To those who support Equal Marriage
03-23-05, 01:01 PM
#27
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Amur_
Bend over and I'll show you.
Originally Posted by eViLRotor
God is gay.
Religious groups are gay
So they should just let some people be gay and get married.
Religious groups are gay
So they should just let some people be gay and get married.
What does parenting have to do with marriage? Homosexuals can adopt children now, why does it matter if they are married?
I don't know why religious groups in Ontario and other places where it's legal are getting in such a tizzy over gay marriage in Alberta, North West Territories, etc. The fact that it will have no effect on them other than to gaurenty that they won't be forced to marry gay couples, but still oppose it is odd. It really pisses me off that they're such bigots, much more than I would otherwise care about the issue.
It's long been conclusively proven that homosexual orientation is a result of a physical difference in people, it's not a choice. In other words that's the way "God" made them. In certain Christian religions even a psychopathic child murderer who believes in God can go to heaven. If God says that homosexuals are evil and it's not something that can be changed or repented, wouldn't this mean that they're inhuman and shouldn't they be rounded up and exterminated? To a certain degree it seems like it's only because these people are not big on the whole concept of "facts" that they're not proposing such a "solution."
Last edited by Snrub; 03-23-05 at 01:06 PM.
03-23-05, 01:09 PM
#28
EvilRotor's Brat Sister
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Snrub
It's long been conclusively proven that homosexual orientation is a result of a physical difference in people, it's not a choice.
03-23-05, 01:25 PM
#29
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by SophiaCDN
Amur:
Did you just google, read a bit, then post or did you actually read each article?
Did you just google, read a bit, then post or did you actually read each article?
One is saying that children of homosexual couples are more likely to explore homosexuality, the other is saying the opposite. One is critizing many studies in terms of validity (which is a big deal). The other lists a sample size of 25, so the study in that article has serious reliability issues in addition to validity issues.
As one author put it, "It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and relatively scarce." This means that the long-term affects in adult life have probably not been studied yet, since it's a relatively new research area.
As one author put it, "It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and relatively scarce." This means that the long-term affects in adult life have probably not been studied yet, since it's a relatively new research area.
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
It's also important to learn about the opposite sex through a parent of the opposite sex, to prepare you for your adult life and own future relationship.
I wouldn't mind seeing a REAL study conducted about that, no fluff with huge reliability and validity problems.
Interesting that you've bashed the lack of study, but then say, "We see what happens to single parents," as a counter-point. I've searched for summaries about single-parent families, but haven't found anything beyond statements that there is potential for 'poor' social and personal development. Which doesn't say much at all, considering there's just as much potential for that in traditional families.
03-23-05, 01:28 PM
#30
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by SophiaCDN
Actually, nothing has been proven yet regarding the origins/causes of homosexuality.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/...ce/gaygene.htm
Over the years (from 1991 to the present) the story of the so-called ‘gay gene’ is one indicative of scientific experiments and conclusions molding themselves into media forces that then seem to have a life of their own.
03-23-05, 01:42 PM
#31
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, nothing has been proven yet regarding the origins/causes of homosexuality.
Last edited by Snrub; 03-23-05 at 01:49 PM.
03-23-05, 01:42 PM
#32
More Mazdas than Sense
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sunny Downtown Fenwick
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's go for the killing thing. Everyone who is not exactly like me, or HOT, get in line, wait for death.
I've met Ian's brother. He's hot.
You just think that way since you're hoping to marry Ian's brother
03-23-05, 01:54 PM
#33
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Feds
Let's go for the killing thing. Everyone who is not exactly like me, or HOT, get in line, wait for death.
I've met Ian's brother. He's hot.
I've met Ian's brother. He's hot.
How would a child develop in a single-*** family?
03-23-05, 02:16 PM
#35
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole argument is a typical strategy of our current government:
"Trump up the importance of gay marriage, abortion, Kyoto, etc so that we don't have to deal with the more important issues like national security, a strong economy, government corruption and over-taxed citizens. That way we can continue to rule with impunity while financially ***-raping the peasants and manipulating the loosely-worded Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The peasants wont know what hit 'em!"
For the record, let 'em get married and enjoy the right to the same financial benefits that straight married couples enjoy. After all, Trudeau was right (for once) when he said the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. But draw the line when it comes to adopting children because the kids should have a right to not be ostracized by their peers over the fact that both their parents have a *****.
But of course gays will argue that "if more kids were allowed to have gay parents it would be considered normal and the harassment would stop." Somehow it doesn't sound like they're putting the child's interests ahead of their own now, does it? Too bad, because that's one of the most important cornerstones of being a good parent and they don't appear to have it.
"Trump up the importance of gay marriage, abortion, Kyoto, etc so that we don't have to deal with the more important issues like national security, a strong economy, government corruption and over-taxed citizens. That way we can continue to rule with impunity while financially ***-raping the peasants and manipulating the loosely-worded Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The peasants wont know what hit 'em!"
For the record, let 'em get married and enjoy the right to the same financial benefits that straight married couples enjoy. After all, Trudeau was right (for once) when he said the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. But draw the line when it comes to adopting children because the kids should have a right to not be ostracized by their peers over the fact that both their parents have a *****.
But of course gays will argue that "if more kids were allowed to have gay parents it would be considered normal and the harassment would stop." Somehow it doesn't sound like they're putting the child's interests ahead of their own now, does it? Too bad, because that's one of the most important cornerstones of being a good parent and they don't appear to have it.
03-23-05, 02:17 PM
#36
To me this is one more sign that religion is the cause of all problems in society.
Being Homosexual isn't a simple choice - there are genetics behind it. Who would choose to lead a life under this type of scrutiny and prejudice?
And lets not put too much weight in the "Must have a Mother + Father in their life" arguement. There are plenty of fucked up kids with Both mothers and fathers at home. The real arguement should be that "Children need a positive male and female role model in their life." Just because you are there doesn't make you a positive role model, just as being gay doesn't make you a negative one. If gay parents can provide a healthy, well rounded, loving environment - what's wrong with that?
That said, even though I have a problem with religion, I believe that they should be able to set their own rules. How can a government force a church to marry someone? Hell, if I walked into a Jewish Temple and asked to be married, they have all the right to deny me that service. Right now the Church has the final word as to if they want to marry a couple or not, based on the Minister's judgement of that couple. Why should it be any different for gay people? If the church doesn't want to marry them - then they don't have to. But the government shouldn't be able to force the issue.
I'm all for the seperation of Church and State. As far as possible.
Being Homosexual isn't a simple choice - there are genetics behind it. Who would choose to lead a life under this type of scrutiny and prejudice?
And lets not put too much weight in the "Must have a Mother + Father in their life" arguement. There are plenty of fucked up kids with Both mothers and fathers at home. The real arguement should be that "Children need a positive male and female role model in their life." Just because you are there doesn't make you a positive role model, just as being gay doesn't make you a negative one. If gay parents can provide a healthy, well rounded, loving environment - what's wrong with that?
That said, even though I have a problem with religion, I believe that they should be able to set their own rules. How can a government force a church to marry someone? Hell, if I walked into a Jewish Temple and asked to be married, they have all the right to deny me that service. Right now the Church has the final word as to if they want to marry a couple or not, based on the Minister's judgement of that couple. Why should it be any different for gay people? If the church doesn't want to marry them - then they don't have to. But the government shouldn't be able to force the issue.
I'm all for the seperation of Church and State. As far as possible.
03-23-05, 02:22 PM
#37
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by coldfire
Amur, i'm still waiting for you to show me your stance on the situation.
Feet shoulder-width apart.
Bent at the knees.
03-23-05, 03:35 PM
#38
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Nick86
That said, even though I have a problem with religion, I believe that they should be able to set their own rules. How can a government force a church to marry someone? Hell, if I walked into a Jewish Temple and asked to be married, they have all the right to deny me that service. Right now the Church has the final word as to if they want to marry a couple or not, based on the Minister's judgement of that couple. Why should it be any different for gay people? If the church doesn't want to marry them - then they don't have to. But the government shouldn't be able to force the issue.
I'm all for the seperation of Church and State. As far as possible.
I'm all for the seperation of Church and State. As far as possible.
WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;
03-23-05, 03:43 PM
#39
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aviator 902S
This whole argument is a typical strategy of our current government:
"Trump up the importance of gay marriage, abortion, Kyoto, etc so that we don't have to deal with the more important issues like national security, a strong economy, government corruption and over-taxed citizens. That way we can continue to rule with impunity while financially ***-raping the peasants and manipulating the loosely-worded Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The peasants wont know what hit 'em!"
"Trump up the importance of gay marriage, abortion, Kyoto, etc so that we don't have to deal with the more important issues like national security, a strong economy, government corruption and over-taxed citizens. That way we can continue to rule with impunity while financially ***-raping the peasants and manipulating the loosely-worded Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The peasants wont know what hit 'em!"
As for being ***-raped, I would argue that the US gov't is doing far more to their citizens. Their federal debt is $8 Trillion US and climbing for 296M citizens, while ours is ~$430B US for 32M citizens. That's $13.4k US per Canadian and $27k US per American. Assume an interest rate of 5% (which is probably low) and that's $1370US per year that each US citizen pays because their gov't couldn't be bothered to be concerned about gov't mismanagement, while Canadians "only" have $670US pissed away completely uselessly each year. Canada vs. the US's tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 35.1% vs. 28.9% in 2001 and both have gone down since. I don't think that's an unfair tradeoff for universal healthcare, etc.
03-23-05, 03:51 PM
#40
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Aviator 902S
This whole argument is a typical strategy of our current government:
"Trump up the importance of gay marriage, abortion, Kyoto, etc so that we don't have to deal with the more important issues like national security, a strong economy, government corruption and over-taxed citizens. That way we can continue to rule with impunity while financially ***-raping the peasants and manipulating the loosely-worded Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The peasants wont know what hit 'em!"
"Trump up the importance of gay marriage, abortion, Kyoto, etc so that we don't have to deal with the more important issues like national security, a strong economy, government corruption and over-taxed citizens. That way we can continue to rule with impunity while financially ***-raping the peasants and manipulating the loosely-worded Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The peasants wont know what hit 'em!"
But draw the line when it comes to adopting children because the kids should have a right to not be ostracized by their peers over the fact that both their parents have a *****.
But of course gays will argue that "if more kids were allowed to have gay parents it would be considered normal and the harassment would stop."
that's one of the most important cornerstones of being a good parent and they don't appear to have it.
03-23-05, 03:58 PM
#41
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Snrub
You've definately got a point there, I'm not sure why the Liberals decided to push this issue right now.
I would strongly argue that Kyoto IS a very important issue and that we're not going to meet the requirements due to the gov'ts unwillingness to deal with it. Where's that plan we were suppose to have long ago? They like to make platitudes about doing it because it all sounds nice, but they don't actually want to do it.
03-23-05, 04:01 PM
#42
Originally Posted by Amur_
The government *can't* force the issue. Read the bill.
I think that one of the reasons that the Liberals are doing this now is because of political timing. These are the issues that the Liberal and Conservative parties are the most polarized about. The Liberal goal is to make the conservative party look as ultra conservative as they can - then call an election. The conservative party has been slipping closer to the middle in recent times, and has gained a level of success doing it. The goal here is to remind people how "Crazy Right Wing" the conservative party "actually" is right before an election is called. Their hope is that those people who made the small step right towards the conservative party for the last election will bail out back to the liberals as the conservatives get "Too conservative".
03-23-05, 05:22 PM
#43
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Nick86
I know - I guess am saying that I agree with that part of it.
I didn't pick up that you were being rhetorical.
03-23-05, 07:19 PM
#44
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Amur_
Absolutely! Because ONLY the children of gay parents ever get ostracized. Excellent point.
Amur! Your sarcasm is showing. So out of character.
Of course kids adopted by gay couples aren't the only ones to be ostracized. Many others are also harassed and one of their tormentors' favourite tactics (besides physical violence) is name-calling--- and the preferred names are typically "***", "Gay", "Homo" and "Queer." This perpetuates the myth among kids that gays are the antichrist and to these kids, being considered gay is to be considered an outcast by all. Many teen suicides and homicides are the result of just such harassment.The rights of gay couples are important, but no more so than the rights of kids to grow up without being continuously harassed. But to recognize the rights of gay couples in this particular aspect of the argument is to deny the rights of their adopted kids and vice-versa. Since this means there has to be a compromise we have to decide which of the two groups are older and mature enough to deal with the adversity until the bullying has become taboo by other kids. I don't believe the kids are well enough equipped to deal with it at all, but most adults are.
The first thing that needs to happen is for bullying in schools from kindergarten to high school graduation to be universally recognized by kids as unacceptable, and those guilty of it held accountable by all. This is where both teachers and parents must take a proactive approach. Once being gay is looked upon by most kids as not a big deal, THEN we can fix the issue of gay couples adopting kids.
Anyone using that argument isn't using their head. The most common arguments against it have been religious or social. The funny thing is, people quoting the Bible to argue against it are having the Bible quoted right back at them.
Yup. Most who speak out the loudest against gays are also of the opinion that they shouldn't even be allowed to have sex with each other let alone marry each other (I don't fall into this category at all), and use religion as the excuse to justify their intolerance. The best way to get them to accept gay weddings is to tell them "Relax! Just think--- if more gay couples marry there will be fewer of them ******* multiple partners and therefore less gay sex!" These rednecks are just stupid enough that they just might buy it.
As for the social impact on children - have you been reading any of the rest of the thread?
Yes I have. Re-read my response to the previous paragraph.
Your Archie Bunker impression is improving...
LOL... Good Ol' Archie. Caroll O'Connor's character was just bigotted and intolerant enough to stand as a shining beacon to all things redneck and ignorant, and his opinion of gays was a perfect case in point.
But every once in a while he'd come up with a gem--- like this one directed at his ultra-Liberal son-in-law "Meathead", when he informed Archie that "Last year over 10,000 Americans were killed by handguns." Archie's response? "Would it make ya feel any better if they wuz all pushed outta windows?"
03-23-05, 08:07 PM
#45
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Snrub
I would strongly argue that Kyoto IS a very important issue and that we're not going to meet the requirements due to the gov'ts unwillingness to deal with it. Where's that plan we were suppose to have long ago? They like to make platitudes about doing it because it all sounds nice, but they don't actually want to do it.
Looking after our environment IS an important issue, but Kyoto is severely flawed at this point in time. The feds don't have a viable plan in place, but what they're contemplating so far is to:
a) Drive Alberta into bankruptcy because of their oil industry while letting their friends in eastern Canada-based corporations off the hook, and
b) Pay billions of Canadian tax dollars in credits to countries that did not have to sign onto the program.
Fixing our environment is going to take a long-term investment in alternate energy sources such as wind turbines (set up along coasts of oceans and lakes, as well as anywhere else that winds are frequent and strong), geothermal heating systems (replacing oil and gas as the most polluting home-heating methods), annual gas-guzzler taxes applicable to the registration renewals of any vehicles getting fewer than 15 mpg combined city/hwy rating, and quadrupling the number of forest-fire fighting aircraft and equipment. Forest fires produce a HUGE percentage of air pollutants. If we could put them out in 1/4 the time period we could reduce this pollution by 75% annually.
As for being ***-raped, I would argue that the US gov't is doing far more to their citizens. Their federal debt is $8 Trillion US and climbing for 296M citizens, while ours is ~$430B US for 32M citizens. That's $13.4k US per Canadian and $27k US per American. Assume an interest rate of 5% (which is probably low) and that's $1370US per year that each US citizen pays because their gov't couldn't be bothered to be concerned about gov't mismanagement, while Canadians "only" have $670US pissed away completely uselessly each year. Canada vs. the US's tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 35.1% vs. 28.9% in 2001 and both have gone down since. I don't think that's an unfair tradeoff for universal healthcare, etc.
The above federal debts of both countries sound about right, although Canada's fed debt is closer to 500 billion according to the last quote I read about a month ago. But when you take into account debt from ALL levels of government it doesn't look quite so rosy for us. The federal debt reduction seemingly accomplished by Martin and company over the last 12 years has been achieved by simply unloading it onto the provinces and us peasants via reduced health care, higher taxes, selling the Air Navigation Service to a private entity, Nav Canada (so that now we can be charged user fees for everything related to air travel, while the feds wash themselves of the financial burden but still charge us for the taxes in every liter of aviation fuel used, taxes which were SUPPOSED to be used to run the ANS but instead were quietly rolled into a black hole known as "general revenue."), huge increases in CPP premiums (a tax by any other name, since CPP payouts aren't likely to go up by anywhere near the same margin) and by cutting military spending and national security to the bone. This means that Canada's actual per-capita debt load is considerably higher than the feds would have us believe.
Those living in the U.S. have their own problems. True, they have more net spendable cash flow than Canadians after taxes (even with their high medical insurance premiums) and a strong military, but it's not wise for them to get sick if they don't buy health insurance and they can't go non-resident to avoid paying income tax--- they have to renounce their U.S. citizenship if they want to legally do this.
BTW, I'm currently reading a book titled "Take your money and run." It's somewhat outdated but an eye-opener and highly recommended. Much of what's in it still holds true.
03-23-05, 08:19 PM
#46
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Amur_
Or maybe it's a lot harder to make it work than it looks. My hat's off to them for trying, unlike Senor Bush.
It's actually impossible to make it work in the time frame specified, but we still have to try. The Kyoto plan (at least the aspects of it being considered by the Liberals) will not only not work but will bankrupt the country. Say what you want about Bush, but in this case he's right--- all Kyoto under it's current plan will accomplish is to bankrupt the countries playing by the rules while rewarding those who don't by shifting world economic strength from us to them.
Bush recognizes that something must be done and that we can't back-burner the environmental issue any longer. But it's going to involve development of alternate fuels and power sources rather than shutting down the economy while the pollution continues in the rest of the world. After all, the demand for goods and services whose production causes pollution will be met by someone, whether we fill those needs or not.
03-23-05, 09:22 PM
#47
More Mazdas than Sense
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sunny Downtown Fenwick
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love Love Love
Love Love Love
LOVE Love Love
Love Love Love
All you need is Love, love
Love is all you need
(loveisallyouneed)
Love is all you need
(loveisallyouneed)
Love Love Love
LOVE Love Love
Love Love Love
All you need is Love, love
Love is all you need
(loveisallyouneed)
Love is all you need
(loveisallyouneed)
03-23-05, 10:54 PM
#49
GrapefruitRacing?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: PartSource
Posts: 2,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Feds
Love Love Love
Love Love Love
LOVE Love Love
Love Love Love
All you need is Love, love
Love is all you need
(loveisallyouneed)
Love is all you need
(loveisallyouneed)
Love Love Love
LOVE Love Love
Love Love Love
All you need is Love, love
Love is all you need
(loveisallyouneed)
Love is all you need
(loveisallyouneed)
Looks like the fumes have finally completly consumed him. Stick a fork in him cause he's done.
03-23-05, 11:20 PM
#50
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RXciting
Looks like the fumes have finally completly consumed him. Stick a fork in him cause he's done.