what if they had a protest and no one came?

[seinfeldrules]

I beg to differ

Were we not talking about protest? Also, it was made as a joke.

that's not the same as coercion. they are obligated to vote that way much like on home electorate works in the US ..along party lines

No leaders in the House or Senate in the Republican or Democratic party make thinly veiled threats over a Congressional vote, especially one so important.

the court hasnt decided anything. It made recommendations. it's to be decided on a federal level ...but you'd know that if you read the first page

My mistake, but again, what is wrong about a national referrendum?

 

[CptStern]

Were we not talking about protest? Also, it was made as a joke.

no we were talking about conservatives making fools of themselves :E

No leaders in the House or Senate in the Republican or Democratic party make thinly veiled threats over a Congressional vote, especially one so important.

doesnt apply to canada

My mistake, but again, what is wrong about a national referrendum?

because we've already decided, that's why it's going to the federal level ..to draw up the bill. Klein and his right wing cronies can protest all they want but more than half of the provinces it's already legal to have a same-sex marriage.

 

[seinfeldrules]

because we've already decided, that's why it's going to the federal level ..to draw up the bill. Klein and his right wing cronies can protest all they want but more than half of the provinces it's already legal to have a same-sex marriage.

We as in the people? Was there a national referendum?

doesnt apply to canada

And you call yourselves a superior people.... Sigh....

 

[CptStern]

We as in the people? Was there a national referendum?

yes we as a people

And you call yourselves a superior people.... Sigh....

:upstare: I meant our parties are not the democrats and the republicans ..really seinfeldrules, you're just badgering me for the sake of it

 

[seinfeldrules]

yes we as a people

You neglected to answer the second part.

I meant our parties are not the democrats and the republicans ..really seinfeldrules, you're just badgering me for the sake of it

You refused to respond to the real issue I brought up.

 

[CptStern]

You neglected to answer the second part.

why would I answer it if you already know the answer. A referendum is useless because the supreme court has judged that same-sex marriage upholds the constitution ..a referendum couldnt reverse that decision because it is an indelible right

You refused to respond to the real issue I brought up.

which is? gays should be shot on sight? :upstare:

 

[seinfeldrules]

why would I answer it if you already know the answer. A referendum is useless because the supreme court has judged that same-sex marriage upholds the constitution ..a referendum couldnt reverse that decision because it is an indelible right

Why must 9 men decide the fate of an entire country? Why not let the people decide whether or not they want gay marriage? Would you be scared of the results?

which is? gays should be shot on sight? :upstare:

Yes, just as all Americans should be shot on sight :stare: .

You said that similar political guidelines are set in the US as well, that members of Congress cannot vote outside party lines. I said that isnt true, there is no thinly veiled threat placed upon anybody who chooses not to do so by Congressional leaders.

Martin's Liberal Party has a minority government, with 134 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, so passage of the bill isn't guaranteed.

``I believe that the vote would be a very close one,'' Stephen Harper, whose Conservative Party has 99 seats, said at a news conference in Ottawa today. ``A compromise is possible.''

Harper proposed keeping the traditional definition of marriage as between as a man and a woman, while permitting civil unions for other arrangements.

Finally, a voice of reason.

And more.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1075504709204_29?s_name=&no_ads=

On gay marriage, only Quebec and B.C. show 50 per cent support or better.
Support for gay marriage is strongest among women, younger people, those with higher incomes and those with more education.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2491

Toronto, ON --As the Supreme Court of Canada issues its opinion on the federal government's legislation to legalize same-sex marriage today, a poll of Canadians finds that a full majority (71%) support the concept of same sex marriage. However, these Canadians are split in how they would like the union recognized: four in ten (39%) believe same-sex marriage should be “fully recognized and equal to conventional heterosexual marriages”, while and 32% believe it should “be allowed to exist in civil law but not have the same legal weight as a conventional marriage”. In the alternate, the poll found that only a minority of 27% believe that “it is wrong and should never be lawful”. Two percent “don’t know” which of these views they have on this issue.

32+27 > 39

 

[burner69]

Surely we're missing the point here.

This law is f**king up people's lives, and is being maintained because of a 2000 year old book which is barely obeyed at all today - unless it suits.

If this is the damage religion does on a country it needs to be looked at very carefully.

EDIT: And even more so if the majority of a country starts believing it is wrong. What must we be teaching our kids to make them think homosexuality is so horrific it cannot be placed side by side with heterosexual customs.

 

[CptStern]

Why must 9 men decide the fate of an entire country? Why not let the people decide whether or not they want gay marriage? Would you be scared of the results?

the supreme court of canada heard the arguments of:

The attorney general of Quebec.
The attorney general of Alberta.
The Association for Marriage and the Family in Ontario (made up of Focus on the Family (Canada) Association and REAL Women of Canada).
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family (made up of the Islamic Society of North America, the Catholic Civil Rights League and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada).
The Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.
The Honourable Anne Cools, member of the Senate.
Roger Gallaway, member of the House of Commons.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission.
The Canadian Bar Association.
The Canadian Coalition of Liberal Rabbis for Same-Sex Marriage (Rabbi Debra Landsberg, as its nominee).
Mouvement laïque québécois.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
The Foundation for Equal Families.
The Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto.
The Manitoba Human Rights Commission.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Martin Dion.
The Coalition pour le mariage civil des couples de même sexe.
The Working Group on Civil Unions.
The United Church of Canada.
The Canadian Unitarian Council.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada.
The "EGALE Couples."
The "B.C. Couples."
The "Ontario Couples."
The "Quebec Couples."


hardly a one sided debate

You said that similar political guidelines are set in the US as well, that members of Congress cannot vote outside party lines. I said that isnt true, there is no thinly veiled threat placed upon anybody who chooses not to do so by Congressional leaders.

I was talking about canada

Martin's Liberal Party has a minority government, with 134 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, so passage of the bill isn't guaranteed.

ah but you forgot the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democrats, they've all pretty much said they'd vote in favour of same sex marriage ..the total number is closer to 177 ..a clear majority

``I believe that the vote would be a very close one,'' Stephen Harper, whose Conservative Party has 99 seats, said at a news conference in Ottawa today. ``A compromise is possible.''

see above

Harper proposed keeping the traditional definition of marriage as between as a man and a woman, while permitting civil unions for other arrangements.

harper is leader of the minority

Finally, a voice of reason.

And more.

hardly, canadian conservative is not equal to american conservative

On gay marriage, only Quebec and B.C. show 50 per cent support or better.
Support for gay marriage is strongest among women, younger people, those with higher incomes and those with more education.

so what are you saying? only men, old people and dumbasses are opposed to same sex marriage?

a majority of canadians support same sex marriage

"The survey also found that the number of Canadians agreeing that gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married has increased. Currently, 57% agree, the highest level since CRIC first asked the question over two years ago, and up from 48% in September 2003. The number disagreeing currently stands at 38%, down from 47% in September 2003."


even catholics approve:

"It is notable that, support for allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is actually slightly higher than the Canadian average among those who consider themselves Catholic (57%). Although the strong support for same-sex marriage in Quebec tends to influence the overall numbers among Catholics, even comparing Catholics and Protestants in English Canada only, we find that there is significantly higher support for same sex marriage among Catholics."

Toronto, ON --As the Supreme Court of Canada issues its opinion on the federal government's legislation to legalize same-sex marriage today, a poll of Canadians finds that a full majority (71%) support the concept of same sex marriage. However, these Canadians are split in how they would like the union recognized: four in ten (39%) believe same-sex marriage should be “fully recognized and equal to conventional heterosexual marriages”, while and 32% believe it should “be allowed to exist in civil law but not have the same legal weight as a conventional marriage”. In the alternate, the poll found that only a minority of 27% believe that “it is wrong and should never be lawful”. Two percent “don’t know” which of these views they have on this issue.

you're misinterpreting the data ...71% said they supported same sex marriage ..yet "32% believe it should “be allowed to exist in civil law but not have the same legal weightas a conventional marriage”

so in name yes: marriage

btw did you miss this part of the poll? :

"Fifty-eight per cent of those polled rejected the idea that marriage should be left exclusively to the churches."

btw same sex marriages are legal in Ontario


look public opinion doesnt really matter as it is a constitutional issue. The supreme court of canada has ruled:

"Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite sex couples. The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today."

in essence they are asking the federal government to draft up the legislation as it has stated that since the majority of provinces have legislation in place it will not contest the lower courts decision in each of the 6 provinces ...it's a done deal. It will be passed.

 

[chimpmunk]

Just because Canada supports it, doesnt mean America has to. Your opinion is no more correct than somebody else's, to think so is just arrogant and foolish.

It's not because canada made legal that USA should do so, it's because it's the intelligent thing to do, when you don't live 2000years in the past.

 

[seinfeldrules]

hardly a one sided debate

It was still decided by 9 men. The others were only there to debate.

ah but you forgot the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democrats, they've all pretty much said they'd vote in favour of same sex marriage ..the total number is closer to 177 ..a clear majority

It isnt guaranteed that all of these will vote for the bill, unless you need to threaten them that is.

so what are you saying? only men, old people and dumbasses are opposed to same sex marriage?

Did I write the article?

even catholics approve:

"It is notable that, support for allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is actually slightly higher than the Canadian average among those who consider themselves Catholic (57%). Although the strong support for same-sex marriage in Quebec tends to influence the overall numbers among Catholics, even comparing Catholics and Protestants in English Canada only, we find that there is significantly higher support for same sex marriage among Catholics."

I thought you didnt care about religion and called most Catholics members of "Jesusland". Apparently when it fits your purpose though,.

 

[CptStern]

It was still decided by 9 men. The others were only there to debate.

as opposed to when the US supreme court makes decisions? oh and 9 judges is the maximum, usually it's between 5-7. And for the last time....the Supreme court made recommendations not rulings.

It isnt guaranteed that all of these will vote for the bill, unless you need to threaten them that is.

now you're either being ignorant or idiotic. You do realise that canada is a multiparty system right? The Liberals have absolutely no sway over the New Democrats or Bloc Quebecois, they're the opposition..they rarely see eye to eye

I thought you didnt care about religion and called most Catholics members of "Jesusland". Apparently when it fits your purpose though,.

what the hell are you babbling about? it could have been any religious group. I used the quote to illustrate that not all people with religious beliefs are anti-same sex marriage. Really seinfeldrules, you're grasping at straws here

btw jesusland refers to right-wing christians not catholics

 

[ferd]

Civil unions would give exactly the same rights to both gays and heterosexuals.


F.Y.I. laws need to be passed in Congress, approved by the President, then can be looked over by the Supreme Court. Its not like Bush waves his magic wand as you suggest.

The Congres is republican coloured...and so will the Supreme Court after Bush wil appoint his men...

how many of them are to old to be in the Supreme court? And how many new members will be placed there by Bush?

 

[seinfeldrules]

now you're either being ignorant or idiotic. You do realise that canada is a multiparty system right? The Liberals have absolutely no sway over the New Democrats or Bloc Quebecois, they're the opposition..they rarely see eye to eye

Yes, it isnt guaranteed that all liberals will vote for it. That was until they were threatened anyways.

what the hell are you babbling about? it could have been any religious group. I used the quote to illustrate that not all people with religious beliefs are anti-same sex marriage. Really seinfeldrules, you're grasping at straws here

Who was disputing that in the first place?

how many of them are to old to be in the Supreme court? And how many new members will be placed there by Bush?

1. None
2. Unknown, refer to 1.

as opposed to when the US supreme court makes decisions? oh and 9 judges is the maximum, usually it's between 5-7. And for the last time....the Supreme court made recommendations not rulings.

Would you oppose a national referrendum?

 

[CptStern]

Yes, it isnt guaranteed that all liberals will vote for it. That was until they were threatened anyways.

:upstare: what threat? what are you talking about? this isnt the US of A we dont rig elections

Who was disputing that in the first place?

you brought it up with numerous references to conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriage ...I proved that even some religious groups have no problem with it

Would you oppose a national referrendum?

yes, it would do nothing as it's already legal in half of canada. T's already a law. Even Klein has admitted defeat:

"The Alberta government, the main provincial holdout, conceded defeat yesterday, ending Premier Ralph Klein's vow to use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to pass a law to keep gay marriage out of the province.


The Supreme Court ruled the power to decide who can marry is exclusive federal jurisdiction; provinces are responsible for the ceremony and registration.

"It is only the federal government that can use the notwithstanding clause," acknowledged Alberta Justice Minister Ron Stevens."

source

 

[seinfeldrules]

what threat? what are you talking about? this isnt the US of A we dont rig elections

The guy who pretty much threatened anybody who would vote against it. Read back a page or two.

you brought it up with numerous references to conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriage ...I proved that even some religious groups have no problem with it

Nobody ever said that some wont have a problem with it, just as there are some liberals that will have a problem with it. Thats the great thing about freedom of choice, unless of course you cannot choose which side to vote for...

While backbench Liberals MPs will be free to vote on the issue as they choose, cabinet ministers must support the bill. Cotler said the reason for this is to make sure the government is seen to speak with one voice."The legislation was not introduced by the prime minister or by myself," he told Canada AM.

"The legislation was introduced in the name of the government. And therefore all the ministers of the government effectively -- collectively -- introduced this legislation."

When asked what he thought might happen to any cabinet minister who disobeys and votes against the bill, Cotler refused to speculate. But he did say, "I would expect all our ministers will act responsibly."

yes, it would do nothing as it's already legal in half of canada. T's already a law. Even Klein has admitted defeat:

I still see no reason not to perform one. It would only show what the people truly wanted. What is T btw?

 

[CptStern]

The guy who pretty much threatened anybody who would vote against it. Read back a page or two.

I did ...who? Paul Martin? the prime minister of canada? oh noes he told his party to vote along party lines! oh shudder!!! "Please Amerika save me from the oppressive regime of Martin!! He has WMD, I saw the blueprints and HE"S GOING TO USE THEM ON AMERICA!!!!"

I still see no reason not to perform one. It would only show what the people truly wanted. What is T btw?

it's a constitutional question ..do americans vote on constitutional ammendments?


Btw T is for Typo

 

[seinfeldrules]

the prime minister of canada? oh noes he told his party to vote along party lines! oh shudder!!!

He threatened anybody who would vote against it. Doesnt seem very Democratic to me....

While backbench Liberals MPs will be free to vote on the issue as they choose, cabinet ministers must support the bill. Cotler said the reason for this is to make sure the government is seen to speak with one voice."The legislation was not introduced by the prime minister or by myself," he told Canada AM.

"The legislation was introduced in the name of the government. And therefore all the ministers of the government effectively -- collectively -- introduced this legislation."

When asked what he thought might happen to any cabinet minister who disobeys and votes against the bill, Cotler refused to speculate. But he did say, "I would expect all our ministers will act responsibly."

I think its better that the Gov't debate amongst itself rather than create a facade of happiness for the voters.

it's a constitutional question ..do americans vote on constitutional ammendments?

In an indirect manner. A large majority of states have to pass them as does the House and Senate. The amendment in a state is either decided by legislature of convention.

 

[CptStern]

He threatened anybody who would vote against it. Doesnt seem very Democratic to me....

how is that a threat? they are free to vote as they choose, it's happened many times that a particular MP has voted contrary to party lines. The "threat" is completely empty. Really seinfeldrules drop this aspect of your argument, it's going nowhere and has absolutely no merit as there's is no threat.

I think its better that the Gov't debate amongst itself rather than create a facade of happiness for the voters.

god you do tend to babble incoherently. Parilament still has to vote on it, that's where all parties cast their vote so that a bill can be passed ...it's a democratic process. The party members are all voted into office by the people, they are their representation in Parliament. If an MP's constituents are overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage I'm sure if he wants to be re-elected again he'll vote as his constituents want. Canada is not the same as the US, there's no easily identifiable areas of conservative strongholds that traditionally vote a certain way (they may have conservative views but they're not uniformly conservative ..if you get my meaning)

In an indirect manner. A large majority of states have to pass them as does the House and Senate. The amendment in a state is either decided by legislature of convention.

I see no difference in what canada does ...more than half the provinces have it in place ..they've already decided

 

[seinfeldrules]

how is that a threat? they are free to vote as they choose, it's happened many times that a particular MP has voted contrary to party lines. The "threat" is completely empty. Really seinfeldrules drop this aspect of your argument, it's going nowhere and has absolutely no merit as there's is no threat.

If you cannot interpret what he is saying as such then you are truly foolish. You are attempting to throw this issue out because you know it undermines your whole case. If somebody had said of the war in Iraq (in the US) this is what it would have looked like.

While Conservative House Members will be free to vote on the issue as they choose, Conservative Senators must support the bill. Cheney said the reason for this is to make sure the government is seen to speak with one voice."The legislation was not introduced by the President or by myself," he told US Press.

"The legislation was introduced in the name of the government. And therefore all the ministers of the government effectively -- collectively -- introduced this legislation."

When asked what he thought might happen to any Senator who disobeys and votes against the bill, Cheney refused to speculate. But he did say, "I would expect all our Senators will act responsibly."

If that had been said, you would have passed a hernia.

god you do tend to babble incoherently. Parilament still has to vote on it, that's where all parties cast their vote so that a bill can be passed ...it's a democratic process.

I never said otherwise, but why must they all vote the same to make the voters happy? Refer to below to see where I base my claims.

cabinet ministers must support the bill. Cotler said the reason for this is to make sure the government is seen to speak with one voice."

Why must they be seen to speak with one voice? *copy I think its better that the Gov't debate amongst itself rather than create a facade of happiness for the voters. *paste.

 

[CptStern]

If you cannot interpret what he is saying as such then you are truly foolish. You are attempting to throw this issue out because you know it undermines your whole case. If somebody had said of the war in Iraq (in the US) this is what it would have looked like.

oh seinfeldrules how selective your criticsim is. Tell me what's a Party Whip? Isnt this the same thing?

If that had been said, you would have passed a hernia.

you pass gall stones not hernias.

I never said otherwise, but why must they all vote the same to make the voters happy? Refer to below to see where I base my claims.

see above

Why must they be seen to speak with one voice? *copy I think its better that the Gov't debate amongst itself rather than create a facade of happiness for the voters. *paste.

why is this so freakin hard for you to understand? party members tend to vote along party lines, it's the same in every parilmentary democracy in the world. Give up your nazi crusade against gays, it's really none of your business what canada does ..and yes it is my business what the US does, because it affects every last human on this earth (directly or indirectly)

 

[seinfeldrules]

Give up your nazi crusade against gays, it's really none of your business what canada does ..and yes it is my business what the US does, because it affects every last human on this earth (directly or indirectly)

Hypocrite.

oh seinfeldrules how selective your criticsim is.

If that statement had been made in America over the war in Iraq, you would have cried bloody murder. Dont deny the truth.

Give up your nazi crusade against gays

I have nothing against gays. I support civil unions 100% and hope they one day receive exactly equal rights under them. Remember, a bigot is merely a conservative winning an argument against a liberal. Its quite easy to toss names around, even a child can do it.

why is this so freakin hard for you to understand? party members tend to vote along party lines,

Yes, but they should not be forced to do so. There should be no punishment for breaking party lines on an issue so important to many peopel.

 

[CptStern]

Hypocrite.

explain

If that statement had been made in America over the war in Iraq, you would have cried bloody murder. Dont deny the truth.

what are you talking about!!??! as if I thought for one minute a republican would vote with his conscience :upstare: ..they all vote along party lines ..that's what's expected. Why would you have a party if anyone could vote on any particular issue however they felt?

I have nothing against gays.

except for the fact that you think they arent entitled to the same freedoms you have

I support civil unions 100% and hope they one day receive exactly equal rights under them.

which would be called "marriage"

Remember, a bigot is merely a conservative winning an argument against a liberal. Its quite easy to toss names around, even a child can do it.

nooooo :upstare: ...a bigot is someone who puts their own race/creed/culture above someone else

Yes, but they should not be forced to do so. There should be no punishment for breaking party lines on an issue so important to many peopel.

who's forced to do anything? there is NO punishment! Stop inventing scenarios that dont exist.

 

[seinfeldrules]

explain

You can bitch about my country, but I cant about yours.

what are you talking about!!??! as if I thought for one minute a republican would vote with his conscience ..they all vote along party lines ..that's what's expected. Why would you have a party if anyone could vote on any particular issue however they felt?

Just because they agree with most issues doesnt mean they agree on all of them. Refer to Arnie for an example.

except for the fact that you think they arent entitled to the same freedoms you have

For the 1293812093810238 time. I think that they should be allowed to have the same rights as married couples, under civil unions. I would be willing to protest for that.

which would be called "marriage"

Which would be called "civil unions".

nooooo ...a bigot is someone who puts their own race/creed/culture above someone else

It was a jab at what I knew was coming, I performed a preemptive strike as it were.

who's forced to do anything? there is NO punishment! Stop inventing scenarios that dont exist.

If you cannot interpret that quote to mean that...

When asked what he thought might happen to any cabinet minister who disobeys and votes against the bill, Cotler refused to speculate. But he did say, "I would expect all our ministers will act responsibly."

Such a thinly veiled threat.

 

[burner69]

Seinfeld - just a quick question. Why is it that you do not want homosexuals to be married? Is it because of the offense it might cause devout Christians?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Seinfeld - just a quick question. Why is it that you do not want homosexuals to be married? Is it because of the offense it might cause devout Christians?

I just believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, that it is a tradition of such significance that it should supercede an attempt to change it.

 

[burner69]

I just believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, that it is a tradition of such significance that it should supercede an attempt to change it.

Even when keeping this definition harms other people's quality of life?

Don't worry, I'm not trying to blag you - just curious.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Even when keeping this definition harms other people's quality of life?

Under civil unions they would receive the exact same rights. Nobody would be harmed.

 

[burner69]

Under civil unions they would receive the exact same rights. Nobody would be harmed.

Except for religious homosexuals.
And surely if you were forced to have a civil union rather than marriage u'd be p*ssed. Right? I think there's something about marriage, it being the done thing in predominently christian societies, that makes it somewhat unfair to stop them from having it.

What do you think?

And I do agree to an extent that civil unions will certainly help with all of this, its just I have a problem with marriage being "banned" for some people, I find it morally disturbing.

 

[CptStern]

You can bitch about my country, but I cant about yours.

not the same scenario. US foreign policy affect all humans, same sex marriage in canada doesnt.

Just because they agree with most issues doesnt mean they agree on all of them. Refer to Arnie for an example.

that's exactly my point, yet you seem to think it's a sinister thing when applied to canadian politics. You sure are hypocritically selective :upstare:

For the 1293812093810238 time. I think that they should be allowed to have the same rights as married couples, under civil unions. I would be willing to protest for that.

how is it the same if it's different? if it's the same then it would be called a "marriage" ..tell me ..I wasnt married in a church, not once was the word "god" uttered during my ceremony ..am I married or is it a "civil union"?

Which would be called "civil unions".

nope, marriage ....."how is it the same if it's different?"

It was a jab at what I knew was coming, I performed a preemptive strike as it were.

yes you americans tend to be fond of "pre-emptive strikes" even though you loudly go on and on how other nations cant do the same ..remember, 9/11 can be seen as a pre-emptive strike ...you're going down that justify 9/11 road again

If you cannot interpret that quote to mean that...


Such a thinly veiled threat.

you really are grasping here ....

HELLO!! *knocks on seinfeldrules forehead* ANYBODY HOME?!

"He (Prime minister Paul Martin) said his government would introduce a bill shortly after the Christmas holidays.

He noted that members of Parliament would be free to vote their conscience, but his Cabinet ministers would have to support the government's bill. "

CABINET MINISTERS ...THAT HE APPOINTED!!!!!

 

[seinfeldrules]

Except for religious homosexuals.

Nobody is preventing them from performing their own ceremonies in their own churches. I dont think Christianity is accepting of homosexuality in the first place, so they can't be all that religious.

And surely if you were forced to have a civil union rather than marriage u'd be p*ssed. Right?

Comparing apples and organges. I'm not gay, im not trying to change the tradition. Let gays create their own tradition that them and others can be proud of, just as heterosexuals created marriage as a tradition to be proud of.

I think there's something about marriage, it being the done thing in predominently christian societies, that makes it somewhat unfair to stop them from having it.

Not only christians marry...

And I do agree to an extent that civil unions will certainly help with all of this, its just I have a problem with marriage being "banned" for some people, I find it morally disturbing.

And I would find it morally disturbing if gays married....

 

[seinfeldrules]

not the same scenario. US foreign policy affect all humans, same sex marriage in canada doesnt.

Then dont bring up the subject on an online forum of debate.

that's exactly my point, yet you seem to think it's a sinister thing when applied to canadian politics. You sure are hypocritically selective

You're the one saying that all Republicans must and do follow party lines. That is a false statement.

how is it the same if it's different? if it's the same then it would be called a "marriage" ..tell me ..I wasnt married in a church, not once was the word "god" uttered during my ceremony ..am I married or is it a "civil union"?

They are given the same rights. Your married to a woman? My definition of marriage is man and woman, regardless of religion.
PS ill answer the rest later. Gotta runh.

 

[CptStern]

Under civil unions they would receive the exact same rights. Nobody would be harmed.

this is exactly the same sentiment that led to segregation: "seperate but equal" ..funny how your government ruled "seperate but equal" was unconstitutional almost 50 years ago yet you still try to apply it to this current issue. Ah seinfeldrules you are such a follower ..I shudder to think what you would have done in germany circa 1938 ...take up goosestepping like everyone else?

 

[Tr0n]

Guys....stop.

I already won this debate.

 

[CptStern]

Then dont bring up the subject on an online forum of debate.

why? because everyone here is american? there are quite a few canadians here ..maybe you should just ignore issues that dont affect you

You're the one saying that all Republicans must and do follow party lines. That is a false statement.

stop putting words in my mouth you half-wit. What are party whips for?????

They are given the same rights. Your married to a woman? My definition of marriage is man and woman, regardless of religion.
PS ill answer the rest later. Gotta runh.

your definition? your definition? who are you to define anything?

no it's not the same if it's not the same ..get that through your thick skull: how can something be the same if it's different? answer the damn question ..having rules for one set and rules for another is not the same as having rules for all. Look I never ever want to hear you talk about freedom or equality ..you cant even give your fellow countrymen the same rights you're entitled to, by this alone any future debates in which you support equality is invalidated, because it would hypocritical to do so. You sir are a hypocrite

 

[burner69]

Nobody is preventing them from performing their own ceremonies in their own churches. I dont think Christianity is accepting of homosexuality in the first place, so they can't be all that religious.

Comparing apples and organges. I'm not gay, im not trying to change the tradition. Let gays create their own tradition that them and others can be proud of, just as heterosexuals created marriage as a tradition to be proud of.

Not only christians marry...

And I would find it morally disturbing if gays married....

So homosexuals have to start their own religion, which couldn't be called Christianity for fear of offending people, which would surely offend many homosexual - and more than offend, and this is the key point - AFFECT THEIR LIVES.
Are you saying that Christian homosexuals are lying? And aren't religious, and don't want to marry? What if Jim Bracknell never goes to church, snorts coke, goes out shooting once a week - then he decides he wants to get married, and does. Then Barry Burkinstein, who goes to church at least once a month, works hard at his job, meets Tim Bumberbell and they fall in love. Now, they both want marriage but wait... they can't. They're both religious and wish their joining to be in the eyes of God, who I don't believe ever said they COULDN'T do that, tho you might prove me wrong, yet they cannot marry.

See how being offended and being affected are two different things, and I'd rather see a minority not affected, and a majority offended. Than a minority affected and a majority not offended.

I wouldn't say apples and oranges at all. Your sexuality does not affect Barry Burkinstein, and his does nothing to you, so why shouldn't the coin be flipped.

True.

But you wouldn't actually have your life affected. You wouldn't find yourself limited, like homosexual feel now.

Preventing people from doing things is far more immoral than offending.

 

[seinfeldrules]

this is exactly the same sentiment that led to segregation: "seperate but equal" ..funny how your government ruled "seperate but equal" was unconstitutional almost 50 years ago yet you still try to apply it to this current issue. Ah seinfeldrules you are such a follower ..I shudder to think what you would have done in germany circa 1938 ...take up goosestepping like everyone else?

Thats it. Have fun debating yourself on this issue. Comparing me to a Nazi is just unacceptable. When you grow up and decide to post like a man, instead of a child, then I may respond. I do my best to restrain from the insults, but it is every post from you. Take some lessons from burner, at least he can debate while showing restraint and respect for others.

 

[seinfeldrules]

So homosexuals have to start their own religion, which couldn't be called Christianity for fear of offending people, which would surely offend many homosexual - and more than offend, and this is the key point - AFFECT THEIR LIVES.

The Christian Church would not marry them in the first place, and the Gov't has no control over this. We are talking about legal marriage.

Are you saying that Christian homosexuals are lying?

Lying about what?

And aren't religious, and don't want to marry? What if Jim Bracknell never goes to church, snorts coke, goes out shooting once a week - then he decides he wants to get married, and does. Then Barry Burkinstein, who goes to church at least once a month, works hard at his job, meets Tim Bumberbell and they fall in love. Now, they both want marriage but wait... they can't. They're both religious and wish their joining to be in the eyes of God, who I don't believe ever said they COULDN'T do that, tho you might prove me wrong, yet they cannot marry.

If you're snorting coke then you're lying to yourself about your religion as well.

I wouldn't say apples and oranges at all. Your sexuality does not affect Barry Burkinstein, and his does nothing to you, so why shouldn't the coin be flipped.

I just want seperate titles to distinguish the union of a man v man, just as marriage defines a union of a man v woman. You could call it anything, let them make their own tradition that would be something to be proud of, just as marriage should be for a man and woman. I have no objection to that at all.

But you wouldn't actually have your life affected. You wouldn't find yourself limited, like homosexual feel now.

I agree and feel it is wrong that there is no legal way to show a union of a man and man. I hope that civil unions will be introduced very soon to provide these same rights to gays that straight people currently enjoy. All I am asking for is a different title, give them all the same rights, no differences whatsoever.

 

[CptStern]

Thats it. Have fun debating yourself on this issue. Comparing me to a Nazi is just unacceptable. When you grow up and decide to post like a man, instead of a child, then I may respond. I do my best to restrain from the insults, but it is every post from you. Take some lessons from burner, at least he can debate while showing restraint and respect for others.

check and checkmate

 

[seinfeldrules]

check and checkmate

Notice I dont mind debating with mature individuals, such as burner, on this issue. When you need to degrade people to win your arguments, it really is checkmate I guess . I would have no problem continuing the debate if you retracted your comments.