# Hey Steve - We Can Get Married In Canada. Let's Go Then David!



## GotZoom

Canada May Be 3rd Nation to OK Gay Unions
By BETH DUFF-BROWN
Associated Press Writer

June 28, 2005, 2:51 PM EDT

TORONTO -- Canada is set to become the third country to legalize gay marriage, with Parliament likely to pass landmark legislation Tuesday despite strong opposition from Conservatives and religious leaders.

Although gay marriage already is legal in seven provinces, the bill would grant all same-sex couples in Canada the same legal rights as those in traditional heterosexual unions. The Netherlands and Belgium already allow gay marriage.

The legislation, drafted by Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government, needs at least 155 members of the House of Commons to gain a majority of the 308-seat House. While some of his Liberal lawmakers have said they will not back the legislation, enough allies in other parties have indicated they would support the bill when it comes to a vote.

There are an estimated 34,000 gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to government statistics.

"I think this is going to be a proud and exciting day to be a Canadian because we are, once again, affirming to the world that we are a country that is open, inclusive and welcoming," said Alex Munter, national coordinator of Canadians for Equal Marriage, a group that has led the debate for the legislation.

"This is a victory for Canadian values."

Martin, a Roman Catholic, has said that despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage.

"I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law," Martin told the House of Commons.

Churches have expressed concern that their clergy would be compelled by law to perform same-sex ceremonies, with couples taking them to court or human rights tribunals if refused. The legislation, however, states that the bill only covers civil unions, not religious ones, and no clergy would be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies unless they choose to do so.

"The facts are plain: Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe," Martin said. "If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right."

The Roman Catholic Church, the predominant Christian denomination in Canada, has vigorously opposed the legislation.

"The most overlooked and disenfranchised group in the current debate about marriage is that of children," Calgary Bishop Frederick Henry said in a recent statement.

"The issue is not whether traditional marriage, as it stands, is a perfect institution, but whether society and especially children are better off with it than without. Families with both mothers and fathers are generally better for children than those with only mothers or only fathers. Biological parents usually protect and provide for their children more effectively than non-biological ones."

The debate in Canada began in December, when the Supreme Court ruled that passage of same-sex legislation would not violate the constitution.

A roster of right-wing groups under the banner Defend Marriage Canada headed to Parliament Hill on Tuesday to lobby legislators against the bill.

"I fear radical social change thrust upon a nation that is not asking for it," Charles McVety, a spokesman for Defend Marriage Canada and president of Canada Christian College, told Canadian Press.

According to most polls, a majority of Canadians supports the right for gays and lesbians to marry. In the United States, gay marriage is opposed by a majority of Americans, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in November, shortly after constitutional amendments in 11 states to ban same-sex marriage were approved.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages, although Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines


----------



## dmp

It's sad to see so many humans believe lies.    It's sad to see intelligent people fall for the lies and rhetoric of the militant homosexuals.


----------



## Said1

Don't you guys have civil unions in some places?


----------



## GotZoom

Said1 said:
			
		

> Don't you guys have civil unions in some places?



As quoted from referenced article:

Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages, although Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions.

3 states out of 50. 

Canada = country.


----------



## Said1

GotZoom said:
			
		

> As quoted from referenced article:
> 
> Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriages, although Vermont and Connecticut have approved same-sex civil unions.
> 
> 3 states out of 50.
> 
> Canada = country.



I know Canada is a country. Why feel the need to point that out?


----------



## GotZoom

Said1 said:
			
		

> I know Canada is a country. Why feel the need to point that out?



I wasn't trying to be a smart ass....

Just saying the 3 states in the U.S. compared to the whole country of Canada.

No worries.


----------



## Said1

GotZoom said:
			
		

> I wasn't trying to be a smart ass....
> 
> Just saying the 3 states in the U.S. compared to the whole country of Canada.
> 
> No worries.



Sure, if you say so.   

Edit to add smilie. Was not being sarcastic.....Really!


----------



## MrMarbles

It's official! Canada is the third country to allow equal rights to all of it's citizens. Go Canada!


----------



## no1tovote4

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> It's official! Canada is the third country to allow equal rights to all of it's citizens. Go Canada!



Congratulations.  My question is why is the government even sticking its hands at all in a religious institution?  They act like rights come from the government, and not from the Creator.  This goes for the US as well.


----------



## dmp

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> It's official! Canada is the third country to allow special rights to a few of it's citizens. Go Canada!



Fixed that for ya, so it's now 'truthful'


----------



## Said1

I think the one on the right looks like Chirac.


----------



## Isaac Brock

no1tovote4 said:
			
		

> Congratulations.  My question is why is the government even sticking its hands at all in a religious institution?  They act like rights come from the government, and not from the Creator.  This goes for the US as well.



I've always thought this argument, and no offense to you of course, was weak.

Idealism of the seperation of church and state aside, for both "sides" of the issue routinely rally under its banner.  Whether is be lefties removing religious historical monuments from courtyards or those on the right who provide "faith" based funding for social programs.  

The inexorable truth is that the government's endorsement of any marriage, whether it be heterosexual, or now homosexual has always had its religious base.  

A wiser move would be remove the mention of marriage from civil unions, and leave it like that.  This way the government neither endorses heterosexual nor homosexual unions and leaves it to the wacky ethical playgroups which reside in the Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, Temples, Jedi Training Centres and Covens of our country.

On a day to day basis, does it affect me?  

Hardly, but it does revive some of the old Kids in the Hall sketches!


----------



## MrMarbles

Religous groups in Canada have the right to allow gay marriage or not. Nothing has changed for them. It's just that now, under the law, homosexuals have the same rights as hetrosexuals in terms of marriage.

Personally, it does not affect me, I don't care what they call it, it's just a word. The important thing is that whatever you call it, it's equal.

Said1, love the cartoon!


----------



## Shattered

Why does every freakin thing on the planet have to be equal?  Good grief.

You want equal pay, do equal work.
You want equal rights?  You start OUT with them.  Only YOU can decide whether you get to keep them.


----------



## GotZoom

Shattered said:
			
		

> Why does every freakin thing on the planet have to be equal?  Good grief.
> 
> You want equal pay, do equal work.
> You want equal rights?  You start OUT with them.  Only YOU can decide whether you get to keep them.



Bravo!  WELL SAID!!!!


----------



## dmp

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> Religous groups in Canada have the right to allow gay marriage or not. Nothing has changed for them. It's just that now, under the law, homosexuals have the same rights as hetrosexuals in terms of marriage.
> 
> Personally, it does not affect me, I don't care what they call it, it's just a word. The important thing is that whatever you call it, it's equal.
> 
> Said1, love the cartoon!



No...now they have 'special rights'...the restrictions were the same for all:

1) One cannot marry a relative
2) One cannot marry a minor
3) One cannot marry somebody of the same gender

Now...it's 'special' allowances made for people who simply like having sex with those of the same gender.  

I'm really hoping a rapist gets a rape charge thrown out under the same argument homosexuals use to justify THEIR behavior...I really hope it happens.


----------



## Shattered

-=d=- said:
			
		

> No...now they have 'special rights'...the restrictions were the same for all:
> 
> 1) One cannot marry a relative
> 2) One cannot marry a minor
> 3) One cannot marry somebody of the same gender
> 
> Now...it's 'special' allowances made for people who simply like having sex with those of the same gender.
> 
> I'm really hoping a rapist gets a rape charge thrown out under the same argument homosexuals use to justify THEIR behavior...I really hope it happens.



Don't say that.  Rape is something completely different than two consenting adults choosing their future.


----------



## Said1

-=d=- said:
			
		

> I'm really hoping a rapist gets a rape charge thrown out under the same argument homosexuals use to justify THEIR behavior...I really hope it happens.



You're comparing a rapists with two members of the same sex having consensual sex? I'm sure you're just using that as an extreme example of equal treatment for sexual deviants.


----------



## dmp

Said1 said:
			
		

> You're comparing a rapists with two members of the same sex having consensual sex? I'm sure you're just using that as an extreme example of equal treatment for sexual deviants.




Rape and homosexual sex and speeding and murder are all behaviours.  It's just homosexuals are the only group to get people to justify their actions because 'they are born that way' and 'cannot and should not control their urges'.

(shrug).

Rape and murder and homoseuxality all harm society.


----------



## GotZoom

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Rape and homosexual sex and speeding and murder are all behaviours.  It's just homosexuals are the only group to get people to justify their actions because 'they are born that way' and 'cannot and should not control their urges'.
> 
> (shrug).
> 
> Rape and murder and homoseuxality all harm society.



Don't forget NAMBLA.  They are loving this.


----------



## Said1

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Rape and homosexual sex and speeding and murder are all behaviours.  It's just homosexuals are the only group to get people to justify their actions because 'they are born that way' and 'cannot and should not control their urges'.
> 
> (shrug).
> 
> Rape and murder and homoseuxality all harm society.



Get real. Violent crimes and speeding are not the same as gay marriage. I think you're serious overstretching yourself compairing them.


----------



## GotZoom

Years ago homosexuality was an abnormal behaviour.  The, with the proper lobbying and influence, the medical community began to say that is wasn't a choice - it was something people were born with. 

If your "DNA makeup" gives you a propensity to be homosexual, why is it such a stretch to assume the other abnormal behaviours won't be soon to follow.


----------



## Shattered

D, if two males engage in homosexual acts, it has no direct negative bearing on your life.  If someone rapes another human being, that person is fucked up for life.  The two aren't even comparable.

Much like the difference between simple speeding, and a drunk driver hitting YOUR car at 95mph.  One's going to fuck you up royally, the other has no direct impact on your life.


----------



## Said1

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Years ago homosexuality was an abnormal behaviour.  The, with the proper lobbying and influence, the medical community began to say that is wasn't a choice - it was something people were born with.



Personally, I think homosexuality IS more environmental than anything. 



> If your "DNA makeup" gives you a propensity to be homosexual, why is it such a stretch to assume the other abnormal behaviours won't be soon to follow.



Like aquitting someone of rape? Gay marriage is not the same as rape, which is not consensual and is violent.


----------



## GotZoom

I can't imagine anyone ever getting acquitted of rape.  But I can see the defense asking for a lighter sentence - hospitalization instead of jail, etc - for someone who is raped. 

"After all your honor, my client can't help himself.  Five different doctors said he was born with abnormal genes - he has a propensity to rape, just as that of a serial killer, etc."

I never said it would be correct or acceptable - absolutely not.  But I can see the attempt by some less-than-honest and less-than-honorable lawyers.


----------



## Said1

GotZoom said:
			
		

> "After all your honor, my client can't help himself.  Five different doctors said he was born with abnormal genes - he has a propensity to rape, just as that of a serial killer, etc.



All the more reason to lock him up.


----------



## dmp

Shattered said:
			
		

> D, if two males engage in homosexual acts, it has no direct negative bearing on your life.  If someone rapes another human being, that person is fucked up for life.  The two aren't even comparable.



And if somebody gets raped it has no bearing on my life.   But if somebody gets raped, or somebody engages in homosexual acts, there ARE victims - those involved.



> Much like the difference between simple speeding, and a drunk driver hitting YOUR car at 95mph.  One's going to fuck you up royally, the other has no direct impact on your life.



Speeding didn't cause the drunk to hit me - his drinking likely did.


----------



## Isaac Brock

Shattered said:
			
		

> Why does every freakin thing on the planet have to be equal?  Good grief.
> 
> You want equal pay, do equal work.
> You want equal rights?  You start OUT with them.  Only YOU can decide whether you get to keep them.




I would suggest the slaves prior to the 20th century would vehemently disagree with you.
I would also suggest that women rights movement of early century would also disagree.
The Chinese in early Canada, the Indian under the colonial British and the list goes on and on.

Much like our right to party, rights as we see them, must always be fought for.  It doesn't have to be by the sword, but it does have to be fought for.  Only THEY can decide if its worth fighting for.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> I've always thought this argument, and no offense to you of course, was weak.
> 
> Idealism of the seperation of church and state aside, for both "sides" of the issue routinely rally under its banner.  Whether is be lefties removing religious historical monuments from courtyards or those on the right who provide "faith" based funding for social programs.
> 
> The inexorable truth is that the government's endorsement of any marriage, whether it be heterosexual, or now homosexual has always had its religious base.
> 
> A wiser move would be remove the mention of marriage from civil unions, and leave it like that.  This way the government neither endorses heterosexual nor homosexual unions and leaves it to the wacky ethical playgroups which reside in the Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, Temples, Jedi Training Centres and Covens of our country.
> 
> On a day to day basis, does it affect me?
> 
> Hardly, but it does revive some of the old Kids in the Hall sketches!



On one hand you liberals say we must "protect the children" but on the other hand you condone gay marriage, which - the real truth of the matter - is going to do nothing but "hurt the children". 

All because of non-gay, self-centered people like you who think "it isn't going to affect me".  The inexorable truth of the matter is that Canada is becoming a godless, heathen nation much like Europe.  Not something particularly wanted in a close neighbor. No offense to you of course.


----------



## Shattered

-=d=- said:
			
		

> And if somebody gets raped it has no bearing on my life.   But if somebody gets raped, or somebody engages in homosexual acts, there ARE victims - those involved.
> 
> 
> 
> Speeding didn't cause the drunk to hit me - his drinking likely did.



*shakes head*  Sometimes I just don't understand your callous attitude toward rape and seemingly toward the victims (after all, you just wished a rapist would get off scot-free)


----------



## HorhayAtAMD

-=d=- said:
			
		

> No...now they have 'special rights'...the restrictions were the same for all:
> 
> 1) One cannot marry a relative
> 2) One cannot marry a minor
> 3) One cannot marry somebody of the same gender
> 
> Now...it's 'special' allowances made for people who simply like having sex with those of the same gender.
> 
> I'm really hoping a rapist gets a rape charge thrown out under the same argument homosexuals use to justify THEIR behavior...I really hope it happens.



There was a time when the restrictions on voting were the same for all:

1) Minors cannot vote.
2) Blacks cannot vote.
3) Women cannot vote.

When the majority of people in America wanted #2 and #3 struck down, they were. Would you say that "special" allowances were made for people simply because they have dark skin or they happened to be lacking a Y chromosome? Peoples' beliefs change over time and it is up to the government to react to those changes and recognize them. Otherwise, the US Constitution would be the same today as it was when it was first written. Considering how many constitutional amendments there have been, even the US government feels change is necessary when appropriate.

In Canada, the majority of the population supports gay marriage so it is the responsibility of the government to react. In the US, the majority does not support gay marriage and it has been struck down in most States. What's the problem? It seems to me like democracy is working perfectly!


----------



## dmp

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> There was a time when the restrictions on voting were the same for all:
> 
> 1) Minors cannot vote.
> 2) Blacks cannot vote.
> 3) Women cannot vote.
> 
> When the majority of people in America wanted #2 and #3 struck down, they were. Would you say that "special" allowances were made for people simply because they have dark skin or they happened to be lacking a Y chromosome? Peoples' beliefs change over time and it is up to the government to react to those changes and recognize them. Otherwise, the US Constitution would be the same today as it was when it was first written. Considering how many constitutional amendments there have been, even the US government feels change is necessary when appropriate.
> 
> In Canada, the majority of the population supports gay marriage so it is the responsibility of the government to react. In the US, the majority does not support gay marriage and it has been struck down in most States. What's the problem? It seems to me like democracy is working perfectly!




People can't artificially increase their age.
People can't choose their race
People can't choose their sex.


Your argument is useless - Homosexuality is a behavior...as pasttime.


----------



## dmp

Shattered said:
			
		

> *shakes head*  Sometimes I just don't understand your callous attitude toward rape and seemingly toward the victims (after all, you just wished a rapist would get off scot-free)




I've known of rapists who weren't guilty of anything more than a woman changing her mind after the fact - it almost happened to Kobe.

I'm not calloused towards rape; I'm saying since people are arguing for OTHER deviant behaviours, we might as well sanction Rape, too...


----------



## Shattered

-=d=- said:
			
		

> I've known of rapists who weren't guilty of anything more than a woman changing her mind after the fact - it almost happened to Kobe.
> 
> I'm not calloused towards rape; I'm saying since people are arguing for OTHER deviant behaviours, we might as well sanction Rape, too...



No!  There's a difference between two consenting adults, and one person forcing themselves upon another.  The two aren't even REMOTELY close.

My 12 year old neice is going through a rape case right now against her step father.  I'd CERTAINLY rather see two homosexuals get whatever rights they think they should be entitled to (right or wrong) than to see this son of a bitch walk free.  But, in your eyes, he should walk free - after all, what's the difference?  One's just as deviant as the other, right?


----------



## Said1

Shattered said:
			
		

> No!  There's a difference between two consenting adults, and one person forcing themselves upon another.  The two aren't even REMOTELY close.
> 
> My 12 year old neice is going through a rape case right now against her step father.  I'd CERTAINLY rather see two homosexuals get whatever rights they think they should be entitled to (right or wrong) than to see this son of a bitch walk free.  But, in your eyes, he should walk free - after all, what's the difference?  One's just as deviant as the other, right?



Not exactly, he's saying he hopes a rapist is aquitted here.


----------



## Shattered

A rapist aquitted gets to claim another victim or two...


----------



## HorhayAtAMD

-=d=- said:
			
		

> People can't artificially increase their age.
> People can't choose their race
> People can't choose their sex.
> 
> 
> Your argument is useless - Homosexuality is a behavior...as pasttime.


Hehe, I heard a great argument against the "homosexuality is a behaviour" defense. I don't know about you but I certainly didn't choose to be a heterosexual. At no point in my life did I sit at home and think "I wonder if I want to spend the rest of my life having sex with men or with women?" I did not choose to be heterosexual any more than I'm guessing you chose to be heterosexual, it is the way we were both born. Since we didn't choose to be heterosexual, it was thrust upon us by our hormones, is it so difficult to place yourself in the position of a homosexual for one moment and realize that they didn't choose to desire people of the same gender?

If you want to take my argument to "well, child molesters didn't choose to be attracted to children" or "rapists didn't choose to force themselves on people", I will only ask that you recognize that society chooses to allow truly consenting adults to do pretty much anything they want to do with each other. Sex with children is not between consenting adults so we don't tolerate it. Rape is not between consenting adults so we don't tolerate it. Consentual sex between 2 male or female adults simply can't be compared in any way to child molestation or rape and that is why you will never see a rapist get aquitted with the "I was born this way" defense.


----------



## Isaac Brock

ScreamingEagle said:
			
		

> On one hand you liberals say we must "protect the children" but on the other hand you condone gay marriage, which - the real truth of the matter - is going to do nothing but "hurt the children".
> 
> All because of non-gay, self-centered people like you who think "it isn't going to affect me".  The inexorable truth of the matter is that Canada is becoming a godless, heathen nation much like Europe.  Not something particularly wanted in a close neighbor. No offense to you of course.



How does promoting a monogomous relationship "hurt the children"?  And who says I'm liberal?  I would have preferred government to strike out marriage heterosexual and homosexual from the legal language, call them all civil unions and let the churches themselves decide what is moral.  However, this legislation is pretty much that anyways.  It's not going to change anyone's view on what is marriage if their religion dimetrically opposes it.  Doesn't force a Catholic priest to sanction any religious union or civil union.

And no, I'm not self-centered, I know what I believe in my mind should constitute marriage, but I have no willingness, unlike some people, to force that on others.  I'd rather err on inclusive than make the mistakes of our past. If the price I pay for that is allowing a few additional rights for same-sex couples, so be it.

Morals change, countries are different and if the sooner people can accept that, the sooner we move on.


----------



## dmp

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> Hehe, I heard a great argument against the "homosexuality is a behaviour" defense. I don't know about you but I certainly didn't choose to be a heterosexual. At no point in my life did I sit at home and think "I wonder if I want to spend the rest of my life having sex with men or with women?" I did not choose to be heterosexual any more than I'm guessing you chose to be heterosexual, it is the way we were both born. Since we didn't choose to be heterosexual, it was thrust upon us by our hormones, is it so difficult to place yourself in the position of a homosexual for one moment and realize that they didn't choose to desire people of the same gender?
> 
> If you want to take my argument to "well, child molesters didn't choose to be attracted to children" or "rapists didn't choose to force themselves on people", I will only ask that you recognize that society chooses to allow truly consenting adults to do pretty much anything they want to do with each other. Sex with children is not between consenting adults so we don't tolerate it. Rape is not between consenting adults so we don't tolerate it. Consentual sex between 2 male or female adults simply can't be compared in any way to child molestation or rape and that is why you will never see a rapist get aquitted with the "I was born this way" defense.




You make the choice to be heterosexual every day.  You make the choice to 'not' be a theif or a rapist every day.  Our homo or heterosexuality are based solely on one thing: Our Behavior.   Every day I am not having sex with other men I am heterosexual.  The day I have sex with another man I am homosexual, and vice versa.  Homosexuality isn't a condition, it's an action.


----------



## GotZoom

Great debate everyone. 

However, you are missing the point that D and I are making.

No one is justifiying rape or molesting a child.  No one says that people who do this should get off from prosecution. 

What we are saying is this:  Years ago, homosexuality was a disease..it was abnormal and unacceptable.  Through the years, with the proper lobbying from certain people with "agendas", it has become acceptable because they are "born that way."  Since they are born that way, they are not abnormal and their rights should change accordingly. 

Fast forward to a rape case or a child molestation case (or a murder case, or...any case).  A crafty, sleazy lawyer can get a doctor on the stand to say that his client's behavior was born, not learned.  He was born to rape, born to molest, born to murder, born to ________, therefore, using the same argument as homosexuals, their behavior is not abnormal, it is something they were born with.  Therefore, the sentence must be lighter. 

With some of the liberal agendas today, combined with the ACLU, and the way that some judges are ruling, this is not that far out of the realm of possibility. 

I think I can speak for D (and myself obviously), that neither of us condone or want to lessen the stigma and criminality of rape or molestation.  We do not want lighter sentences (get real).  

We are simply saying that if society continues to progress as it has in the past decades, why is this so hard to consider?


----------



## dmp

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Great debate everyone.
> 
> However, you are missing the point that D and I are making.
> 
> No one is justifiying rape or molesting a child.  No one says that people who do this should get off from prosecution.
> 
> What we are saying is this:  Years ago, homosexuality was a disease..it was abnormal and unacceptable.  Through the years, with the proper lobbying from certain people with "agendas", it has become acceptable because they are "born that way."  Since they are born that way, they are not abnormal and their rights should change accordingly.
> 
> Fast forward to a rape case or a child molestation case (or a murder case, or...any case).  A crafty, sleazy lawyer can get a doctor on the stand to say that his client's behavior was born, not learned.  He was born to rape, born to molest, born to murder, born to ________, therefore, using the same argument as homosexuals, their behavior is not abnormal, it is something they were born with.  Therefore, the sentence must be lighter.
> 
> With some of the liberal agendas today, combined with the ACLU, and the way that some judges are ruling, this is not that far out of the realm of possibility.
> 
> I think I can speak for D (and myself obviously), that neither of us condone or want to lessen the stigma and criminality of rape or molestation.  We do not want lighter sentences (get real).
> 
> We are simply saying that if society continues to progress as it has in the past decades, why is this so hard to consider?




Bingo.  I'd also argue Homosexuality hurts society WORSE - because so many people don't realize they are victims of the behaviour; they skip along, happy and content (outwardly) while their insides, physcially and emotionally, are torn apart.


----------



## Said1

-=d=- said:
			
		

> You make the choice to be heterosexual every day.  You make the choice to 'not' be a theif or a rapist every day.  Our homo or heterosexuality are based solely on one thing: Our Behavior.   Every day I am not having sex with other men I am heterosexual.  The day I have sex with another man I am homosexual, and vice versa.  Homosexuality isn't a condition, it's an action.



So for all I know, you really could be gay, you just choose not to be?


----------



## Said1

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Great debate everyone.
> 
> However, you are missing the point that D and I are making.
> 
> No one is justifiying rape or molesting a child.  No one says that people who do this should get off from prosecution.
> 
> What we are saying is this:  Years ago, homosexuality was a disease..it was abnormal and unacceptable.  Through the years, with the proper lobbying from certain people with "agendas", it has become acceptable because they are "born that way."  Since they are born that way, they are not abnormal and their rights should change accordingly.
> 
> Fast forward to a rape case or a child molestation case (or a murder case, or...any case).  A crafty, sleazy lawyer can get a doctor on the stand to say that his client's behavior was born, not learned.  He was born to rape, born to molest, born to murder, born to ________, therefore, using the same argument as homosexuals, their behavior is not abnormal, it is something they were born with.  Therefore, the sentence must be lighter.
> 
> With some of the liberal agendas today, combined with the ACLU, and the way that some judges are ruling, this is not that far out of the realm of possibility.
> 
> I think I can speak for D (and myself obviously), that neither of us condone or want to lessen the stigma and criminality of rape or molestation.  We do not want lighter sentences (get real).
> 
> We are simply saying that if society continues to progress as it has in the past decades, why is this so hard to consider?




Using words like "I'm hoping" might have given some the wrong impression.


----------



## dmp

Said1 said:
			
		

> So for all I know, you really could be gay, you just choose not to be?




No. I'm not gay because I don't have sex with other men.

Not a hard concept to grasp, I hope.


----------



## dmp

Said1 said:
			
		

> Using words like "I'm hoping" might have given some the wrong impression.


----------



## Said1

-=d=- said:
			
		

> No. I'm not gay because I don't have sex with other men.
> 
> Not a hard concept to grasp, I hope.



No it's not a hard concept. Still your choice though.  :funnyface


----------



## Said1

-=d=- said:
			
		

>



Same to you.


----------



## dmp

Said1 said:
			
		

> No it's not a hard concept. Still your choice though.  :funnyface





Bingo.  It's my CHOICE to not have sex with men.  Just as it's other guys' choice TO have sex with men.  Nobody is 'forced' into a life of homosexuality.  We CHOOSE homosexual relationships for numerous reasons: Past sexual abuse; bad relationships with parents; confusion; mental issues; spiritual bankruptcy....to name a few.


----------



## HorhayAtAMD

-=d=- said:
			
		

> You make the choice to be heterosexual every day.  You make the choice to 'not' be a theif or a rapist every day.  Our homo or heterosexuality are based solely on one thing: Our Behavior.   Every day I am not having sex with other men I am heterosexual.  The day I have sex with another man I am homosexual, and vice versa.  Homosexuality isn't a condition, it's an action.



I suppose if we can't agree on the very definition of homosexuality then this debate probably won't go anywhere. I understand your definition and based on that, I can understand your argument. I do believe that homosexuality is much more than a behaviour, it is a way you feel. How you choose to act on that feeling *is* up to you, but I don't consider the behaviour to be the defining criteria for sexual orientation. Alcoholics who no longer drink are still alcoholics (ask them). Americans living in other countries are still Americans. Using the same logic, I'm comfortable saying that your sexual orientation is more defined by your feelings than by your behaviour.

I'll close with some quick questions. Take a heterosexual married couple that haven't had sex in years. Are they still heterosexual? Is their marriage still legitimate even though they no longer have sex? Take that same scenario but it is 2 married men that haven't had sex in years. Are they homosexual? They tell each other every morning that they love each other. They look forwarding to seeing the other when they get home at night. In every single *behaviour* (as is your definition of sexual orientation) they are the same as the heterosexual married couple yet you would condemn one and not the other?


----------



## Said1

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Bingo.  It's my CHOICE to not have sex with men.  Just as it's other guys' choice TO have sex with men.  Nobody is 'forced' into a life of homosexuality.  We CHOOSE homosexual relationships for numerous reasons: Past sexual abuse; bad relationships with parents; confusion; mental issues; spiritual bankruptcy....to name a few.



I wasn't arguing that point. In fact, I even went so far as to say I think, for the most part it IS environmental.

What I did have a problem with was the remark you dismissed with  your cute little shrug smile. Every society has it's problems, some have an easier time justifying violence. Some approve of  gay marriage. To-ma-to/Tomahto.

Bu-bye.


----------



## HorhayAtAMD

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> I'll close with some quick questions.



One more: What is the sexual orientation of a 20 year old male virgin who is waiting for marriage but wants to marry a woman? What is his sexual orientation if he wants to marry a man?


----------



## GotZoom

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> I'll close with some quick questions. Take a heterosexual married couple that haven't had sex in years. Are they still heterosexual? Is their marriage still legitimate even though they no longer have sex? Take that same scenario but it is 2 married men that haven't had sex in years. Are they homosexual? They tell each other every morning that they love each other. They look forwarding to seeing the other when they get home at night. In every single *behaviour* (as is your definition of sexual orientation) they are the same as the heterosexual married couple yet you would condemn one and not the other?



You answered your own example - Take a heterosexual couple - they are heterosexual.  N

Now the 2 married men who haven't had sex.  First, they are married to each other.  Find me two hetereosexual men who are married to each other.  They obviuosly had "sexual relations" at some point - they are homosexuals.  

You are suggesting that the sexual act defines someone's sexual preference alone? 

So if I don't have sex with my wife for ______ (how long?), I am automatically a homosexual?  If that is the case, there are a lot of men out there who are gay.


----------



## GotZoom

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> One more: What is the sexual orientation of a 20 year old male virgin who is waiting for marriage but wants to marry a woman? What is his sexual orientation if he wants to marry a man?



If you want to marry a women - hetereosexual.
If you want to marry a man - homosexual.

This shouldn't be that hard.


----------



## HorhayAtAMD

GotZoom said:
			
		

> You are suggesting that the sexual act defines someone's sexual preference alone?



No, read the posts above. I'm suggesting that the sexual act is *not* what defines someone's sexual preference.


----------



## GotZoom

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> No, read the posts above. I'm suggesting that the sexual act is *not* what defines someone's sexual preference.



In your mind then, what does define someone's sexual preference?

How do you "show" your sexual preference?


----------



## HorhayAtAMD

GotZoom said:
			
		

> In your mind then, what does define someone's sexual preference?
> 
> How do you "show" your sexual preference?



If you are sexually or romantically attracted to people of the same gender, you are a homosexual, whether or not you actually have sex with them. Some choose to "show" it by entering relationships with people of the same gender, some choose to cover it up by either remaining celibate or by trying to force themselves to be with people of the opposite gender.

I knew I was a heterosexual long before I ever had sex which is why I believe sexual orientation is a feeling, not a behaviour.


----------



## Isaac Brock

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Great debate everyone.
> 
> However, you are missing the point that D and I are making.
> 
> No one is justifiying rape or molesting a child.  No one says that people who do this should get off from prosecution.
> 
> What we are saying is this:  Years ago, homosexuality was a disease..it was abnormal and unacceptable.  Through the years, with the proper lobbying from certain people with "agendas", it has become acceptable because they are "born that way."  Since they are born that way, they are not abnormal and their rights should change accordingly.
> 
> Fast forward to a rape case or a child molestation case (or a murder case, or...any case).  A crafty, sleazy lawyer can get a doctor on the stand to say that his client's behavior was born, not learned.  He was born to rape, born to molest, born to murder, born to ________, therefore, using the same argument as homosexuals, their behavior is not abnormal, it is something they were born with.  Therefore, the sentence must be lighter.
> 
> With some of the liberal agendas today, combined with the ACLU, and the way that some judges are ruling, this is not that far out of the realm of possibility.
> 
> I think I can speak for D (and myself obviously), that neither of us condone or want to lessen the stigma and criminality of rape or molestation.  We do not want lighter sentences (get real).
> 
> We are simply saying that if society continues to progress as it has in the past decades, why is this so hard to consider?



Well, while we can pick at the morality of homosexuality for days and never come to a conclusion satiating all parties, the real meat of the matter of course is, like so many things, the right of government to accept majority democratically supported morality.

My view is that the less times the government enters the realms of morality, the better, but I know that is impossible given the nature of our society's structure.  Which is precisely why, the outlawing of homosexual marriage in law and the accepting of homosexual marriage in law has equal weight in government interference in morality.


----------



## GotZoom

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> If you are sexually or romantically attracted to people of the same gender, you are a homosexual, whether or not you actually have sex with them. Some choose to "show" it by entering relationships with people of the same gender, some choose to cover it up by either remaining celibate or by trying to force themselves to be with people of the opposite gender.
> 
> I knew I was a heterosexual long before I ever had sex which is why I believe sexual orientation is a feeling, not a behaviour.



How?

There are many people who decide they like someone of their own gender before they have sex with them. 

I'm not convinced that people are "born that way."  I think they have a choice also...to be heterosexual or homosexual. 

Using the moment in 2nd grade when little Jenny hit you as the defining moment of your sexual preference isn't exactly feasible.

There is the chance that in 9th grade gym class, when you saw Jimmy in the shower, you said to yourself that you wanted him.  Or you could have not thought otherwise.  

You made that choice to not "like" Jimmy.


----------



## HorhayAtAMD

GotZoom said:
			
		

> There is the chance that in 9th grade gym class, when you saw Jimmy in the shower, you said to yourself that you wanted him.  Or you could have not thought otherwise.
> 
> You made that choice to not "like" Jimmy.



There was no chance of me liking Jimmy more than Katy in a romantic way, ever. Sure, I could have chosen to go against my preference and started a relationship with him which is something that many gay people choose to do: force themselves to act against their preference. d is right, we have the choice to behave in any way we want but I don't think we have a choice about how we will *prefer* to behave. I define homosexuality by the *preference*, not by the eventual choice of behaviour.


----------



## HorhayAtAMD

GotZoom said:
			
		

> I'm not convinced that people are "born that way."  I think they have a choice also...to be heterosexual or homosexual.



I don't know how much credence you put in the decrees of the Catholic church but even they make a distinction between being homosexual (wanting people of the same gender) and the behaviour. Being homosexual is fine, you are not a sinner and you will get to heaven without any form of sexual re-orientation. You can't even say that the church is specifically against homosexual acts, only that they are against ANY sexual acts before marriage and, since homosexuals aren't allowed to marry, homosexual acts aren't allowed.



> Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose.
> 
> God loves every person as a unique individual. Sexual identity helps to define the unique persons we are. One component of our sexual identity is sexual orientation...God does not love someone any less simply because he or she is homosexual.


Link


----------



## GotZoom

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> I don't know how much credence you put in the decrees of the Catholic church but even they make a distinction between being homosexual (wanting people of the same gender) and the behaviour. Being homosexual is fine, you are not a sinner and you will get to heaven without any form of sexual re-orientation. You can't even say that the church is specifically against homosexual acts, only that they are against ANY sexual acts before marriage and, since homosexuals aren't allowed to marry, homosexual acts aren't allowed.
> 
> 
> Link



So that "men shall not lay with men" thing is just superfluous?


----------



## HorhayAtAMD

GotZoom said:
			
		

> So that "men shall not lay with men" thing is just superfluous?


Hehe, fair enough.  Still though, all my other points stand. The bible condemns the behaviour, not the preference, at least according to the Catholics.


----------



## MrMarbles

1) How does homosexuality hurt society?

2) If you can choose to be gay, do you also choose to be straight?


----------



## Said1

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> 2) If you can choose to be gay, do you also choose to be straight?



Why of course Marbles, what do you think we've been doing all this time.  :rotflmao:


----------



## dilloduck

MrMarbles said:
			
		

> 1) How does homosexuality hurt society?
> 
> 2) If you can choose to be gay, do you also choose to be straight?




It's perfecty normal and safe-----in Canada .


----------



## Said1

dilloduck said:
			
		

> It's perfecty normal and safe-----in Canada .




What happens to queers in Austin?


----------



## dilloduck

Said1 said:
			
		

> What happens to queers in Austin?



They pretty much do whatever they want to. If the mayor had the power to make it homosexual marriage legal, he probably would.


----------



## GotZoom

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> at least according to the Catholics.



If we are using the Catholic's interpretation of the Bible......

Geez.......

Then we will need to talk about Baptists, Protestants, etc....Everyone has their own interpretation. 

How in the world can any religion spin "man shall not lay with man"?


----------



## Nienna

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> If you are sexually or romantically attracted to people of the same gender, you are a homosexual, whether or not you actually have sex with them. Some choose to "show" it by entering relationships with people of the same gender, some choose to cover it up by either remaining celibate or by trying to force themselves to be with people of the opposite gender.
> 
> I knew I was a heterosexual long before I ever had sex which is why I believe sexual orientation is a feeling, not a behaviour.



Check out the guy in the thread a few days back. He got married to a woman. He likes to have sex with women. He also wanted to be a woman, so he had a sex change. It isn't just about who you have sex with, or even who you _want _ to have sex with. It is confusion about your own basic identity.


----------



## stealthylizard

I'm surprised that polygamy isn't being reviewed, after all it's a religious issue, and should be considered more as a "right" than gay marriage.  Or is that the next marriage amendment?


----------



## stealthylizard

In Canada, the majority of the population supports gay marriage so it is the responsibility of the government to react. In the US, the majority does not support gay marriage and it has been struck down in most States. What's the problem? It seems to me like democracy is working perfectly![/QUOTE

Over 60% of Canadians opposed gay marriage. That is why it was never made a referendum issue, it would have been defeated.  Now the Liberal party invokes closure removing the democratic process.


----------



## HorhayAtAMD

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Over 60% of Canadians opposed gay marriage. That is why it was never made a referendum issue, it would have been defeated.  Now the Liberal party invokes closure removing the democratic process.


The Associated Press disagrees with you.


> According to most polls, a majority of Canadians support the right for gays and lesbians to marry. In the United States, gay marriage is opposed by a majority of Americans, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in November, shortly after constitutional amendments in 11 states to ban same-sex marriage were approved.


Link


----------

