Same sex marriage officialy legal through all of Canada Today

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm
This site was interesting to me because it gives me personally a better picture of what you people are yelling at me.
Any comments on this because I have consistently asked that you give me something to read to better understand your problem...not all of us go through discrimination in this day and age....so please excuse my ignorance of your quest! :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My facts and points were all valid, and none of you could even argue against them... you just ignored them and went about your way.

Why should we listen to people who make stuff up as they go, instead of people who provide correct data and don't use drama and bullshit to get their point across?

As a side note, I refuted every one of Baron Max's "points" and disproved every onen of his fallacies in that thread... as well as pointing out where he lied and called him on it. Might want to check your sources before you go around quoting people you can't trust.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

..?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no one said that your points weren't valid...they make sense but because you can point to law so can I or anyone else. The difference is which law (new or old) makes more sense.

 

WHAT?????????????????? Should I say gay people??????????????

 

I'm often wrong, make no mistake about that... but the fact remains that I have backed up every single one of my points with facts and figures that are valid, while he has done no such thing. It's not that I believe that Baron Max is wrong, only that he cannot back up his claims, and when I question him on certain things he resorts to lying and fudging his way through responses. If the question is trust, you can check all my facts online and find that all of them are statistically valid. Baron Max provides no such facts or proof to back up his claims.

I'm not asking you to change your opinions based on my posts, but only to consider them. And to look at things that are honest and factual rather than looking at fallacies and invalid information.

 

It bother me when people say "What's next? Incest or bestiality?" because gay marriage is between two consenting adults and has no negative side effects. Bestiality is totally different, b/c the animal can't agree to the marriage. Incest is different, because you get inbred children. I can't believe I actually had to point this out to people.

 

no, i just wasnt aware that all gay people commited suicide.

 

I said his points and opinions are valid in which they are (most of them anyway) Is there some kind of rule about using BS and drama to make a point?

 

Yes, it makes people not trust you, and it fills other people with ignorant ideas based on your lies. It's a human rule.

 

You didn't start from the beginning? I know there too long....to shorten it up for you, theres some statistics that say 30% of gay people commit suicide....so forth and so on....and I said that she (bells) can't assume that they all commit suicide because of one reason. :m: Does that help

 

yep

 

Is this your opinion or a fact? Now show me your proof. I could easily say that this answer from you was BS and drama....would I be correct? If no please tell me why?


See, this is an example of what Baron Max does....but that doesn't make his point or opinion any less valid.

 

The proof is that you and very few others trust the opinion of Baron Max, and people do trust the opinions that are posted honestly and with facts.

I do not play the drama card, nor do I bullshit my way through posts. Please point out to me where I do this. Baron Max is proficient at double talk, and little more than that. He simply repeats the same thing over and over despite being proven wrong or ignorant. It's why so many people have him on ignore, and why there are complaints about him. It's also why he's been banned from other forums like philosophyforums.com .

I have no problem with people being ignorant of the facts, I do have a problem when people ignore the facts and then lie to try and make a fallacious point. Lying is dishonest, and dishonesty is not a trait that people want in their friends or information sources. Look at how many people turned away from Dan Rather's reporting because it was not factual and it was dishonest.

Bottom line is that everyone's opinion is valid, but that the method that they used to get to that opinion can be valid or invalid. If your opinion is based on invalid facts and ignorance, then you are still entitled to have it... however ignorant and dogmatic that opinion is. Doesn't mean that it is not right or wrong for you, only that it is not an opinion valued by others because of it's dishonest or ignorant origin.

For instance, I don't think you are stupid or dishonest. But I do think that your opinion is based mostly on ignorance and lack of compassion. That doesn't mean that your opinion is invalid, just that it has no value for me personally. I hope that makes sense.

 

Well, take any state institution and you'll those unable to participate. For instance, in the Army, there are people who are either too young or too old. They aren't allowed in. But, nevertheless, no one says the Army discriminates by rejecting these people. Now with marriage, there are those not allowed in. Like in the Army, some are too young. And like the Army, no one says this is discrimination, because the greater populace believes those that are too young cannot participate in marriage. Why is it discrimination to believe that two men cannot partipate in marriage?

 

Again, apples and oranges.

The Army demands something of it's members, that they be able bodied and ready to go to war at any given point. Older people who's bodies are not in prime condition, and young people who cannot make decisions based on rational and logical ideas nor carry the weight of a rocket launcher are discluded from participating in that action. Just like in the regular sector, you can discriminate against people who are not able to do a specific job if you have attempted to make reasonable accommedations for said people. It is discrimination, but it is legally allowed by law. Just like it is legal to discriminate against gays in the workplace, in fair housing and in marriage in almost all states. It's legal, but that doesn't make it right or fair.

Homosexuals can certainly carry out all of the duties that a marriage requires. There is no law in any state that says that a requirement of marriage is to procreate, or you would have to stop allowing sterile people from marrying, and you would not be able to marry someone who you did not intend to make babies with. A homosexual man or woman can provide successfully for their spouse, love, honour and cherish them in sickness and in health like any heterosexual man or woman can.

It's not the same thing. Homosexuals are able, just not allowed the same rights.

 

OK, your going to have clarify. Is the land lord unfair, the state that allows such unfair, or both?

If my definition is used, you know the one between a man and a wife, then two men are clearly unable to fulfill these duties. Furthermore, the duties you've listed could be fulfilled by three men, or a hundred. You have no point where to draw the line when you use vague defintions like love and cherish.

Your argument is flawed here. If we were only considering legal defintiions, then marriage is between a man and a woman. Procreation, on the other hand, is only one of the intents of marriage and is not strictly a requirement,though benefits the state gives to marriage are not because two people love each other but because of procreation.

 

Most state laws allow landlords to evict a tenant based upon sexual preference. Employers in most states can fire a employee for their sexual preference and in 39 states, you can legal harass someone based on their sexual preference in the workplace and in public.

The argument about procreation being a factor in the marriage laws was only to counter the idea that marriage entailed duties that a homosexual could not perform, in which the only one would be procreation. Since it is not the case that procreation is a requisite for a marriage, nor is the ability to procreate, then homosexuals are just as able bodied to carry out the requirements of a marital contract as any heterosexual would be. Hope that clears up what I was saying.

Here's something for you to ponder, however. I carry out all of the duties of a husband in my household, including monetary support, discipline, guidance to both my husband and our children while he stays at home and is the homemaker and care giver to my children. Why is it that you believe that two homosexuals cannot carry out the same duties of a marriage that two heterosexuals can? I am a woman, and yet I have taken on and successfully provide all that would be considered the husbandly duties. I even strap it on from time to time and fuck him up the ass for good measure. Should my marriage also not be allowed, and should I be treated differently?

 

She has no problem with your equal right to voice what you feel about gays, marriage, and adoption, the problem, however, is when people with your restrictive freedom views actually incorporate your beliefs into law.

You're flip-floppin more than Bush & Kerry. First you wanted them to die, then you wanted to wait until people liked homosexuals more, then you wanted them to be lead to death again, now you want laws to be put in place to protect em more?

Well that is what you're saying because you're still keeping the limitation in place even with laws that protect minorities. I agree with you that more laws should be in place against hate crimes, but there's no reason to not still allow gays to marry. If that leads to more chaos then good. I wouldn't mind all the hate crimers getting all arrested at once. Good riddance to em, nobody needs em.

Nope, it's not unnatural. Care to take a look at all the homosexual animals in the animal kingdom? Sexual desire to the opposite sex is no different than the painful feelings we get in our nerves when we touch something hot. It's helpful common sense to our genes, but isn't required. A person doesn't need to feel heat and pain when they touch fire to know not to touch fire nor does one need a sexual appetite towards the opposite sex to create babies. They know not to do it, it just exists for those that aren't informed. It's the same reason why humans are born with the natural instinct of climbing trees. Climbing trees serves no benefit to us anymore. It's leftover in our genes as a natural instinct to keep safe from wild animals.

We've already had this discussion before about this topic. I'm not going to repeat myself. Go play your little run-around games elsewhere.

Well at least those simple said statements I can agree with, however, the SAME APPLIES TO EVERYONE. The reason it's wrong and stupid is because you're turning common problems between all people, regardless of race, sex, or sexual preference, into an issue that only applies to homosexuals. 30% of gays commit suicide, okay that means 70% are heterosexual. What is the divorce rate in the U.S.? 48-50% and those are all, save for less than 1%, heterosexual couples. And "some" children don't wanna grow up in a gay household.. okay, fine, "some". "Some" children don't wanna grow up with a lot of things.

Uh, it's called posting reliable sources. You don't see me entering political discussions using tabloid newspapers to present my facts do you? I mean hey, they're still people with opinions and beliefs. Your fundamentalist Christian websites are completely biased and stretches the truth in most of their information.

You still don't get it. Yes, I've admitted there are bad homosexual people not fit to raise children. However, there are unfit heterosexual people as well. What you're doing is targetting one group of people and not applying those restrictions and reasons for bad parenting to everyone. Pretty stupid. It's no different than me saying "Blacks do 20% of this and are bad people, and Whites do 80% of this and are bad people, but let's go ahead and let the whites adopt children but not blacks". Heterosexual people have the higher percentage of problems when it comes to raising children whereas homosexuals are the lesser problem makers, yet you target the more innocent group? Ridiculous!

Yeah, but I don't know what to believe from you. You say go ahead and let them marry but then you talk about leading them to their death and other crazy things to make it sound as if it's not sincere. And yes, at least with me, I just wanna argue, err, debate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How does a homosexual couple marrying harm you? How does me tying up a chick and having crazy sex with her harm you? How does me sodomozing her harm you? How does my eating celery sticks with peanut butter on them harm you? How does me wearing sneakers that don't match harm you? How does me scratching my butt when nobody sees harm you? How does my picking the numbers 9, 3, 1 for the lotto harm you? How does me having piercings in my body harm you? How does me stubbing my toe harm you? How does me walking my dogs in the park harm you?

ANYTHING can harm someone because most people are freakin idiots that stick their noses into other people's business where it doesn't belong. None of these acts involve the person harming the other, but rather it's those mentally disturbed people that feel they should dictate what others should do, that are the ones HARMING THEMSELVES.

Well hey, gotta agree with ya there.

Yes, you're free to do all those things. The only law that should exist is the Golden Rule. Simply don't do things that will harm others without their consent and it's all good. That would make murder, rape, and all that stuff automatically illegal. Prostitution, however, isn't a bad thing. It's no different than going to a bar to pick up a chick/guy and then having a one night stand with them, or even a temporary relationship with em. Both are paying for sex. The only reason prostitution is illegal is because most don't pay taxes on the money they make. Where prostituion is legal, they pay taxes. Everything is always a money issue. This is also probably why gays aren't allowed to marry because they don't want more people than there already is getting tax breaks from the government. I guarantee you if married couples weren't allowed tax breaks and whatnot, they'd allow ANYONE to marry, even brothers and sisters, man and dog, and especially polygamous groups. And that, I'd bet you anything on.

Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I don't believe in a God. I'm an agnostic that believes in a supreme being. I believe all of creation had to start with something. The only difference between me and a religious person is that I don't make the silly assumptions of knowing who and what that god is. That's arrogance.

I agree with the first part, but not the second. The country was founded on freedom, but yes, it was also created through murder and theft. The difference is the reason why all countries have different laws. Those laws apply to those within the country and not those outside their country. So freedom applied to us, but not others who are the ones that were murdered and stolen from. Yeah, it's pretty stupid, but that's the way things work. But now you see the contradictions with the war in Iraq. Promoting democracy and freedom (which is BS) yet we're killing their civilians. Makes no sense.

Sharing your views and not forcing them? Then please, praytell, how did the law of marriage get changed into specifying it being an act between a man and a woman if not for the religious conservatives? That's what I mean by forcing views on others. Go ahead and dislike and have your beliefs against them, but when people go out and turn that discrimination into a law, that's when boundries have been overstepped.

Yes, that's a very good site. I frequently use it as a source in religious debates.

You're just Top Dog. The Big Cheese. Having a solid and hard to refute post is intimidating. At least in most posts where someone is right, they'd still get responded to and tried to be proven wrong, but yours was just perfect. In other words, You Da Wo/Man!

I've no problem with incenstuous marriage. Just put a law in place that doesn't allow them to procreate. Incentuous birth DOES cause harm to the baby, unlike a homosexual bumping uglies and poppin out babies, and that's the difference.

A perfect example is what happened with you reading those fundamentalist Christian websites. Most of their studies were crap, especially when they say all other studies are wrong, their's is the only correct one, and nobody else uses scientific means except for those Christians (now that was pure comedy, heh). You read all that BS and it had an influence on you and you then based your ideas off those lies. Nothing wrong with that as Kotoko said, it's human nature. But remember the ol' saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Let's hope it doesn't happen again. I'm glad you found a MUCH better website to edumacate yourself with.

How boring.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah, same here. I don't mean to call her stupid or anything like that either. That's just me getting carried away due to utter disbelief at a certain opinion or something else said since I have an intolerance for intolerance which too makes me intolerant. (Mysech

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Lol, KOTOKO! Nice way to prove a point, sheesh. And here I called you boring for sticking straight to the facts.

- N

 

Straight males can't marry males, gay males can't marry males.

Ain't no discrimination at all in the marriage laws ...none!

What I can't figure out is why gays don't institute something like "gay-riage" ...a legal, governmentally sanctioned union between same-sex partners? What's the big deal?

Baron Max