but if we concede to it then what will happen if something like a man-boy love group comes out and demands rights too? Where do we draw the line of acceptability?

1) Marriage is typtically to reproduce. No sex until marriage. If a man and a man can marry to not reproduce, ditto for a woman and a woman, ditto for a man and a machine or a man and a dog. Yeah, nowadays with science you can reproduce with a man and a man's genes, and vice versa, but in that case, the only reason you're getting married is to a) be recognized as a lifelong relationship, b) for tax breaks.

2) If ***s can married people tax breaks for being married even if they're not gonna have children, why not just give them married people tax breaks without getting married. Why not just take away married people tax breaks; I'm sure that's not why people get married anyways.

And, if they just want to be recognized as life partners,
3) Why not create a new designation rather than marriage? An agnostic *** marriage. Since marriage is heterosexual, why not make it some new catchphrase that the press will think up. Maybe linkage. So *** people get linked, straight people get married.

Opposing that, we may say that *** people will raise their kids all messed up, and suddenly we'll be a nation of *** people.

There's this illusion that homosexuals have sex and heterosexuals fall in love. That's completely untrue. Everybody wants to be loved.
~Boy George

I like my beers cold and my homosexuals flaming!
~Homer Simpson

I got in an arguement about this with someone today. What are your opinions on the topic?

Our society should not be based on one religion, yes, but it is not. Almost all religions disagree with it, and the Christian ones that do support it are losing more than half their members because of it. Give them equality, but not a marriage. That is an insult and debasement of the traditional concept of marriage started by the church. Call it a union and most would be happy, but not a marriage. Just because some of you may not believe in it, doesn't mean that you can totally disregard it - as Dan has been saying to me about communism and whatnot.

But I don't see any problem with just changing the wording. If they get the same benefits, then what's the problem? It's not like slavery where black people are people but don't get the same benefits.

As for multiculturalism, Indians, for example, don't get married at Catholic churches. Jewish people don't get married at them either. They have their own places of worship.

If the issue is that the government should force Catholic churches to allow *** marriages, that's not really up to the government.

If it's just a matter of "principle" and you're opposed to it just because of that, how would it look if all Canadians were like that? Canadians denied *** marriage because they had to have all or nothing, as a matter of principle. It'd look immature or devious. Maybe people would think that it was just an excuse not to have *** marriage. I don't think there can be a concrete answer. No one side can have everything they want.

We see that the church (and by church, i mean all major religeons) is founded upon strict rules so that, overtime, they do not shift beliefs or customs.

The church forbids it because of a fear of dying out. In every case, the survival of man (as a whole) must take priority over the happyness/rights of a man (as an individual). (This makes me wonder about the whole celibacy policy for priests; aren't you systemically killing off your most spiritual genes?)

If they are going to call it somting eltes, then i say they chage the name for every marige in trems of the goverment. So both start and *** unis whould be called likeage or w/e with the gorment and the churchs can do w/e crazy carp they whont.

This is the reason we have organizations like 'the greater essex district catholic school board' which are paid for by tax dollars.

Also no one who is agested *** marrie has yet to post any reason why it is a bad thing other then "b/c the chruchs don't like it. That is like saying we should not have any laws b/c the crimanls don't like it.

That's not like saying we shouldn't have any laws because the criminals don't like it. Where is the connection? The church does not support *** marriage because they are against *** people. Laws are a positive thing to protect us against negative things. Having *** marriage isn't necessarily a positive thing. The church isn't necessarily a positive thing.

I suggested *** marriage is not proper because marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman.

Why should we allow it? It's not like we'll have bastard children as a result of premarital *** relations. *** people want to be married like everyone else? Marriage is for lifelong companionship. Marriage was for survival. Marriage no longer is for survival. Marriage is for the sake of procreation without people looking down on you. People who get married but don't have children don't really need to be married.

*** people may want the sentiment of being bound by law; they may like the statement that they are now in it for life. They can get that through linkage right? Once the government recognizes that they are linked, they can get divorces, get the honeymoon suite, put "Just Linked" on their car.

You people put down a Federal Gun Registry that saves lives, like it or not. Yet you have no problem with throwing around legislature that is more or less for sentimental reasons really. If you just called it linkage and settled it there, we could see how things go. The problem is with you hardliners who want all or nothing.

I suggested *** marriage is not proper because marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman.

the dsoe not make much sceen, if they whonted it for sentiment they they whont to be married not "linked"

what???? Any how this is a complty diffrent issue then the gun registry

Equality for the sake of equality. I wonder if that will lead to anything big in the future. If you want true equality, where do you draw the line? Why don't we let family members marry too?

Anyways, saying that black people were not defined as people isn't exactly a strong argument either.

It takes care of my argument that we should model the law around the definition. But *** marriage is arguably less important that the freedom of an entire race.

Dan, I said what they wanted the sentiment of. They wanted the sentiment of being bound by law. Please at least take the time to read my points.

I was just saying how people complain about federal money being wasted on something that is useful and in use, when they don't care about federal time (and possibly a respectable government, given that voters will vote depending on the promises made) being wasted over something that can be resolved just by changing the wording.

Human rights is one thing, being married for the sake of being married is another. Human rights can be achieved with any union, not just marriage. Human rights can be achieved with linkage.

Of course you would support incestuous relationships. Where do you draw the line? Human-machine marriages? Human-animal marriages?

We can change the definition as much as we want. I'm sure there's diehard animal rights activists who believe that their animals deserve to be equal to people.

People can't be free to do everything.

Canada has been protecting the minority rights for a long time, not always with a perfect record. They did as GREAT job with Quebec; that minority definitely gets its needs satisfied, and more. They did not do a great job with Native Americans.

Can you give me a reason other than "***s want to be married, not linked"?

Furthermore, I don't think you can say what they want. They want to be married in law, not linked in law? Maybe they just want to be recognized by law. Maybe they wouldn't object to being linked by law. I don't agree with your argument here, because it seems like what anti-abortion activists are like. Most abortion activists are men. How can they speak for women? Same goes for *** rights activists.

Dauntless wrote:




if they did such a gr8 job with quebec why do alot of poleop there still whont to leave canada?

If you're for marriages between your 8-year old daughter and some 40-year old guy because your daughter thinks she's in love, nobody's really getting hurt eh?

Freedom!! What a NOBLE concept.

Don't forbid your kids to get married early and often, freedom is what its all about. How can you be so idealistic? Well, I hope you have kids. The police won't stop them when they do some drugs and have sex in the middle of a schoolyard. Everyone can have sex, at any age, as long as they know that they are free to. Why not just let everyone drive a car too? People shouldn't hafta go to school either.

None of these things hurt anyone else personally. Do they weaken society on the whole? Yeah. And for someone who cares how other countries will view us..How do you think freedom within your boundaries will make them view us? Canadians are free to do anything that won't hurt anyone else. How do you enforce "won't hurt anyone else"?

You want freedom? Look at Jamaica. Jamaica has legal marijuana. Has "the novelty" gone away? I don't think Jamaica had a decline in marijuana smoking once it went legal. Idealism is dangerous.

See, its easy to champion your ideals when you don't have to deal with the realisms of how to regulate it. Hell, even today drivers who pass their road test aren't guaranteed to be good drivers. They just hafta be able to act differently for 15 minutes. Then they can drive like they do.

Why not. It sure is easy to argue for your side when all you have to ask is that.

I for one wouldn't want my daughter to have sex with all kinds of guys. At any age.

The reason those countries aren't falling apart is because that is again, a minority. The majority is forced to take on the irresponsibilities of the minority; when some dickhead is too stupid to do anything in high school and sleeps around, has 5 bastard kids and has nothing to support them with, he'll get his welfare and live scot free.

Too much sex= bad.

Society will also have to take on the burdens of the teen mothers who get pregnant young because society doesn't look down on kids who sleep around at an early age. No, we don't see Japan falling apart. But are they any closer to solving their social issues? No.

Think about reality when you're pursuing your ideals. Try arguing the other side for a second.

As for marijuana legalization; say we legalize all the drugs for the sake of freedom. All drugs are ok, as long as you're not under the influence in public or while driving. How are we supposed to test for all those? Step out of the car. Now walk the line. Let's look at your eyes. Now please give me a blood sample and urine sample.

If you honestly think your total freedom isn't going to hurt anybody, think again.

Whatever. Obviously you're some sort of hippie anarchist. Canada will not be a nation of sex, drugs, etc if I have anything to do with it.

The problem is not the theory, it is the implementation. Laws regarding smuggling, underage drinking. We can SAY that we'll allow alcohol, but only for people over 18, but that doesn't actually happen. Testing for alcohol is one thing. Testing for every single drug is another. Laws that are as vague as "as long as you don't hurt anyone" are unenforcable, so basically useless. You think we should have no laws.

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye, or a child, or international respect.

I already said; there's no way you can enforce your laws so noone gets hurt because of them.

And international respect; respected like Mexico is for its lack of a drinking age, respected like Jamaica for its legalization of marijuana, respected like countries that do not prohibit a sex trade or enforce an age of consent.

I whould rather have fredom then respect and i don't think thous conotrys problems come from the issues metioned.

The church does not support *** marriage because they are against *** people.

Rather freedom than respect? A country cannot run efficiently or even at all if every citizen is free to do whatever they want. It's basically anarchy and only ignorant punks really want that.

Im against it. Marriage shulkd be between a man and a woman

why?

Wow, it looks like you guys had a competition to see who can shove the largest pickle, the furthest up eachother's assess.

I saw it on a T-Shirt once, I thought it was funny. I picture some hillbilly saying that, makes ya' laugh

Y'know, laughter? "har har"? That thing that happens when someone says something that makes you react as if getting tickled?

Personally I think this thread is completely rediculous and have therefor refrained from placing any intelligable post at all. My whole view is that religiously, yes, g@y marriages are completely wrong, you are the seed of the devil, you should be cast into the lake of fire, ect, ect, blah, blah, let's have sex? And politically there is no problem with it, let the f@gs have their fun, who are you to decide who should love who and what are "correct" marriages and "incorrect" marriages?

That's not going to change, and no amount of argument will change that, therefor: stating the feableness of this thread, and therefor: making me regret even wasting 3 minutes of my life to type this.

EDIT: And for those whom still have some sort of sense of humour left, here's a funny one:

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

Well its his opinion, which is why he's against it...

and what is this "God" you speak of?

plz keep your homaphobic quotes to your self.

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

i dun see how hes bein a homophobe

I got in an arguement about this with someone today. What are your opinions on the topic?

ha, i dont think u read many of my post b/c if u did i side fredom that thats not conflicted with others ferdom and rights. So it whould not be anarchy. And if it came down to picking fredom and anarchy over a upthing soicty like some poleop whont i whould glady go for the anarchy. And u are only ignorant if u are thinking in the short therm, and alougth it may seem like it to some poleop i am not. For example whould we ever have goten close to the destion power of the nucke w/o govment? nope. if it was all anarchy at least we whould not be mass killing poleop for dum reason like what conotry they belong to or there race. We whould be limited to only killing the poleop in the imited area and the odds are if u toke on more then 1 or 2 at the same time u whould get killed and not them. So i say bring on the anarchy if it means the end to such things as war and racsisum. U did not see the cave men nukeing japan now did u?

you commie bastard