Same sex marriage officialy legal through all of Canada Today

With regard to marriage, homos DO have equal rights!

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

Perfectly equal rights ....no discrimination at all.

Oh, you've got me wrong ...I think homos should be allowed to suck dick and fuck male assholes all they want to, but that has little or nothing to do with the marriage laws! Just because you think sucking dick and fucking assholes is fun, why should that have anything to do with marriage??

There is no discrimination in the marriage laws against homos ....none!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

See, that's your problem.......in order to fight something you need an action. I'm posting my opinion only. I will not get involved in any process against them or for them. What will be will be.

Once again putting words...................I said you have no definitive proof. I don't need it....I already sleep good at night.

I'm not qualified to answer that question either.

I do not fear anyone or anything. I never said that I dislike homosexuals... I said that I think they're (practice of sex)
Disgusting - To excite nausea or loathing in; sicken.
To offend the taste or moral sense of; repel. Profound aversion or repugnance excited by something offensive.
This is a fool topic. So I've been acting accordingly.

You're crossing the line Bells.... Do not ever tell me that I'm lying! I have no reason to. I put it here for exactly the reasons I said! I haven't flipped a damn thing.....In the end you're the one who keeps agreeing with me...Prove my sides flipped anywhere in this post!

I actually would agree of the abolition of marriage between non-white and european american....I think that they were on to something there. True opinion! So no I would not be outraged.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For the hundreth time, to slap the stupidness, yet again, out of that comment you preach over and over, that is NOT a right but rather a discriminating limitation to BOTH hetero and homosexuals. "Rights" and "can't" cannot exist in the same sentence of law as they contradict each other. You don't seem to know what a right is.

The only time "can't", or rather, "not" would be a right would be if it was said that you have the right to NOT marry a male, while at the same time saying you also have the right TO marry a male. The same applies to anything such as tieing shoes. I have the right NOT to tie my shoes, but then I also have the right TO tie my shoes. Now if it's expected that a person can ONLY wear shoes that have their laces untied, therefore saying you CAN'T tie your shoes, then that's a limitation on the rights of someone who doesn't want their laces tied, and this is the case in the laws of marriage.

- N

 

How is finding homosexuals disgusting not a case of disliking them? Let's try putting you in their shoes for you to better understand. How about I say that I don't dislike blacks, I just find them disgusting because their dry nappy hair stinks especially when they put their moisturizing formula in it. I betcha you'd call me a racist for that just as other's would call you a homophobe for your comments. Maybe that'll help you understand since it'll hit closer to home.

Edit:

I just noticed the problem in the communication. You said "I think they're (practice of sex) disgusting". You're using "they're" incorrectly. By using "they're", you're saying THEY ARE disgusting in general, referring to homosexuals. That's why your statement sounds so silly because you're saying "I don't dislike homosexuals, I just find them disgusting". You should be using "their" and take "practice of sex" out of parenthesis so that it becomes "I think their practice of sex is disgusting" which means you find their practice of sex disgusting rather than homosexuals in general. Well, heh, unless you DO mean both?

- N

 

When did marriage become a "right" and not a simple legal union between a man and a woman?

Marriage is a "right"??? Since when? And even if you somehow claim that it is a "right", where did that "right" come from? Who conferred it upon us? And when?

Is marriage noted in the Constitution as a "right"? Where?

Baron Max

Ooh ...forgot to add the reminder:

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

Perfectly equal rights ....no discrimination at all.

 

The only reason why marriage has anything to do with law is due to the government tax breaks that come along with it. That's why they say what they say in regards to marriage as they're paying the bills for em. People can marry whom they wish otherwise, they just don't get the government perks. I can guarantee you that if tax breaks were no longer given for marriage, the amendments would be removed and people would be free to marry whom they choose, as crazy a combination of those involved as you can think of. However, the less people able to marry, the more money the government keeps. Then there's the whole forcing of religious dogma too.

- N

 

Well, some 15 year olds are capable of shooting a gun and fighting in the Army, but the US doesn't let them. The requirements the Army has make sure its soldiers have the some ablity, which is not to say that all those in the Army deserve to be there. Some get by the initial requirements but fail in action.

 

I actually agree that if someone is qualified in a job, they should be allowed to do it. Unfortunately we have a stupid blanket law that says only someone of the age of 18 or older is an adult. I also find it amusing how one can be of the age to die for one's country but not be legal to drink.

Age doesn't make one an adult but rather maturity does and nor does it mean one of adult age is mature. So if that younger person is mentally mature to deal with the situations of the job, then hey, go for it. I hate stupid blanket laws but unfortunately most people prefer the easy way out. Quantity over quality, I guess.

And if the duty of marriage is to be able to create and raise children, why aren't couples that choose to not have children or cannot have children due to reproductive problems banned from marriage? And why is divorce even allowed? Once one divorces, the raising of a child is now put in jeopardy. And what of those that get married just for the perks? Or what about homosexuals that marry the opposite sex and create a child, but then live with their more preferred homosexual partner? Let's face it, there is NO logical reason to limit marriage between only a man and woman. For any reason that is thought of, it either places more limitations on people, or the reasoning gets shot down in an instant.

- N

 

how many times will you pull this out and have it shot down before you put it away for good?

straight males can marry their preferred gender, gay males cannot currently marry their preferred gender in your country. you cant say that your stament is equal. because the emotional factor is different. its like having apples, and oranges, both are equally good fruit, but some people prefer oranges, antd some prefer apples. if you reasoning was applied, and the eating of apples was not allowed. then would that be equal, the people who like apples are deprived of the right to eat a food they enjoy. while the people who like oranges retain that right

 

surprisingly bells, you can actually rear a child without someone else having to tell you how and why. In reference about a child's mind and thinking can not provide ANY definitve proof.....I could tell you the story about a child who did notice that his family member just wasn't quite normal like other men! but why? There never was or ever will be definitive proof of either case. Can you leave it alone now or should you continue on your quest to annoy me? Oh and it's all for conversation. That's why I say it's my opinion only! :bugeye:

What I'm doing is being Reighnstorm! What are you doing? I can laugh in the face of my enemies because I fear no one. It seems to me that you don't know how to do that yet!

I don't seem to be... I am.. very fond of it. Might I ask....no tell you ..... to stop suggesting (polite way of demanding) on what to do! I don't assume to know anything about people on this site. Mind your own post. I might suggest to you..... that you talk to much about anything. Your post are wayyyy tooooo loooong and you spend much of it repeating yourself! You've proven to me that you don't know the meaning of all the words you use because they're always misplaced....need clarification??

Yes you did! Look

That's plainly calling me a liar!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, and that's how all of the federal laws were enacted!

Read that again, Bells ...read it carefully. It specifically states that no STATE shall ...... The new law was NOT a state law, but a federal law. And the federal laws take precedent over STATE laws.

SC Warren can state his opinion if he wants to ...but it don't change the laws of the law!

I just don't think that gays and lesbians should be permitted to marry. There! That's my opinion ...and it's just as good as SC Justice Warren's.

Another thing that's interesting; The social security funds pay a certain percentage of the "husband's" benefits to the "wife" of the deceased "husband" ....how are we to fix that benefit for gays? Will one of the gays be the "designated wife"??

Great! You now admit it ...thank you. And you can see, right, that "we, the people" can bestow the legal designation of "marriage" to whoever the fuck we want to. And, apparently, "we, the people" don't want to give that "right" to gays and lesbians. So be it.

Baron Max

 

Well, Bells, I sure hope I learn it all, too. Thanks for the vote of confidence!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

In many cases, those that are not able to have children adopt children. In any case, it's not the only duty, just one of the duties.

Yes, divorce puts the raising of a child in jeopardy, but if the marriage is truly disfunctional, then perhaps it might be what is best for the child.

It's impossible for the state to weed these people out.

I don't get where your going here. While they were married, they created a child, but when they divorced, they will have no more children.

There's no logical reason to limit marriage between two people.

 

.....................

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

shhh, don't tell nobody!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh, really? And that would include marriage between a man and his daughter? ...a woman and her son? ...a sister and brother? And, oh, yeah, how 'bout between a 30-yr old man and 17.95-yr old woman?

Baron Max

 

What I was saying is if limiting marriage to be between a man and a woman is illogical, then limiting marriage to be between two people is also illogical. The failure to accept cultural norms and faith-based arguments makes both limitations illogical.