 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - 31 Reasons |
 |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
geeogree Bloober Level: 34  Posts: 294/448 EXP: 231583 For next: 22068 Since: 03-16-04 From: Calgary, Canada Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 11 hours |
| ||
| 31 Reasons to Vote "No" to Changing the Definition of Marriage 1. The government has no authority 2. to change the definition of a religious term such as marriage. They have no right to change the definition of "baptism", "communion", "bar mitzvah", "marriage" or any other religious term. Same sex marriage is not a "human right". 3. The United Nations |
|||
drjayphd Beamos What's that spell? pimp! Level: 56  Posts: 867/1477 EXP: 1387410 For next: 10766 Since: 03-15-04 From: CT Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Uhm, line breaks don't necessarily make new reasons, ya know.  Maybe paraphrase and bullet point? |
|||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 497/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| I hope you didn't make that yourself. | |||
Blades Paratroopa I hack rom; me admin Level: 21  Posts: 109/151 EXP: 45354 For next: 4589 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pr�vost, Qu�bec, Canada Since last post: 31 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
| No for marriage status change. All for same sex civil union. Careful use of words. That should now start a nice debate. (keep it civilized) |
|||
|
Vystrix Nexoth Level: 30 Posts: 246/348 EXP: 158678 For next: 7191 Since: 03-15-04 From: somewhere between anima and animus Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
Before I begin, I need to make a few things clear:
|
|||
Dracoon Zelda The temp ban/forum ban bypasser! Level: 84  Posts: 2407/3727 EXP: 5514391 For next: 147561 Since: 03-25-04 From: At home Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 5 hours |
| ||
| I really, really, really, don't understand people. I hate the idea of same-sex marriage, my religion is against it, I don't want it to pass at all, personally. Now, this may seem like I'm really against it, which I am, but I can't do a damn thing about it. I coudl go vote "No" (if I was old enough), but that wouldn't be right. One reason is that I can't follow my religion at every point, if it wouldn't effect me in any way. I don't like the idea of religion in the government, so I'd really let this thing just go on by, sink away in history and go on with my life. It isn't that big of a deal, because last time I checked, a church could deny to have a marriage for someone, so that protects my freedom on religion right there. |
|||
KaOSoFt Goomba Level: 8  Posts: 12/20 EXP: 2065 For next: 122 Since: 05-18-04 From: Colombia Since last post: 156 days Last activity: 156 days |
| ||
Yes, but they (opposite-sex couples) are supposed to do it, while a same-sex couple cannot never (I hope) and should not (in case some weird scientist invents a way to do it, which would be total degradation of EVERYTHING) even mention the idea to have babies. Admit it, we are not speaking in a religious form, I'm just saying that they can't naturally pro-create children. Even if a "normal" couple cannot conceive children (for the reasons you gave), they were still supposed to be able to, while same-sex couples don't. Oh, and by the way, I don't care if homosexuals get married or not, that's up to their belief. (edited by KaOSoFt on 02-05-05 03:30 PM) |
|||
|
Vystrix Nexoth Level: 30 Posts: 247/348 EXP: 158678 For next: 7191 Since: 03-15-04 From: somewhere between anima and animus Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
Originally posted by KaOSoFtYes, but they (opposite-sex couples) are supposed to do it, while a same-sex couple cannot never (I hope) and should not (in case some weird scientist invents a way to do it, which would be total degradation of EVERYTHING) even mention the idea to have babies. Admit it, we are not speaking in a religious form, I'm just saying that they can't naturally pro-create children. Even if a "normal" couple cannot conceive children (for the reasons you gave), they were still supposed to be able to, while same-sex couples don't. And same-sex-oriented people can still procreate (i.e. with a member of the opposite sex), or, to your terminology, are still "supposed" to be able to. |
|||
|
KaOSoFt Goomba Level: 8 Posts: 13/20 EXP: 2065 For next: 122 Since: 05-18-04 From: Colombia Since last post: 156 days Last activity: 156 days |
| ||
| But then the child should leave with one or another, but not in a same-sex oriented "family". And don't put those words as if I haven't said anything, I said in same-sex couples, so don't change the topic. SAME-SEX COUPLES PROCREATING CHILDREN = NO (edited by KaOSoFt on 02-05-05 03:48 PM) |
|||
|
Vystrix Nexoth Level: 30 Posts: 248/348 EXP: 158678 For next: 7191 Since: 03-15-04 From: somewhere between anima and animus Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| same-sex couples cannot procreate (with each other, anyway); individual same-sex-oriented people can with a member of the opposite sex. (edited by Vystrix Nexoth on 02-05-05 03:55 PM) (edited by Vystrix Nexoth on 02-05-05 03:58 PM) |
|||
|
KaOSoFt Goomba Level: 8 Posts: 14/20 EXP: 2065 For next: 122 Since: 05-18-04 From: Colombia Since last post: 156 days Last activity: 156 days |
| ||
18. . The place for pro-creation and development of children. Same sex couples cannot pro-create.I'm pointing at this, which what I mean is that if they can NOT naturally procreate children, they should not even adopt, that's not the nature flow of things. And now don't come with the "but if a opposite-sex infertile blah blah blah" thing because THAT would be normal, same-sex just can't, and just should not be able to (in any way), period. |
|||
|
Vystrix Nexoth Level: 30 Posts: 249/348 EXP: 158678 For next: 7191 Since: 03-15-04 From: somewhere between anima and animus Since last post: 3 days Last activity: 2 days |
| ||
| How is infertility "normal"? (not that there's anything inherently "wrong" with being infertile, but it's still different from the normal human condition of being able to reproduce after puberty)... let alone voluntarily getting a vascectomy/hysterectomy or whatever... any of those things make procreation impossible. And you contend that choosing to not procreate constitues being "normal" (contrary to one's natural biological urges), yet that being same-sex oriented (which could be considered a form of choosing to not procreate) does not. besides, if the only barrier to procreation is choice, then why should they be allowed to adopt when they could simply choose to procreate? I thought the primary criteria on whether a couple should be allowed to adopt would be how well it could provide for the child, not on any preconceived notions on whether they're "supposed" to be able to procreate. and finally, this is getting off the topic of same-sex marriage. (edited by Vystrix Nexoth on 02-05-05 04:21 PM) |
|||
|
DarkSlaya POOOOOOOOOOOORN! Level: 88 Posts: 3364/4249 EXP: 6409254 For next: 241410 Since: 05-16-04 From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada Since last post: 8 hours Last activity: 5 hours |
| ||
| What the...!? I must say that I'm with Vystrix Nexoth's side. Religious are against same-sex union, but are they right. Do you honestly think you're right because your religion says so? They're is too much religions to count, and none of them is always right. You all know that religion stopped ruling countries such as Canada a few decades ago, right? Now, now... I'm not questioning what you belive in, don't get me wrong. But how could an humain being deny a right to someone because they are different? THat falls in "they aren't like me, so they don't deserve to have the same rights". This whole thing is exactly like when women had nearly no right. While there are differences, it's the same thing. Just think a few seconds, how would you feel if I removed your right of marriage? This will probably never happen, but we never know. I'm sure you wouldn't like it. Like it or not, the world changes and when religion will lose it's power (because trust me, it's losing it), what will you do before there people that you praticly hate (because wanting them to not have the same right than you is a form of hate, or a form of "I'm superior to them"). Your kind disgust me. In which way do their union would affect you? That's right, none. Stop trying to impose your religions to people and grow up. Trying to impose it will only turn into bloodlust (Holy wars, anyone?). All of this to say that there's no point in being selfish (because the starter of the thread seems like he his by wanting to keep a right to himself). |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 2864/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Interestingly, not every Church allows heterosexual marriage. My aunt had to marry in an Anglican church because she was infertile, and the Catholic church wouldn't allow her to marry. As for this. Marriage in any term. Just call it marriage. Don't give them "civil unions", that is denoting them to a second class citizen and making a definitive difference societally of them to other people, which is wrong. As minor as it is, it is a symbol of direct attempted segregation against homosexuals. MLK Jr. fought for his people and helped start the civil rights movement, and everyday homosexuals fight hard for their rights. I say give them their rights. If we want to get scriptual and biblical here...It is not in our hands under God to persecute and deny people as Christians. That would be doing wrong to our neighbours. It is in the hands of our Lord to pass infinite judgement. Alas, we live in a secular, democratic society where everyone's rights are being considered. The grounds of religion has no place in the halls of Parliament. And the only thing that this is doing is giving the requirement to sign the marriage certificate (rather than the form of civil union) to governmental employees (12 have been fired for refusing to sign the certificates). This isn't forcing Churchs to marry. They still have the right to refuse the ceremony. This is going to pass no matter what the anti-gay people want, Canada has willed this as a nation. Canada is reaping the benefits of the beauty of a free society. |
|||
|
Colleen Administrator Level: 136 Posts: 6552/11302 EXP: 29369328 For next: 727587 Since: 03-15-04 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| I don't like the whole "civil union" concept unless you were to clearly state "OK, it's the exact same thing as marriage BUT we don't want to call it marriage, although all benefits/etc. are allowed in the definition of it". I'm personally for same-sex marriage, but at the same time I hope the Liberal government knows what they're getting into in Canada. (Put it this way - it's going to be a vote of confidence in the government as well.) |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 2872/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| They, the Bloc and the NDP are going to get what Canada what Canadians want. | |||
Sabishii Koopa Level: 17 Posts: 98/103 EXP: 24001 For next: 742 Since: 05-24-04 From: Cumming, Georgia Since last post: 230 days Last activity: 213 days |
| ||
| I'm totally with Vystrix Nexoth on this. The term marriage is being extended, the religious meaning of it is not, and before you go pulling the "It's a religious tradition!" card, take a look at the religions you're looking at. Marriage has been around far longer than Christianity, Judaism or any modern religions. It's just two people in love, bound by law and perhaps religion as well, if they choose it. As for the issue of procreation, what does it matter what gender the parents are if the child is well card for and happy? Let them have a surrogat parent or adopt if they wish. If you're going to pull the psychological weight thing, then you might as well take into consideration the weight of being an orphan, divorces, death of a parent and so on. All of those are equally heavy, I can give you case by case situations if you like. Finally, why do you care? So someone else can get married, does it affect you? No. Yes you say? How? It disgusting you or going against your religion are NOT valid arguments. The government should not have the right to ban same sex marriages, let the churches have the right to turn them away if it pleases them, but not the governement. The bottom line, I suppose, is that if you don't like same sex marriages, then you shouldn't have one. (edited by Sabishii on 02-05-05 07:37 PM) (edited by Sabishii on 02-05-05 07:40 PM) |
|||
|
Colleen Administrator Level: 136 Posts: 6557/11302 EXP: 29369328 For next: 727587 Since: 03-15-04 From: LaSalle, Quebec, Canada Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| Ziff: That's assuming every single member of the Liberals/Bloc/NDP votes in line, and that's probably not going to happen. (This, BTW, is the only time I'm prepared to cheer on the Bloc.) Of course, some Conservatives won't vote in line with party policy either so it should all balance out in the end.  |
|||
|
Kasumi-Astra Administrator Level: 62  Posts: 1191/1867 EXP: 1971846 For next: 12840 Since: 03-15-04 From: Reading, UK Uni: Sheffield, UK Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 12 hours |
| ||
| Meh, I'm not going to re-ittereate everything I said in the past. Laws in various countries are simply changing to give people rights that they previously didn't have. There are going to be homosexual relationships anyway, and where the people concerned are going to live as a couple, they deserve the same rights as all other married couples. The current laws are not inclusive and they need to be updated. Try to see the human side of this. We're not trying to hijack a country, I simply want a marriage between me and my girlfriend to be recognised by the state. This would include such things as having rights in my girlfriend's last will. She would want me to organise everything, but currently there is no law in place to stop her family hijacking proceedings. I can garuntee you that her family would not invite me to the funeral and that she would not want her family to intervene like this. So where is your philosophy going to get us? What will it do for us? I'm afraid your ideals will only stop me from having the rights that every other couple is enjoying. If you don't like that. Try this on for size. At this moment, I am legally male and a marriage between me and my girlfriend will be legally, and religiously binding. In two years I will be legally female and if I were to marry her, all our rights will be confiscated. What right does a government does a government have to confiscate rights? I'm sorry but the whole situation is so fucked up. We had an act going through government to give homosexual people rights in relationships, and the law failed to pass because the upperclass lords tried to alter the act so it would be possible to avoid inheritance tax - which a thorn in the upperclasses' side. I'm sorry, but I won't argue with you. You have no right to decide which rights are appropriate for me, and we will fight on with no regard for all the mediocre "arguements" you present. I have a human right to marry my girlfriend, and the laws are changing everywhere across the western world. Like it or not, but in a politically correct world there is no way to avoid this. It will happen eventually and your arguements will count for nothing. Don't even bother replying to this. I don't give a shit what you have to say as long as you are able to take your love for your wife and I am not. For once in your life think about how people like us are affected. (edited by Retro-Kasumi on 02-06-05 12:15 AM) |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 2877/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Colleen Current stats are something like 1 or 2 cons voting for gay marriage. 5-10 Libs voting against. 3 Blocs voting against. 0 NDP. It doesn't matter. The majority of the Commons is representing their constituency. It is happing. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - 31 Reasons |
| | Thread closed |
