| should homosexuals be allowed to legally marry | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 24 | ||||||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:17 pm Post subject: I'm | |
|
I'm against homosexual adoptions. Whether a couple of guys want to get married or not get married has little effect on children, unless they try to adopt.
However, the main argument for homosexual marriage has to do with medical insurance as I understand it. Why not change the medical insurance laws to allow for domestic partnerships of all types to allow for joint coverage? Who is to say that Jane and Bob don't have the same problem as Bob and Jim? Jane and Bob might not be married, but they maybe have lived together for the last 10 years, could Jane not die from illness due to lack of coverage just like Jim does? ICKIMORE |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 30
Location: Betwixt the green and blue.
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 8:32 pm Post subject: | |||
Which illustrates why I think that marriage as a legal thing should be done away with. It is a symbolic, personal, religious life step that should have nothing to do with the law. Anyone can have binding legal contracts written up to safeguard themselves, and insurance policies are being changed to include "domestic partner". If we got rid of marriage as a legality, then we would cut down on divorce issues because things would be handled by a "prenup", or they would be uncontestable in court... or contestable via separate lawsuit (children would obviously still be a custody issue, but people fight for custody all the time without being married)... Yes, I am sure it would speak to the giant "moral decline" of our society, but I think that people who are going to be dedicated to each other would still be dedicated if there was a legal piece of paper or not. |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:32 pm Post subject: fine | |
|
Fine, get rid of marriage, but don't make it so that homosexuals can adopt in an attempt to change the feelings of the majority of society, it just puts the children in the middle of the controversy, and is not needed.
ICKIMORE |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:52 pm Post subject: | |
|
Ick', you still haven't demonstrated how lying to children is beneficial in the long run.
Care to take a stab at it? |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:54 pm Post subject: Slek | |
|
Slek, that's because you can't see the benefit of maintaining a child's fragile psyche over the rights of a selfish parent.
ICKIMORE |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:14 pm Post subject: | |
| Once again, how is "maintaining" a childs' fragile psyche (a truly ass-backwards parenting approach BTW) by spoon-feeding them lies about the nature of the world benefit the child and/or society as a whole? | |
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:15 pm Post subject: you? | |
|
You calling me an ass-backwards parent Slek?
ICKIMORE |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:17 pm Post subject: you ever wonder | |
|
You ever wonder Slek why it is the only two parents that have posted on this thread have said you are wrong?
ICKIMORE |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:35 pm Post subject: | |||
You ever wonder why children (like me) have said you are wrong?
Nope. I'm calling your justification for instilling prejudicial ideals in the minds of your kids ass-backwards. I feel sorry for your kids - I truly do. It's really sad that they won't have the opportunity to develop their own opinions because you don't think they're capable of handling the truth. |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:40 pm Post subject: they | |
|
They can develop any opinions they want to Slek, because I have never addressed the subject with them whatsoever. Their opinions have not been formed by me at all.
Slek, you are not 8 years old. You mjay be a child, but you are a snot nosed know it all teenager, not an impressionable kid. ICKIMORE |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:59 pm Post subject: | |||||
Not that that's any better but... you have already admitted to you're willingness to lie in order to protect their "fragile psyches", so your point is moot.
Actually, I just had my 30th birthday last week. You know what they say about assumptions: makes an ass out of you and umption. |
|||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 11:16 pm Post subject: I didn't assume | |
|
I didn't assume Slek, you said you were a kid, I just agreed with you.
You have no clue, whether you are 10, 30, or 80. Simple as that. ICKIMORE |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:19 am Post subject: | |
|
If that's the best argument you can muster Ick', in the future, I suggest you stay out of topics that require at least a semblance of critical thinking skills.
Your reliance upon Nancy Reaganite "somebody please think of the children!" fallacies whenever your position gets challenged is a transparent ploy to shift the focus of the debate to anything but your clearly prejudicial and baseless opinions. It's bad enough that you attempt to justify discrimination as a protectionary measure for children but to go out of your way to avoid the intellectual honesty and insight required to question your own beliefs in light of valid criticisms is, in my opinion, truly pathetic behavior. |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:22 am Post subject: lol | |
|
LOL!
I was commenting on 50% of your reply to me. The other 50% of your reply to me was you stating your opinion that my point is moot. I felt it was not needed for me to disagree and tell you that my point is not moot, I guess I figured you'd be smart enough to figure that part out on your own. ICKIMORE |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 4:28 pm Post subject: | |
|
I really dont care about this thread but I ran across this article so I thought I would post it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-28-poll_x.htm |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:28 pm Post subject: | |
|
I have a solution for them. Tell the organizers of gay pride events across the country to stop looking the other way when people flash their genetals to families during the event, or when people perform sex acts during the event. Tell those organizers to treat their supporters as anybody else should be treated that violates the indecency laws, have them call the police to have them arrested.
ICKIMORE |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:39 pm Post subject: | |||
Nudity, Crassness, Perversion on Display as San Francisco Celebrates Legal Sodomy
ICKIMORE mod edit: I'm quite serious about the copyright stuff. |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1017
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:43 pm Post subject: | |
|
You've heard of the phrase "copyright infringement" haven't you Ick'?
Might be a good idea to read the "terms of use" policies on the sites you're copying from. |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:48 pm Post subject: | |
|
"After the parade there were four police officers on bikes at the Civic Center staring at a completely nude man 70 feet away, laughing at him and ignoring his five other amigos who were similarly attired in nothing but their birthday suits as they sauntered through the crowd all afternoon. We wondered what would constitute indecent exposure in the streets of San Francisco [Sunday]?"
Powerfull statement as to the main reason why the poll figures are moving against gay acceptibility. Some people see this acceptibility as endorsing this type of behavior, just as gay activists endorse this behavior today. ICKIMORE |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:04 am Post subject: | |
|
turn me in Slek. Or delete all posts related to copywrited material. Whatever you feel is appropriate.
ICKIMORE |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 321
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:16 am Post subject: | |
|
My guess Slek, is you didn't like the reading material. Copywrite law does not permit one to reproduce a portion of the work of material without properly acrediting the author. You did not acredit the author in your edited version. Also, it is against the copywrite law to remove the copywrite notice from the work.
You have over a dozen portions of articles on this website that are currently in violation of copywrite law. ICKIMORE |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 30
Location: Betwixt the green and blue.
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:22 am Post subject: | |
|
LoL... Ick, you "bust" everyone for providing "possibly biased" news articles, and then you get that link from the CWFA... Could you have found a more biased site-- save for maybe the KKK?
Thier main deal: We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 25-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy. I love people that use the Bible as a standing block to discriminate. |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 24
Location: down by the bay....
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:51 am Post subject: | |||
Sadakolaffe wrote
discriminate? I fail to see how you yourself are not indicting yourself in this whole discrimination thing as if sharing one's own beliefs and opinions should merit ridicule, or being slapped with the 'd' word...we have all done it in some way shape or form(ashamedly), and though i risk exposing myself to some heat, "those people" you seem to love get quite a bit of bashing nowadays. don't get me wrong...i love canada. I love our rules. I love the fact that we seek to be inclusive of all ideas in this country. does that mean some ideas will conflict with one another? Sure. And how do we handle this in Canada(at least), we agree to disagree, shake hands and try to hook up at a BBQ or on a night where a table basking with garlic prawns and lamb awaits...but does this really happen? hardly, but i think it should because we're all about discussion, about expressing ourselves, and to do that, we should all feel safe doing so. to answer the question 'should gay marriages be legalized nation wide?' is a complex one already. the notion of 'should' often brings into the context a moral obligation, or the notion of a 'better alternative'. To ask 'should' in a country(or forum) where hundreds of people have differing opinions is almost redundant. By asking 'should', one is asking other to include more than a simple opinion. In the various responses so far in this thread, people are drawing from various categories...tradition, history, common sense, personal moral beliefs... so really, to convince someone else that their 'should' response is what we 'should' all adhere to is tremendously difficult...although i believe people shouldn't have mullets... :P with that said, do i think gay marriages will be legalized in canada? Someday(if not already) they will. do i think gay marriages are marriages? I don't. On what basis? Because my worldview, my morals, my opinions are derived from the Scriptures(ie. the Bible), and from those teachings, a marriage is between a male and a female. It has the notion of commitment. of fidelity. And also creation. Genesis....the preservation and the continuation of our whole humanity. That is how i see what a marriage is. do people disagree with my view? You bet! And I think many people disagree in part because of dogmatic people who beat people into accepting their viewpoint...and for that i am deeply sorry. because, i believe here in a democratic society, if its not your type of dance, you don't have to dance. you're free to check out other clubs so to speak. I guess the main problem is that a particular view on marriage has been the mainstay for government, rules and laws have been passed enabling those who 'fit' into this category are allowed special privileges... if there are two males or two females who are loving each other, and desire to commit and raise children and want to have their relationship defined as a marriage, i hope you can see where 'many people you love' have some conflicts, because our worldviews are different. now, there are people who will make signs, yell, humiliate, ridicule, insult, dehumanize when conflict arises, but haven't we come a long way from throwing people into lion dens or chopping heads off when we disagree? unfortunately, some of 'the people who you love' really don't practice what their worldview commands, which is to love others. though my worldview is distinct and may conflict with others, my beliefs compell me to treat you with respect, to be humble, kind. My worldview commands me to help you in need. To go with you two miles if you need me to go merely one. how then does legalization occur in a democratic country like canada when there are differing(if at least two) viewpoints held and promoted? you vote. majority wins. it is amazing to see how those who wish to see gay marriages legalized are working so hard. they have a tremendous hill to climb...but they're climbing. it's sad to see when members of either sides use less civil means of promoting their ideas though...name calling, smearing, ridiculing, hurtful acts... but even if the majority wins, the minority is still allowed to remain a minority. the minority is still free to try to become a majority. and that's what living in a democratic society is like right? can i vote however i like? yes! because that's a democratic society for you... |
|||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 30
Location: Betwixt the green and blue.
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:28 am Post subject: | |||
You should look into other things the CWA have done in the name of bringing the country back to the Bible".... They specifically go after gay people-- whether it be through the laws, through the schools, etc.. with all of the power they can gather.....IMO, what they are is a hate group, sheltered from that title by a few bucks, because they have targeted a specific minority group to attack from all sides. When people use the Bible as basis for laws, they are purposely excluding people of different faith-- saying, in effect, that "You are not praying to my God, so you have no say over this country." If your morals, faith, etc are against gay marriage, don't be come gay and get married.... leave everyone else to make up their own mind. By the way, I'm in the US.....not Canada. And while voting would be a good option, it saddens me that it would have to come to that.... that you really aren't free to be yourself in this country until the rest of the country decides that you can be. |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 24
Location: down by the bay....
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:28 pm Post subject: whoa | |
|
so nu, what do you know? - Franky Four Fingers
im not too sure what it is you're trying to discuss, there seems to be a whole lotta issues rolled together, let me see if i can respond... the CWA? being a hate group? which one? The Christian world adoption agency? concerned women for america? i cannot confirm nor deny your allegations at this point...need to look up some stuff. 
in regards to making laws based from the Bible, and purposely excluding people of different faith...whats da matta wit you? :o thats a pretty huge statement there....one opinion i know to be quite popular. all groups, when they become political have made claims in the past and present that have all made us blush. But riddle me this, which religion isn't exclusivist at some way some point? Judiasm? Islam? Which government infused and backed by a religious group hasn't forced a consensus or exclusion? but to throw a wrench in your machinery...did you know that the UN has taken verses out of Micah(a book from the Scriptures) and uses it as a basis for their operation(i.e. slogan/motto). However, do i think that people 'should' use the Bible as basis for laws? Lawmakers have the nearly impossible task to lay down a standard for all groups. what is fair to one group, isn't fair to another. But i guess we can all agree that one 'shouldn't' steal, one 'shouldn't' murder. That we should treat one another as we would want others to treat us. have people possessed the intent, while making up laws, to be exlusivist and using the bible to back them up? Yes...but, that doesn't mean you should fault all Christians in this matter. Pls. The basic reduction of Christianity, love God, love others. There are so many disciples of Jesus Christ who have very little interest in politics... Outside of North America, there are people who have bible studies at home, help each other out, and try to live their lives as peaceful as possible. the majority of these people, who have no political agenda at all are the subject of severe persecution in many countries, simply because of what they believe. We are privileged to live in North America, where we can disagree with each other without being exposed to ridicule, jail, persecution. But I would like to know from you what is your criteria for you to label a group hateful? Or discriminating? |
|