I think it's really sad that so much of people's time and resources have been dedicated to pro and anti gay marriage. I never saw what the big deal was. People want to get married? OK. Why not? Anyone who is against it is a homophobe, a hate-maongerer, and probably a closet queer themselves, and they just can't stand people exploring their sexuality in a way that they never will. But there are so many real problems in the world that need attention, you know, things that MATTER! Man, like WHO CARES? I know, the bible thumpers care. Because they can't find some actual meaning in their lives, they have to live the life others dictated for them. Listen, the Bible was written 2000 years ago, by (excuse the expression) God knows who. By God knows how many people. How many gatekeepers do you think it has passed through. How many personal agendas do you think have been implemented into it. Kings and Queens did that kind of thing all the time. And lets not forget that the Bible was printed and translated some 1000 years after it was supposedly written. That alone discredits it as anything to base your life on, and especially to base modern law on. But consider also how vague the text of the bible is. There are probably many clauses that can be interpreted as anti-gay, and probably just as many that completely contradict it. The bible is full of contradictions. How many of these anti-gay preachers do you think conveniently overlooked the clause that promotes love to ALL OF GODS CREATURES, or probably one that can be interpreted as pro-gay. I'm sure it's there. But I don't need to waste my time looking, I'm not the one who is threatened by this. So why don't you all stop hiding behind your shroud of hypocritical righteousness, and try giving an original thought of your own before you start preaching to people who are, quite frankly, better than you. And devote your resources to something that matters for fucks sake. Oh, and Stephen Harper should be castrated for trying to spread hate and intolerance the way he does. On so many issues. Shame indeed.
The thing that gets to me the most about this issue is that a civil union has absolutley nothing to do with religion. Nobody is forcing any church or temple or what-have-you to marry anybody. This does not change the definition of marriage in the eyes of god, gods, yaweh etc.
You don't think that a stay at home mom should receive benifits if her husband passes on? Or tax breaks for large families?
I agree with Slutter...in a way. I think it should be one way or the other. Either we (the U.S.) recognize two consenting adults marriage under the law regardless of gender, or we don't recognize the relationship at all. If we are going to maintain that marriage is a religious rite (which many anti-gay activists claim) then it has no place in law. But if we want to maintain marriage as a civil right for our citizens (recognizing and giving it benefits under the law), then we should not descriminate due to gender. Edit: Just to add, I read about the Canadian bill this morning, and was very pleased to see it passed. Go Canada! You guys kick ass!
My question to the Bible-thumpers in terms of this issue is, that if marriage is supposedly a religous rite then why can athiests marry? Well anyways, yay for Canada! I heard about the bill within a few hours of it passing, and I was thrilled!
This whole controversy really is very funny... it's funny how everyone comes out of the woodwork to go on about the separation of the values of religion and the values of what a government is supposed to be. I don't speak for anyone but myself but the feeling i get from most people i know is that the US government is a strange twisted branch of Christianity... when people think of the White House, they think christian... when they think Republican, they think christian... when the think democrat, they think 'neo-christian'. I think most people i know would find the possibility of the US accepting gay marriage to be very slim... on the other hand, despite a strong christian presence in Canada, most people had no doubt that the bill would pass here. It's almost like the christian presence in America is a war-machine of "Christ's Values", spending hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and advertising, ultimately shaping government policy and the all-typical 'american perspective'. ...just a thought
Gay this, gay that. Damn, shut the fuck up! I don't give a shit if a person is gay, but frankly, I don't want to fucking hear about it. So, gay people can marry in Canada. . . Big fucking deal!
Well, it is kind of a big deal if you're gay and you're planning on marrying. Or just if you're gay. Or you're straight but you support gay rights.
This has absolutley nothing to do with religion though. And I would be interested in seeing who was finned for wich advertisment...
Well actually it's an important step forward for them. Wouldn't you be angry if someone denied you one of your basic human rights?
Canada lets anyone opposed to it voice their opinion. They also do not force people to perform ceremonies that are against their religious beliefs. They don't need to. There are planty of institutions willing to perform them. And what is so frightening about being without these traditions? Do you really need traditions to protect you, or is it conceivable that you can fend for yourself?
You see no danger in the government enforcing an official ideological orthodoxy and squelching organized dissent?
yeah, it does have to be realized that there are many clauses in the Civil Union bill, "bill C38", which deal specifically with the concern of the government trying to force church's/religions to perform the marriage rights. This bill has little to do with church and ceremonies, it's all about the fancy piece of paper you sign to get the GOVERNMENT to recognize the union, not the church. It should also be noted that i don't think this issue would have ever reached parliament if it wasn't for the citizens across canada approaching their members of parliament and giving their opinions... this is an issue that most intelligent MP's don't make a decision on without having the backing of the majority of their constiuents. This could have cost many MP's their jobs if they had taken a stand against their constiuents, even if they were morally motivated. BTW, i'm aware that canada isn't a shining example of human rights... but if anyone EVER thinks that their country has reached the point where everything is perfect and just, then you're not looking hard enough. It's a nearly unreachable goal that's worth trying to reach though. (referring to my previous post, i should know better than to use the words Canada and US in the same sentance without setting off a firestorm! Although it has been said that arguing about the "superiority" (note quotations) of ones country over another is a national past-time... i don't wanna deprive anyone of their past-times *lol*)
Yeah, that's what I had said before. When you can't rationally argue something, just repeat yourself, right Huck?