what if they had a protest and no one came?

[GiaOmerta]

My responce about burying the world was sarcastic... or was it?
but more over, my reference to my Sicilian background was directed to you, clearing up that I'm a bit whacko yes. Why?... because I'm Sicilian.

man, I grew up in an italian community and I must say ..you're pretty whacko for a paisan

 

[CptStern]

I know it wasnt sarcastic, you uber-conservatives would rather level most of the world then bear the burden of truth


btw what are you? an american or a Sicilian, cant be both

 

[GiaOmerta]

I'm a wop. Proud of it.

 

[CptStern]

wop = WithOut Papers, it was a derogatory name used to identify italians as many of them didnt have proper ID and were stamped as WOP. To most italians I know, dem's fighting words

 

[GiaOmerta]

If a non-Italian uses it. Sure... I consider them fighting words.
African Americans have their word. We have ours.

WOP can stand for many things.
We Own People in example.

 

[Steve]

wop = WithOut Papers, it was a derogatory name used to identify italians as many of them didnt have proper ID and were stamped as WOP. To most italians I know, dem's fighting words

Heh heh...most Italians I think more or less anything is grounds for fightin'...

...course I only know like 3 Italians and 2 of them (the fightin' ones) are brothers, so...

 

[CptStern]

Heh heh...most Italians I think more or less anything is grounds for fightin'...

...course I only know like 3 Italians and 2 of them (the fightin' ones) are brothers, so...

heh not too far from the truth, but then again most europeans are like that as well ...at least the mediterranean ones

 

[CptStern]

If a non-Italian uses it. Sure... I consider them fighting words.
African Americans have their word. We have ours.

WOP can stand for many things.
We Own People in example.

doesnt matter, either way it's as derogatory as dago or Spic, or kite

 

[GiaOmerta]

Are you offended Stern?

 

[CptStern]

nope, you want to degrade yourself that's your business

 

[qckbeam]

Canada has put the United States to shame once more.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Canada has put the United States to shame once more.

Stern, reprimand this man!

 

[Steve]

Canada has put the United States to shame once more.

Possibly, but we can still make fun of them when they say "about" or "house".

 

[qckbeam]

Possibly, but we can still make fun of them when they say "about" or "house".

They still sound better than Southerners



(Yes, I'm kidding. I love the way you all speak)

 

[Steve]

They still sound better than Southerners



(Yes, I'm kidding. I love the way you all speak)

It's ya'll son. Get it straight!

 

[CptStern]

do you all see what's going on here? we've all taken such a hardline stance on issues that we cant even agree to agree that He_Who_Is_Steve is a tool :E

 

[Steve]

do you all see what's going on here? we've all taken such a hardline stance on issues that we cant even agree to agree that He_Who_Is_Steve is a tool :E

An awesome, wrathful tool of...umm...suckery?

 

[CptStern]

An awesome, wrathful tool of...umm...suckery?

not sure what yer on aboot, eh?

 

[Steve]

not sure what yer on aboot, eh?

Neither am I, dude...neither am I.

 

[Absinthe]

if that change involves gay people marrying, then yeah i am against it.

if that change involves you committing suicide, im all for it. :thumbs:

You first, amigo.

But seriously, what's the big effin' deal with gay marriage other than that it goes against some aged and archaic tradition? If it's legalized, are you suddenly in danger of turning into a homo? Is there any real reason to be against it?

 

[gh0st]

Is there any real reason to be against it?

it goes against an archaic tradition.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

New Zealand has approved civil union between gays and lesbian.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World...s/2004/12/09/1102182415801.html?oneclick=true

ANOTHER WESTERN COUNTRY FALLING INTO CORRUPTION !! NOW NEW ZEALAND WILL BE OVER-RUN WITH HOMOSEXUALS!!! MOSES WOULD DISAPPROVE!!!

 

[Absinthe]

it goes against an archaic tradition.

:|

...

*Pulls out gun. Shoots self.*

 

[gh0st]

:|

...

*Pulls out gun. Shoots self.*

*rapes corpse*

now theres a victory pose :cheers:

 

[falconwind]

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

The argument about it being about rights and privileges is somewhat misleading.

It's not really about rights, so much as it is gay couples being equal under the law, both in substance AND in name. Marriage, by any other name, is not marriage.

If its just the extremists on both sides, how did the vote get passed overwhelmingly?

Because the country is overwhelmingly extremist!... well, not really, but they have a lot of power.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I applaud Canada's decision. Thank god ...

Yes it does, you're breaking human rights and stepping back to the 60s.

Your opinion harms other human beings quality of life, therefore it should not be allowed to be passed.

However, you're breaking human rights to some technicallity.

Some people have a certain quality of life, that does'nt appeal for Gay Marriage to be allowed -- what this does, is impose one view over another.

Besides the Christian Right, we are pressing for Gay Rights to be developed, and on a much greater scale -- it needs to be faster.

 

[CptStern]

we solved that problem. The supreme court said you cant force a priest/minister/rabbi/etc to perform a same sex marriage. It has to be a choice. They also ruled that marriage is NOT a religious institution

 

[Mechagodzilla]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World...s/2004/12/09/1102182415801.html?oneclick=true

ANOTHER WESTERN COUNTRY FALLING INTO CORRUPTION !! NOW NEW ZEALAND WILL BE OVER-RUN WITH HOMOSEXUALS!!! MOSES WOULD DISAPPROVE!!!

That made me laugh.

As with any such thread, I present the 150$ challenge to anyone who says there is nothing wrong with stopping gay marriage.

I will personally pay you 150$ in exchange for one good secular reason to ban gay marriage.

Remember, the three inalienable rights are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and law is secular by design in order to be religiously neutral in upholding those rights.
Anyone who can give one good reason why they are justified in removing the last two rights from a random minority, they must be smarter than me and thus deserve my hard-earned monies.

This isn't a joke either.
Well, except for the fact that so many people are championing a cause in the name of "tradition" that is directly contrary to America's most basic laws. That's a joke.
But my challenge isn't.

 

[jverne]

That's the impression you get when you're opinion is based on the news or other small pockets of the US. As a whole, the US is a religious, god fearing country. Take a look at the infamous red and blue map from the 2000 or 2004 election. The blue states are where what you say above holds true. The red states are where you'll find the god fearing religious folks. The blue states control the media.

What god do they fear??

That's funny, above you went on and on about how this country is full of cults, satanists, heritecs, etc. Funny thing is, this country allows that. Even the religious right. They may not like it and sure, they'll make a stink about it, but this country still allows it. It is the greatness of this country that we have such a diverse mix of religions and beliefs. Yet, in the same post you make it seem as if we're both intollerant of others and accepting at the same time, which is it?

They are intollerant betwen themselves and to forgeiners, thats why there are so many murders! they are acceptin just on paper, if you'd ask an american what does he think about his neighbour, he'd probably wanted to rip his eyes out, altough they live next to each other!

Based on your opening statement, I think it is you that should broaden yours, you need to go beyond what you read about or what you hear on the news about this country. The US is a great place that offers opportunity to minority groups unlike any other country.

So why are gays, black people, mexicans, the whole world unhappy with them?

OK, then why was John Kerry "left behind!"? Ah yes, I forgot America was one large cesspool of idiots. That the answer you were looking for?

You read my mind! :E

 

[burner69]

If the argument for not allowing homosexual people to marry is that it breaks tradition, and therefore is unkind to some people who view marriage as exclusively for heterosexuals, let us ask some questions:

1. Why do these people want to retain these, 'archaic', traditions?
IMO: Mainainence of old traditions can be seen in a number of ways, with regards homosexual marriage it seems to me it is fear of what is not understood, or accepted. I don't dispute that some people religiously believe it to be wrong, I'll come back to them later, but a proportionate amount, I think, simply cannot understand that another human being can think in another way from them, and therefore do not hesitate to distance themselves from these people.

2. What is marriage, and what is it for?
Originally formed for the family, indeed. Nowadays the need for an
institution to support this is in decline; divorce, social benefits for
single mums, cross religious marriage all support this statement.
Nowadays, with the ability to sustain a family is quite possible, if
perhaps more difficult, without marriage. Marriage has at least in part become simply a bonding of two loved ones, regardless of whether they wish to rear children.

3. Why should homosexuals be allowed to marry - they cannot produce children.
As mentioned above, marriage is now not soley, if it ever was, about family. Also, by this reasoning, impotent men should not be allowed to marry. Infertile women should not be allowed to tie the knot. Older citizens should not be allowed to wed. Yet we do allow them to, why is this? What makes homosexuals any different?

4. Why do some people believe it is religiously wrong?
I don't know a lot about this area I'm afraid - although I'd strongly
question it. If its about the old tradition (emphasis on old) why should it be maintained? Many aspects of life are different from what the bible teaches- God himself said we should not work on the sabbeth day, yet I'm sure all of us do, will do, or know someone who has. It cannot be undermined, God said it, along with many other practises that are not observed today. Why do we change them? Because as a society we need to. Not working Sundays would mean a lot of things in America not working on
Sundays; police, ambulance, bars, shopping malls.
We move on from the old because we need to. And now we need to accept the fact that homosexuality occurs naturally within our species - and by essentially making them less priviledged than us we may be limiting the functionality of society. With marriage its not so bad, we can still 'use' gays as doctors, teachers etc etc, even though we don't let them get married.
Supposing Bush passes round a vote to ban gays from being teachers. We're limiting our own society through an archaic system that unnecesarily targets a minority - just like stopping them from marriage.
And if that sounds too drastic for you, think of this; If, as a society we function with homosexuals in such positions as doctors/ teachers/ police officers etc etc; why should they become less priviledged than us - bearing in mind what is said above.

5. What is the problem with using religious beliefs to control and base an entire society?
Simply put, it isn't as effective as using common sense (IMO).
Homosexuality occurs naturally throughout nature, and therefore humans. If anyone does not believe this I wonder why men become attracted to men in the first place. Because they want to be taunted, undermined and abused by their fellow man? Because they want certain aspects of life (I'll avoid the word human rights, for now) removed from them by their government? It is simple; they do it because it is natural to them - they just fancy men.
If we start telling them to 'just fancy women' we're becoming dioctators,
slowly.
So if a religious belief system goes against a) What occurs naturally upon our planet, and b) the interests of society and c) The interests of a minority - it needs looking at. And questions must be raised.

Finally, 6.
Regardless, homosexual marriage offends many religious people, it should not be allowed.
Fine. It offends them. It is nothing more and nothing less. Other than personal opinion their life is by no means affected. If it 'underminds' their beliefs, which I'd look at for hypocracy if they a) Worked on sundays b) Said 'God' or 'Jesus' at any time c) Did not fast for lent etc etc. (There are many odd traditions in the original bible which would never be used today, I'll find them later - they include sacrificing goats I think) - if it undermined their beliefs let it. Not doing so underminds another human beings belief AND affects the quality of their life.

If homosexuality 'tainted' marriage like many seem to claim, people would have stopped marrying until recently. They haven't. If I'm in love with my wife and suddenly Bill the homosexual down the road gets married I find it unlikely that I'll suddenly lose all respect for the union between me and my wife.

It occurs to me, that religion is in this instance being used to target a minority uncessarily, and by keeping to these old traditions, limiting ourselves as a soceity.

And it's not nice, pure and simple. We are lowering the quality of other's lives who we do not come into contact with.
God says love your fellow man. Why aren't we doing it?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Interesting article.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1102715020316_56/?hub=Canada

A B.C. man has been found guilty of manslaughter in the 2001 beating death of a gay man in Vancouver that shocked the city.

Ryan Cran, 22, was sentenced Friday in the death of Aaron Webster.

Youths swarmed and beat Webster, a 41-year-old photographer, with pool cues and other weapons in November, 2001, in Stanley Park.

Webster was killed in an area frequented by men having anonymous gay sexual encounters. He was found naked except for his hiking boots.

Man, it seems Canada is definitely as scot free as this thread suggests. It shows that you're arent as innocent as you may portray yourselves. Ah, just found another one.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1102683323055_177/?hub=Canada

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein says he wants to see a national referendum on same sex marriage.

The premier told CTV's Calgary affiliate CFCN he's "thoroughly disappointed" that the Supreme Court has given Ottawa the OK to redefine marriage. Klein said most Albertans oppose gays and lesbians marrying.

 

[CptStern]

first of all Klein is a conservative rabble rouser that speaks loudly of oil rights, is anti-kyoto, a creationist, anti-gay, pro-war hypocrite that represent a very small minority in canadian politics ..even conservatives see him as more than a little extreme.. he's a bit of joke in political circles

also I think it's in poor taste to bring up an article of a isolated inncident where someone was killed because of their sexual preference in a topic on canadian acceptance of same-sex marriage.

 

[seinfeldrules]

first of all Klein is a conservative rabble rouser that speaks loudly of oil rights, is anti-kyoto, a creationist, anti-gay, pro-war hypocrite that represent a very small minority in canadian politics ..even conservatives see him as more than a little extreme.. he's a bit of joke in political circles

Yet he was elected, so you're whole argument of no protest is void and your classification of him as an extremist is as well. You are pretty much calling the people of Alberta extermists, they did elect him. I dont see why there isnt a national referendum as he suggests, unless you are scared it wont pass that is.

also I think it's in poor taste to bring up an article of a isolated inncident where someone was killed because of their sexual preference in a topic on canadian acceptance of same-sex marriage.

There is the relation, I highlighted it for you. If Canada was accepting as you say, why does this happen? FYI he wasnt found guilty either. The judge threw out the case because of conflicing witnesses.

Also, unless I am mistaken, it appears supporters are trying to silence any opposition.

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."

Personally, I would rather see open debate rather than a facade put on by the Gov't to portray unity.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Another interesting tidbit I found

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/premiers/p/premklein.htm

Hugely popular in his home province of Alberta, Premier Ralph Klein often sets the agenda for Conservative politics across the country, and has led many provincial wrangles with the Canadian federal government, notably on health care reform, the Kyoto protocol and education spending.

Ah, another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Klein

In June 2003, an Ontario Superior Court Charter ruling removed federal restrictions on same-sex unions being recognized legally as marriage. This being very unpopular in Alberta,

 

[CptStern]

Another interesting tidbit I found

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/premiers/p/premklein.htm


Ah, another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Klein

duh really? you do know that alberta is the oil capital of canada? ..who lives in alberta? well let's see, cattle ranchers and ....oil men. Who does Klein support? the oil industry. So since alberta is the biggest exporter of oil, who do you think pays the least amount of taxes in all of canada? hmmmm alberta? put 2 and 2 together and you'll start to understand why Klein is popular in alberta ...everywhere else he's a running joke ..it either involes klein legendary drinking problems or his suckassery of american oil conglomorates

 

[CptStern]

Yet he was elected, so you're whole argument of no protest is void and your classification of him as an extremist is as well. You are pretty much calling the people of Alberta extermists, they did elect him. I dont see why there isnt a national referendum as he suggests, unless you are scared it wont pass that is.

look reading one article on canada does not make you an expert ..he's the only one pushing for it (well him and his right wing christian cronies ..hey guess what? we have those in canada too)

There is the relation, I highlighted it for you. If Canada was accepting as you say, why does this happen?

why is there white supremacy clans in the US? does that mean all americans are white supremists? 70% seinfeldrules, is not all of canada ..it's 70% ...at least here your allowed to speak out without fear of being branded a traitor

Personally, I would rather see open debate rather than a facade put on by the Gov't to portray unity.

you have no clue ..this has been in the forefront of canadian news for over 4 years ..this decision wasnt made overnight. Damn seinfeldrules, you really need to be more thorough with your research, it's sorely lacking in any sort of insight on the canadian experience

 

[seinfeldrules]

you have no clue ..this has been in the forefront of canadian news for over 4 years ..this decision wasnt made overnight. Damn seinfeldrules, you really need to be more thorough with your research, it's sorely lacking in any sort of insight on the canadian experience

Still, they are silencing any opposition. I dont see how that is a good thing at all.

why is there white supremacy clans in the US? does that mean all americans are white supremists? 70% seinfeldrules, is not all of canada ..it's 70% ...

Is it any better than you making blanket statements about America' Army because of Abu Gharib?

at least here your allowed to speak out without fear of being branded a traitor

Are you? It seems that this Colter fellow says either vote Yes or else.

look reading one article on canada does not make you an expert ..he's the only one pushing for it (well him and his right wing christian cronies ..hey guess what? we have those in canada too)

Nope, never claimed to be an expert. It does says the majority of people in Alberta dont support gay marriage. It also says this man is a leader in the Conservative mov't in Canada.

 

[CptStern]

Still, they are silencing any opposition. I dont see how that is a good thing at all.

what are you talking about?? how are they silencing the "opposition". I distinctly remember a peaceful protest by god fearing canadians on Parilament hill not too long ago. Also notice the title of this thread? no one picketed the supreme court when it handed down it's recommendations

Is it any better than you making blanket statements about America' Army because of Abu Gharib?

it fit the discussion, this doesnt

Are you? It seems that this Colter fellow says either vote Yes or else.

or what? we'll beat you with the homophobe stick? :upstare:

Nope, never claimed to be an expert. It does says the majority of people in Alberta dont support gay marriage. It also says this man is a leader in the Conservative mov't in Canada.

the province of alberta has half the population of the city I live in. Alberta is roughly the size of texas ..and much like texas much of alberta is made up of the oil industry and cattle ranchers ..traditional conservatives

 

[seinfeldrules]

what are you talking about?? how are they silencing the "opposition". I distinctly remember a peaceful protest by god fearing canadians on Parilament hill not too long ago. Also notice the title of this thread? no one picketed the supreme court when it handed down it's recommendations

...

or what? we'll beat you with the homophobe stick?

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."

the province of alberta has half the population of the city I live in. Alberta is roughly the size of texas ..and much like texas much of alberta is made up of the oil industry and cattle ranchers ..traditional conservatives

Is it not part of Canada? Do Canadians not live in it? What is so bad about a national referendum anyways? Why must one court decide such an issue for an entire nation?

it fit the discussion, this doesnt

It deals with gays, this discussion is about gay marriage. Just as when we talk about Iraq, you bring up Abu Gharib. They are simliar blanket statements, though it seems you dish them out, but refuse to take them.

no one picketed the supreme court when it handed down it's recommendations

Thats because Conservatives refuse to look like fools when something doesnt go their way.

 

[CptStern]

...

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

Is it not part of Canada? Do Canadians not live in it? What is so bad about a national referendum anyways? Why must one court decide such an issue for an entire nation?

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

Thats because Conservatives refuse to look like fools when something doesnt go their way.

I beg to differ