay couple can't have children because of a disability, but because they're biologically not supposed too.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I disagree with Peach's assertion that you're a bigot. I just think that your opinion isn't taking into account the entire picture and all the ramifications therewith. You are entitled to have your opinion, of course, as we all are.

Everyone's entitled to opinions, but when people equate gay marriage to marriage between humans and crocodiles, or pedophilia, they're very clearly showing the nature of those opinions.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Deuce,

I disagree, but as I stated before, you're entitled to your opinion. I happen to know gays who would be wonderful parents -- and heteros who are miserable parents. Just because one can reproduce doesn't mean one is capable of parenting.

Peach,

You're right. I think I tried to ignore that that point was made by someone here because of its outright hatefulness.

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Supposed to?" This isn't a very good conception of biology, which isn't a person and doesn't have motivations.

Now if we're actually going to discuss mammalian biology, the facts are that you actually observe all sorts of sexual/"familial" behavior: there's an enormous spectrum, all the way from, "traditional," pair-bonding (wolves) through to just about everything else. The same is true of sexual behavior; for example, there are several monkey tribes in which sex has at least as much to do with social relations as with reproduction.

The point too, is that as human beings, we are not slaves to our biology. So in the end, trumping up these charges of "unnaturality," on biological grounds--no doubt backed up but the old goofiness about Adam and Eve vs. Adam and Steve and oh by the way, if we're going to argue that, then we all better start hunting down our gardening and farming brothers and killing them, because of Cain and Abel...c'mahn.

ALL of our social relations and family structures--and there are a lot of 'em--are artificial. If they were merely natural, we wouldn't see the range that we do in the present; nor would we look backwards, and see very complex and very different family relations in history.

The problem here is that some folks are relying on the erroneous concept that the, "nuclear family"--a family structure that has only really been around since about the end of WWII, one which is largely the creation of American TV and movies, and one that most of the world finds strange--is natural, normal and right. Dictated by God, in fact.

If you'll actually look at present reality and past developments, you'll see something very different. Of course, this remains hard to do, if fantasies about the world and its history are keyed to your basic concepts of self, human identity, social structure, and religious belief.

You might start with the, "History of Everyday Life," books--they're real eye-openers.

 

[Kane]

Actually, it's not, but thanks for playing.



Thank you for revealing your bigotry. In your eyes, homosexuality is deviant (as in: marriage and sex between siblings, or even pedophilia) and homosexuals are subhuman (and should cavort with crocodiles and other wild animals).



No offense to other Westerners, just to gays, for whom being treated like an outside class is like killing flies.

No worries, Kane, you don't come off like a religious fundamentalist -- just a disgusting bigot.

Wow, why are you calling me a disgusting bigot for being against gay marriages? Do you think that being against gay marriages is like being a disgusting bigot? Well I guess most of the world is a bigot then.


Or perhaps you misunderstood my statement about going to jail for killing a fly. I did not mean homosexuals are like flies in which it doesn't matter if you hurt or kill a gay. I meant that society is going so out of strange that we will soon all turn into hippies who think animal life is more important than human life. Now how this related to gay marriages? Well that whole law sounds wacked just like how messed legalizing gay marriages would be.

Oh and just so you know I am not just some close-minded conservative think again. I am very moderate. I am an agnostic Republican who is pro-choice so don't think I am just another conservative.

I am aware that homosexuality can occur in animals but again these or abnormalities. Just like how inbreeding is abnormal, yet it sometimes occurs in the wild. Neither of the two is supposed to occur and it usually means the end of a species if done. By legalizing gay marriages it will promote homosexuality as to be normal thing. I am not saying that homosexuals are inferior. What I am saying is that the ideology is no ideal for a society.

 

[raedyn]

Let gays get married is like saying that it is okay to marry your sister or brother. Now doesn't that just sound sickening to you?

This is what we call a false analogy.
What you tried to do Kane is say this:
gay marriage = sibling marriage
sibling marriage = gross
therefore
gay marriage = gross

This is not a valid arguement because gay marriage is completely unlike sibling marriage (other than you, personally, are offened by both). So because the first statement is false, the rest of the arguement has no merit.

Why not legalize marriage between a man/woman and a child?

In fact, children as young as 14 can obtain marriages in the US, under certain circustances (Like consent of the legal guardians, or of a Judge, or in the case of pregnancy)

If we are going to do all that why not legalize marriages between a man and a crocodile or something?

Also a logical fallacy, not a proper and reasoned arguement. This one is called slippery slope. No one is advocating for marriages between man and beast. And legalizing marriages between consenting adults regardless of gender would not 'open up the floodgates' for scenarios such as the one that you cite here.

 

[Kane]

This is what we call a false analogy.[/color]
What you tried to do Kane is say this:
gay marriage = sibling marriage
sibling marriage = gross
therefore
gay marriage = gross

This is not a valid arguement because gay marriage is completely unlike sibling marriage (other than you, personally, are offened by both). So because the first statement is false, the rest of the arguement has no merit.

In fact, children as young as 14 can obtain marriages in the US, under certain circustances (Like consent of the legal guardians, or of a Judge, or in the case of pregnancy)


Also a logical fallacy, not a proper and reasoned arguement. This one is called slippery slope. No one is advocating for marriages between man and beast. And legalizing marriages between consenting adults regardless of gender would not 'open up the floodgates' for scenarios such as the one that you cite here.

Honestly, no offense in any way but I don't see how it is any different between sibling marriage and gay marriage. It also isn't a case of whether it is sick or not. That is not my point. My point is that it promotes society that is not ideal. I don't care what people do in their private lives. I don't care if people get drunk and jump of roofs for no reason. That is there belief but does that mean we have to support it?


Yes, no one is advocating for marriages between man and beast but how do you know in the future that won't be a topic of discussion. If we can change marriage into a union between to peoples regardless of gender why not legalize marriage between a person and an animal. So really what is the definition of marriage? I guess it is how you look at it, right? Why can’t ANY union considered marriage?

 

[Kane]

Everyone's entitled to opinions, but when people equate gay marriage to marriage between humans and crocodiles, or pedophilia, they're very clearly showing the nature of those opinions.

Oh but why can't ANY union be considered marriage? That is the question.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Oh but why can't ANY union be considered marriage? That is the question.

The simple logical fallacy of your argument has already been dealt with, and you've simply chosen to drive on through it.

We're not talking about abusive pedophilic relationships; we're not talking about impossible unions between human beings and beasts; we're talking about people who love each other. Those people happen not to be heterosexual.

The fact that you would compare the union of homosexuals to those other unions is kind of sickening, as I've already pointed out. Try replacing "gay" with "black" and see how your statements read.

 

[kenpo tiger]

I cannot imagine why people are so threatened by something which is completely natural to a certain segment of the population. My male cousin is gay; his two sisters, one older and one younger, are unabashedly hetero. Does that make the entire family unnatural? No. His taste in partners notwithstanding, I love him as much as I did when he was a little boy and not a homosexual (or rather, not discovered his homosexuality as yet). He doesn't look any different than anyone else, nor does he "act" gay. He has a paying job, pays his taxes and rent in a timely manner. He votes. He and his partner are committed to each other - in fact moreso than a few hetero married couples I know. What do you find wrong with this, other than he chooses a partner of the same sex? He's completely inoffensive. You'd never know he's gay unless he told you. So, how can you make a judgment about an entire group based upon a few more vocal members of it?

Oh yes. His father has had more dysfunctional marriages and relationships than one person should. The son's relationship with his partner has lasted longer than any of his father's. What does that say?

 

[michaeledward]

I'm not against or for gay marriages for the simple fact that I'm in no way offended or affected by it.

But, I do agree with Kane that it shouldn't be called a marriage. To me, marriage is when a man and a woman come together and have a family. Granted, some hetero couples don't have children, not because they can't, but because they don't won't too. This defeats the purpose of marriage according to my definition and feelings of the term. Then you have married hetero couples that want but can't have children. They may have a child producing disability and decide to adopt, but they still got married for the purpose of raising a family.

Homosexual couples should have the same union rights as married heterosexual couples, but in my mind it shouldn't be called a "marriage". I think marriage is more than just spending your life with someone you love, but also involves the family aspect of it and the biological ability or "hardware" (whether it works or not) to have a family.

I just want to mention that I'm not against couples getting "married", straight or gay, with or without children, but my idea of what marriage is may be similar to those who oppose or are offended by such unions. Just my opinions and something to think about.

Back before I thought more clearly, I held an opinion similar to this; that the issue should be about 'equal rights' for gay couples. It was then pointed out to me by a very heterosexual wife, that it really is all about the word 'marriage'.

Why should all of those soft, squishy, warm, wonderful ideas and feelings we convey when we say 'wife' or 'husband' or 'marriage' be denied to gay couples who share the same commitment? If you are married, you know there are sweet little 'pet names' you have for your spouse that convey a child-like playfulness and love and sticky-sweetness that all gets wrapped up into this thing we call 'Wedding' or 'Marriage'.

If a gay couple wants to express those non-rational, emotional ideas and feelings, why should the state deny them that privledge?

Gay Marriage is really more than just about the 'rights' that are instantaneously conveyed upon heterosexual couples by a marriage license. It's about that, but also a whole lot more. If you are interested in all the things that it might be about, may I direct you here:

http://www.shalom6000.com

where it's about a 'Star', a 'Firewalk', a son, 'Tailand' and more, so much more.

Thanks,

Mike