Canada's Biggest Mistake: Gay Marriage

And here we have a brilliant article showing the true colors of gay marriage and how it is destroying Canadian society...

That's funny, that's exactly what social conservatives say about homosexuality... How on earth did the debate get so hostile?!?

Oh really? A debate about gay marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality? Yet the "qualifications" for marriage have been "lowered"? And marriage isn't common? Is that why you can get married and divorced as many times as you wish? Is that why you can get married on a whim as well?

Qualify for marriage? What qualifications do people that get married in Vegas after a drunken night meet? And why is the "historical qualification" for marriage relevant for something that is no longer just a "social institution", but also a gov't contract.

You're right, we're not. But the validity of polygamy has nothing to do with gay marriage, no matter how much you try to equate the two. Marriage is not this unwavering institution that has been the same since it was conceived till today, no matter how much critics claim otherwise. Women aren't treated as property and aren't married for the purposes of property either. The evolution of marriage from being a business transaction to being about love didn't seem to destroy it, but damn if gay marriage won't!

Oh, so now we've finally acknowledged the contractual part of marriage. Procreation is certainly in the interests of the state, but how does allowing gay marriage inhibit this process? Bueller...Bueller?

Not the fundamental concept of children through love!!! So, would this guy also advocate the banning of sperm donations and IVF?

Shep, is that you? I'm sorry, but arguments like this make me wonder if this guy would also be advocating aborting fetuses with down's syndrome because those children "can never enjoy the best that life has to offer in their diminished capacity". Who is this guy to judge quality of life and make a determination as to what is best? Talk about social engineering...

And to retread a bunch of defeated arguments and show no actual harm or fallout from the legalization of gay marriage demonstrates that the debate this guy yearns for is falling on deaf ears for a good reason.

Source

Wow. Someone here is really pissed off that can't marry another man.

I don't really have the time to post here much anymore, so I decided to debate with internet articles...

So, who won the debate?

Meh....it doesn't effect me who you decide to marry, so I could care less what the government legalizes.

I might have a biased opinion...

The internet article. By a landslide.

Where has this person been?

Incest is still happening all over the world, every day.

Essential? I think my marriage of 17 years is just as valid without children as it would be with them. I married Zel out of love, not to start a baby factory.

I gotta agree with Zombie here. The writer's arguments are well developed and skillfully presented. X's line-by-line rebuttal comes across as whiny, poorly thought out, and illogical.

Solution to the gay marriage issue? Do what we did in the UK. Give them the same rights but don't call it marriage, call it civil partnership. That way, as happened in England, the press totally miss it and there's none of this endless media bullshit.

Let's throw in a little separation here, if your faith offers marriage as a ceremony then the conditions deemed necessary for said rite should be defined by your fellow faithful. Not by legislators.

To be fair, US politicians have a long history of supporting marriage via a variety of benefits but that doesn't mean they decide who can be married.

In other words, the solution lies not in religious reform but rather a redress of assigning public benefits to religious rites.

I don't get the argument that gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy.

The argument goes limiting marriage between a man and a woman is just arbitrary, that the important thing is that there are people that love each other and wish to be together.

How is that any different if it's two people or six? If they love each other and want to be with each other, then isn't it arbitrary to limit it to just two? Why does anyone outside of their union have any right to judge it based on anything but its own merits?

Overall I agree with Clyde, and I think many of us have stated that in the past - separate the religious rite of 'marriage' from the legal issue of civil union, for all sexes.

But if you make that argument, then I can't see stopping any four people that want a civil union from having one. Hell, there are even religions that in the past have considered that a valid form of union, unlike homosexual unions until just the last two decades or so.

Well I think one needs to past the precedent of one sex being the singular in a polygamous union, i.e. marriages where there is one man but many women or vice versa as it seems to be the trend in those countries where it is legally permissable.

I've never seen Xerafin comment on his initial post!

Did your life partner get your keyboard?

After Xerafin got his butt kicked by the internet he ran under the bed. But the clown sent by the internet to get him got him. No one's seen him since.

I find it terrible that there have been pastors jailed in Canada for preaching what the bible says about homosexuality. Canada: Tolerance for everything but Christianity.

These are people that are just preaching to their members not to engage in homosexual acts. They're not out in homo's faces, not advocating legislation, etc. Just preaching that it's wrong. And they're in jail.

Pathetic, Canada.

The US will be next.

Woo Role Models!!!



A couple very much in love.

Bulldog do you really think so?

Oh and a little side note: while looking for that pic of the clown I found out that the skeletons they used in Poltergeist were real. They were cheaper then buying the plastic ones. That puts a whole new spin on the "curse" of the movie.

Maybe next time Canada will live with her partner for a few months to see how it'll work out. Salcaious harlot.

Why does it matter to any of us if somebody has 6 wives?

Dadgum it, if you want me to die NEG REP ME.

Gay marriage, like interracial marriage, is an inevitability, no matter how much foot-dragging the busybodies engage in.

It's interesting that libertarianism tends to stop on the doorsill when it comes to homosexuals.

Umm.....no, it doesn't.

Well, my primary experience with mainstream libertarianism - as opposed to McWilliams Libertarianism, of which I am a fan - is Wordforge.

Now, granted, the majority of Wordforge takes the McWilliams viewpoint, i.e., ain't nobody's business if you do, but some folks here spend a lot of time literally covering their asses lest they be "converted."

'cause, you know, them gays is out to convert people.

You've obviously never been to a Dallas meetup. :tex:

Do you feel that polygamy is inevitable? Arranged marriages of children? Both have far more religious and historical precedent than gay marriage.

Oh, and for the record, I will defend any gay's right to marry a woman. Or a lesbian's right to marry a man. And I will defend homosexuals' right to civil unions that convey the same rights and privileges as marriage.

What part of "consensual adults" don't you understand?