Same sex marriage officialy legal through all of Canada Today

Well at this point it's certainly not "news" as such, but the fact that the day is finally here is worth a bit of celebration. May this event bring much legal strife to the United States which rightly disserves it! I'm very much looking forward to conservative claims that same-sex marriages will somehow make the entire country blow up be quelled as we have the example of our neighbors to the north to look to. Then again most Conservatives consider Canada to be a cesspit of moral degeneracy and failed political ideology anyhow. . . I mean they speak French up there for Gods sake, it doesn't get much worse than that!

Full citizenship for all of its citizens? Wow Canada, that's a pretty ratical idea, but I like it! Where can I get me some of that in the US? I thank Canada greatly for setting such a wonderful example for it's socialy challenged little brother.

Just fantastic, this is exactly the modle the US should use for similar legislation. Now if only we had poleticians in office who didn't have their heads so far up their asses that they'd never even consider such a move. Canada, can't you loan us a cup of sanity? We're in desperate need!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wonder how they kept from permitting incestuous marriages in the new law?

Or will Canada just continue to discriminate against "same-blood" marriages since none of them are protesting and complaining and bitching and moaning loud enough ....yet?

And please, please, remember, marriage has nothing to do with having children (sane ones OR insane ones!) ...if it did, gays and lezzies would NOT be permitted to marry!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

dude, what is your problem with civil unions? it wasnt 'giving in to the bitching' it was a step into the future by becoming more tolerant to all.

and how would a gay/lesbian coulpe have children anyway? if you are talknig about adoption, homosexual couples were allowed to adopt before the civil union act was even passed here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Baron Max, how do you define incestuous marriage? Because most states in the US permit marriages between first cousins.

 

By writing it in such as fashion as to simply legalize same-sex unions. This is a very simple thing to do. Trying to draw a link between same sex unions and incestuous ones is nothing but a smoke-screen put up by weirdoes like you. There's no direct line from one to the other.

Sounds good to me. We'll take that hill when and if it comes to that, otherwise what's the point? If there's no demand then there's certainly no reason for action.

I don't know where this is coming from. Marriage does indeed have a bit to do with children, at very least form a legal standpoint. That's why a fair number of legal considerations deal with things like child custody.

Also, why do you think that this disqualifies homosexuals? Plenty of fags have got kids, either from previous marriages, artificial insemination, as god parents, or through the foster care system or adoption. Homosexuals seem to like starting families as much as the next guy – and for most that means kids.

 

Oh, sure there is!! Ye're arguing that to keep fags from marrying is discrimination and you don't like it and want to fix that. Keeping fathers from marrying their daughters is also discrimination, yet you're okay with THAT discrimination.

It just shows, quite clearly, that you fags have a self-interest that does NOT have anything to do with discrimination. ...and that, as far as I can see, is your ONLY real, true, actual complaint. Other than that, it's just various laws and rules .....and we ALL have to live with some laws and rules.

As to the children issue ...I don't think you read my post correctly. If you want to try again, I'd be happy to respond.

Still don't think fags/lezzies should have the right to marry. Sorry ...but nothing that's been said has changed my mind. If I can, I'll still vote against it.

Baron Max

 

Clever clever, max! You've managed to find a contradiction with two opinions which I haven't even expressed! I've stated on several occasions (being that you keep bringing it up) that the main problem with insestual relations are the inbred children. I would not be in favor of insestual unions for that reason, however if there were some push to allow such unions on the condition that one or both of the participants are incapable of producing a child (which is actually how the law is set up in some states, believe it or not) I'd be perfectly fine with it. . . I wouldn't necessarily invite them to my barbecue, but something tells me that the type to marry their own kin don't much appreciate fags anyhow

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We’re generaly not a very banjo-friendly people, and overalls and straw hats are soooo last year!

 

Mystech,

What would your personal response be if a band of people lobbied for legalization of bestiality? Yay or nay?

 

The assumption here is that those people will have kids. They could stay on birth control or have abortions. The state, I suppose, is making the decision these people <em>won't</em> stay on birth control and will have kids. In your opinion, wouldn't this decision be discrimination?

 

You stupid tarts, have you even thought your arguments through? How wouldn't heterosexual marriage make incest and beastiality ok? After all, if you allow one you have to allow the other, right?


See, I can invent bullshit links too, wow!

 

Wipe your eyes fucktard. I never implied anything.

 

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you bring up bestiality in casual conversation. Hey man, whatever gets you off. I'm just a little on edge with you vulgarians constantly tring to compare homosexuality to rape or bestiality or incest as if you've never heard of informed consent.

 

Whew.

Thanks for apologizing and reverting to the same old accusation.

 

No, of course not. But its a matter of law!! The nation creates certain laws to prevent certain "unwanted" marriages ....like incest and beastiality and polygamy ....AND... same-sex unions!

See? Its laws. But you, being a fag, are against SOME laws - those that discriminate against gays - but you're okay with others that discriminate in exactly the same way against other people of other sexual abberrations!!

If we change the law which discriminates against gays, how can we maintain the laws that discriminate against others for other abberrations?

Please, Spymoose, this is about LAW, not whether I like gays or not or whether I beat them up in dark alley or not ....that ain't got shit to do with it. It's laws that make this nation what it is and if we just change laws whenever some special interest group complains, how is that going to work?

By the way, calling us "stupid tarts" is not going to help further your special agenda! ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

what if your government was to pass a law claiming that heterosexual unions were banned and anyone caught practising heterosexual acts was to be imprisoned. then by your logic, removing that law to allow straight people relationships would be turning a blind eye and not allowing incest or bestiality.

they are unrelated things.

 

Huh? Vslayer, are you reading and writing in English? What the hell are you saying and how did you get it from my post? (And how old are you??)

Baron Max

 

Heck, Woody Allen married his adopted daughter, heh. Anyways, I've yet to hear of one case of where a man has wanted to marry his legally 18 year old daughter with her consent. The only times I've heard of cases is when the perv wants to marry his underage daughter and that's usually only for sexual pleasure. Heck, I've no problem with 18+, consenting, parents/son/daughter marrying each other. The only bad side to a marriage such as that is if they have children where the child could become damaged, but that's no different than having a normal married couple with a wife that drinks and smokes while pregnant, yet for some reason that stupid preggo lady is allowed marriage even though she's putting a newborn in danger. If one wants to put a newborn child in danger, that should be against the law and since it's known that incenstous birth is bad, THAT should be made illegal just like drinking alcohol when preggo, but the simple act of incestuous marriage shouldn't be illegal.

And like Mysech said, the problem will be taken care of when the need for it arises. Heck, I'm all for outright getting rid of those silly restricting laws, but since it doesn't work like that and getting rid of laws takes time, there's gonna have to be an outcry or case made for it to happen from incestuous couples. But well, where is that cry? I sure haven't heard it. So since there's no voice, there's no need to get rid of that law immediately, even though it shouldn't exist in the first place.

I'm glad that Canada is doing all this. It's sad to say, but right now Canada is what America SHOULD be. Too bad we still have religious nuts and other ignorant people restricting our advancements in life.

- N

P.S. And no, I'm not gay so quit using that as a copout for people that don't agree with your flippin fanatical religious points of view. Religious nuts are worse and more damaging than incestuous couples that DO have sex!

 

Being largely that I find the incongruous intellectual level in which all other animals exist in comparison to humans, I find that the idea of consent gets rather screwy and useless. It's a bit like fucking a retard, only slightly more disturbing. But hey so long s they aren't spreading syphilis into the rest of the populations, to each their own. There’s also the dominance issue to consider – like trying to fuck a dependant child, do you think that perhaps the fact that you are the only one who provides food shelter and safety for this individual perhaps has some weight on the fact that they can’t even seem to consider resisting your advances? It’s all a bit too close to rape for my tastes.

Now, what did this have do do with our topic, again?

Oh well, so long as we’re asking completely off base and absurd questions: How would you, South Star, Feel if an extremist religious cult came to power and began dictating that you must live your life in accordance with their views?

 

No one is saying that there should be an absense of any limits on marriage, it's just that being gay isn't an abberation or exploitive relationship, it is normal.

 

The same old accusation that you made, hon. Seriously, try to be a bit more intellectually honest, this backpedaling just makes you look stupid.

If you’re not willing to stand by your claims, then don’t make them in the first place. At the same time, though, I can't fault you for feeling embarrassed once you're called on your spurious bullshit - it's a perfectly normal reaction, and shows that there's some hope for you.