I'd like to hear why you think government controled marriage for heterosexual couples is a right. By your arguments, this should only be between your god/church.
I also wonder if you think interracial marriage is okay when the god clearly made separate races of people. At least, that is was the religious argument for why interracial marriage is morally wrong and should not be recognized. How may years after the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case did it take before you finally accepted interracial marriage as acceptable? Or haven't you?
What is moral and sacred about marriage is divorce and adultery can occur so easily? I believe that each crime is punishable by stoning, according to the bible. The bible has a lot more to say about divorce than it does about homosexuality. Have you ever had friends that committed adultery or got divorced? Did you spit in their face and sold them for their actions when you found out?
Control yourself. YOU are the one that is intolerant, making up all manner of things to accuse me of. You lost on the gay marriage issue, and you still won't tolerate the will of the majority. Maybe you'll give yourself a stroke, one can only hope.
Control yourself. YOU are the one that is intolerant, making up all manner of things to accuse me of. You lost on the gay marriage issue, and you still won't tolerate the will of the majority. Maybe you'll give yourself a stroke, one can only hope.
First of all, I'm way to young and in shape to be likely of having a stroke. As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you. I feel bad for people who have that much hate for what they fear.
Secondly, as I and others have pointed out, the victory you claim was, essentially, a Pyrrhic victory as it cost over $100M, the vote was much, much lower than the previous election, and was close enough that when it's brought up again—and it will—it won't stand a chance no matter how much money is thrown at it.
Third, you never answered my questions about your feelings about Loving v. Virginia way "back in the day". You might truly be offended by the comparison, but given your stated age and the fact that your Christen-based arguments being identical in vein to the objections of interracial marriages I can't help but think you would have objected to it. I don't hold it or your current stance on other civil rights against you as hatred and intolerance is learned. I am genuinely curious why your stance on on Loving v. Virginia changed or if it changed at all, for or against.
Lastly, you've made mention many times why the Bible backs up your feelings of homosexuality is wrong and marriage is sacred, but when I ask you about the other matrimonial-based sins and refreshed your memory on the vast changes to marriage over the eons you have failed to respond.
First of all, I'm way to young and in shape to be likely of having a stroke. As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you. I feel bad for people who have that much hate for what they fear.
Secondly, as I and others have pointed out, the victory you claim was, essentially, a Pyrrhic victory as it cost over $100M, the vote was much, much lower than the previous election, and was close enough that when it's brought up again?and it will?it won't stand a chance no matter how much money is thrown at it.
Third, you never answered my questions about your feelings about Loving v. Virginia way "back in the day". You might truly be offended by the comparison, but given your stated age and the fact that your Christen-based arguments being identical in vein to the objections of interracial marriages I can't help but think you would have objected to it. I don't hold it or your current stance on other civil rights against you as hatred and intolerance is learned. I am genuinely curious why your stance on on Loving v. Virginia changed or if it changed at all, for or against.
Lastly, you've made mention many times why the Bible backs up your feelings of homosexuality is wrong and marriage is sacred, but when I ask you about the other matrimonial-based sins and refreshed your memory on the vast changes to marriage over the eons you have failed to respond.
Interracial marriages are not the subject here, gay marriages are. I oppose gay marriage, just like the majority in this country. If you don't accept that, then you're lying to yourself.
Interracial marriages are not the subject here, gay marriages are. I oppose gay marriage, just like the majority in this country. If you don't accept that, then you're lying to yourself.
I accept it as it currently stands, but I also accept that progress is not stopped by a short term roadblock, just delayed a little.BTW, I care about California law and homosexual marriage as much I care about your rights to Social Security, freedom of speech, religion, etc. Meaning, I care only about the essence of civil rights and the freedoms from church and state that this country was founded on, but I have no personal stake in any of it so it's quite impossible for me to get angry about it.
As for religious feelings of gay marriages today and interracial marriages of 40+ years ago, there are extensive comparisons on the subject. Since you would have been an adult around my age back then I thought you could shed some light on your feelings on that situation. I think by exploring this subject it may show you that no matter how much you try to strip people of basic civil rights, even to the point of considering other human beings as chattel, eventually humanity will prevail when the fear and hatred subside. it's not a fast process, but it is a process that will ultimately prevail, whether you accept it or not. Assuming you live to the median age for adult male in the US, I think you'll see the the law changed in California, however you probably won't see it made nationwide. For your sake, I hope you don't see either of these come to fruition in your lifetime.
Control yourself. YOU are the one that is intolerant, making up all manner of things to accuse me of. You lost on the gay marriage issue, and you still won't tolerate the will of the majority. Maybe you'll give yourself a stroke, one can only hope.
Give it up zinfella. I'm on your side, but you will never win here. You know why?
One is only able to understand something when one is whiling to take responsible for that very thing. Do you think people who support gay marriage are taking responsibility for our future, our children, our society? Arguing with someone like that is pointless, or worst, you are giving them power by doing so.
Fact is, the enemy is something that was imported into the US after World War 2, Phycology. Phycology is in the business of destruction, the decline of our civilization in the US stared at that very moment. All one needs do is take a look at the statistics. Education has been on a decline curve ever since, so has morality, so has freedom and so on.
You are trying to communicate with people who have been indoctrinated into this Cult. Argue not with the insane for that only ads fuel to the insanity. Instead take action to destroy the enemy and liberate our country for this death machine called Phycology.
Fact is, the enemy is something that was imported into the US after World War 2, Phycology. Phycology is in the business of destruction, the decline of our civilization in the US stared at that very moment.
[...]
Instead take action to destroy the enemy and liberate our country for this death machine called Phycology.
phy·col·o·gy |fīˈkäləjē|
noun
— the branch of botany concerned with seaweeds and other algae.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I accept it as it currently stands, but I also accept that progress is not stopped by a short term roadblock, just delayed a little.BTW, I care about California law and homosexual marriage as much I care about your rights to Social Security, freedom of speech, religion, etc. Meaning, I care only about the essence of civil rights and the freedoms from church and state that this country was founded on, but I have no personal stake in any of it so it's quite impossible for me to get angry about it.
As for religious feelings of gay marriages today and interracial marriages of 40+ years ago, there are extensive comparisons on the subject. Since you would have been an adult around my age back then I thought you could shed some light on your feelings on that situation. I think by exploring this subject it may show you that no matter how much you try to strip people of basic civil rights, even to the point of considering other human beings as chattel, eventually humanity will prevail when the fear and hatred subside. it's not a fast process, but it is a process that will ultimately prevail, whether you accept it or not. Assuming you live to the median age for adult male in the US, I think you'll see the the law changed in California, however you probably won't see it made nationwide. For your sake, I hope you don't see either of these come to fruition in your lifetime.
I oppose gay marriage, I'm not obsessed by it. You completely misread me.
As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you.
One thing that it says about me is that I don't suffer elitists well at all, and you're an elitist. You've made some wild assumptions about me, with nothing to support them, beyond your imagination. Not only did you reveal an utter contempt for religion, but you don't want anyone else to see anything positive about it.
You probably have no military service on your record, and you probably abhor the military anyway, like a good little liberal. Your life experience is not near what you think it is, take my word for it. You're probably a supporter of abortion, and I always wish that such people had mothers that practiced it.
I personally don't think religion is the problem. I think it's the people controlling the religions that's the problem. There's a lot of positive that religions teach, yet somehow, many of the people who consider themselves religious are the most intolerant and hateful people who exist.
It is people who have chosen to interpret the bible in a way to suit their own view of morality... and yes, it goes both ways. I, as a gay man, choose to interpret the bible in terms of love, tolerance and understanding... to do unto others as you'd have done unto you. Unless it hurts others, live and let live.
Gay marriage doesn't hurt heterosexuals but it gives validity to a way of being that some find offensive. Well you know what? Too bad. I find it offensive that people use the bible and religion to justify their intolerance and hatred of their fellow man.
There are a lot of positives that comes from religion and religious teachings. But you have to be consistent in your beliefs and understanding. You can't pick and choose who to tolerate and who not to tolerate. You can't say marriage is sacred so let's prevent homosexuals from using the term yet think it's okay to divorce if your marriage doesn't work out. You can't love thy neighbor and talk behind his back and judge his way of life. You can't cast the first stone unless you yourself are without sin.
...And you can't say the way I love another human being is any less valuable and valid than the way you love another human being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
Not only did you reveal an utter contempt for religion, but you don't want anyone else to see anything positive about it.
First of all, I'm way to young and in shape to be likely of having a stroke. As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you. I feel bad for people who have that much hate for what they fear.
Secondly, as I and others have pointed out, the victory you claim was, essentially, a Pyrrhic victory as it cost over $100M, the vote was much, much lower than the previous election, and was close enough that when it's brought up again?and it will?it won't stand a chance no matter how much money is thrown at it.
Third, you never answered my questions about your feelings about Loving v. Virginia way "back in the day". You might truly be offended by the comparison, but given your stated age and the fact that your Christen-based arguments being identical in vein to the objections of interracial marriages I can't help but think you would have objected to it. I don't hold it or your current stance on other civil rights against you as hatred and intolerance is learned. I am genuinely curious why your stance on on Loving v. Virginia changed or if it changed at all, for or against.
Lastly, you've made mention many times why the Bible backs up your feelings of homosexuality is wrong and marriage is sacred, but when I ask you about the other matrimonial-based sins and refreshed your memory on the vast changes to marriage over the eons you have failed to respond.
You just LOVE the pro gay marriage talking points, no matter how much they don't apply here. Here's a couple of links that spell it out as far as I'm concerned.
A previous supporter of gay marriage ban speaks emotionally against it. Glad to see there are people who are not too old or closed-minded to admit when they're wrong.
Wasn't Arnie previously against gay marriage as well?
Here in Canada, one of the last thing our previous Liberal Government did was to legalize gay marriage across the country. When the Conservative government came to power a few months later, our new Prime Minister who was vocally against gay marriage fulfilled a campaign promise to put the debate back on the table and to put it to yet another vote. Even with a party that did not support gay marriage in power, that vote permanently redefined marriage as being between two persons, NOT just between a man and a woman.
To my friends south of the border, KEEP UP THE FIGHT! It's not over by a long shot, despite the rhetoric of finality by the likes of Zinfella (or more accurately, Sinfella). I truly hope he lives to see the day.
Here in Canada, one of the last thing our previous Liberal Government did was to legalize gay marriage across the country. When the Conservative government came to power a few months later, our new Prime Minister who was vocally against gay marriage fulfilled a campaign promise to put the debate back on the table and to put it to yet another vote. Even with a party that did not support gay marriage in power, that vote permanently redefined marriage as being between two persons, NOT just between a man and a woman.
To my friends south of the border, KEEP UP THE FIGHT! It's not over by a long shot, despite the rhetoric of finality by the likes of Zinfella (or more accurately, Sinfella). I truly hope he lives to see the day.
It's funny to see how quickly the idea of 'gay marriage' becomes permanent when its supporters win.
However, when they lose, the idea is to be forever revisited.
The idea of 'gay marriage' is by no means settled in Canada. It was legalized by the weakest and lamest Prime Minister in our country's history, who was thrown out of office at the electorate's first real opportunity. That Martin was weak and relied heavily on gay activists during his short tenure is a matter of public record.
As was its champion, the idea of gay marriage would be tossed out by the Canadian electorate if they were given a vote on it as in California. This cheap facsimile of what marriage really is has always been eventually legislated in weak, decadent societies, from ancient Babylon to the Roman Empire.
And once those societies either fall or recover, it has always been tossed aside by subsequent thinking populations.
It's a lot easier to give rights than it is to take them away, especially for an issue where equality is so fundamental.
Whether or not gay marriage would have been legalized had the Canadian electorate been given the vote is debatable. However, it has been legal for a few years now and it hasn't changed a thing, other than to allow homosexuals to marry. Some may be offended by this but this is no basis for denying equality to a segment of society. Because of this, I believe that if the Canadian electorate was allowed to vote on this issue today, a majority of Canadians would support it. There will always be narrow-minded people like you but just as we still have a small group of hateful racists who participate in groups such as the KKK, one day, the homophobes will one day also be considered just another hateful, ignorant minority dismissed by the rest of society.
I find it funny that the same people who hold marriage to such high standards turn a blind eye to the high rate of divorce. Would you deny heterosexuals the right to marry if you knew it was done so on a whim or for publicity sakes? Face it dude, marriage isn't the sacred union it was once considered to be and is this way because of the behaviour of heterosexuals. You sound like one of those people who stereotype heterosexuals as promiscuous, sex-crazed, druggies (representing the weak and decadent part of society). Yet, you would deny the right of two people of the same sex who want to make a commitment to each other the right to do so.
As far as using Babylon and the Roman Empire as comparisons to Canada, all I have to say is, you're bloody hilarious! Thanks for the laugh... now I know not to take you seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
It's funny to see how quickly the idea of 'gay marriage' becomes permanent when its supporters win.
However, when they lose, the idea is to be forever revisited.
The idea of 'gay marriage' is by no means settled in Canada. It was legalized by the weakest and lamest Prime Minister in our country's history, who was thrown out of office at the electorate's first real opportunity. That Martin was weak and relied heavily on gay activists during his short tenure is a matter of public record.
As was its champion, the idea of gay marriage would be tossed out by the Canadian electorate if they were given a vote on it as in California. This cheap facsimile of what marriage really is has always been eventually legislated in weak, decadent societies, from ancient Babylon to the Roman Empire.
And once those societies either fall or recover, it has always been tossed aside by subsequent thinking populations.
Zinfella, were you for or against interracial marriage, or individual States' rights to ban it, back in the day? I really would like to know the answer to this question.
And please be honest. Remember, you're a Christian, and Christians don't lie. Right?
Zinfella, were you for or against interracial marriage, or individual States' rights to ban it, back in the day? I really would like to know the answer to this question.
And please be honest. Remember, you're a Christian, and Christians don't lie. Right?
If you had read the links that I posted on the 19th, you'd know the answer.
Comments
I'd like to hear why you think government controled marriage for heterosexual couples is a right. By your arguments, this should only be between your god/church.
I also wonder if you think interracial marriage is okay when the god clearly made separate races of people. At least, that is was the religious argument for why interracial marriage is morally wrong and should not be recognized. How may years after the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case did it take before you finally accepted interracial marriage as acceptable? Or haven't you?
What is moral and sacred about marriage is divorce and adultery can occur so easily? I believe that each crime is punishable by stoning, according to the bible. The bible has a lot more to say about divorce than it does about homosexuality. Have you ever had friends that committed adultery or got divorced? Did you spit in their face and sold them for their actions when you found out?
Control yourself. YOU are the one that is intolerant, making up all manner of things to accuse me of. You lost on the gay marriage issue, and you still won't tolerate the will of the majority. Maybe you'll give yourself a stroke, one can only hope.
Control yourself. YOU are the one that is intolerant, making up all manner of things to accuse me of. You lost on the gay marriage issue, and you still won't tolerate the will of the majority. Maybe you'll give yourself a stroke, one can only hope.
First of all, I'm way to young and in shape to be likely of having a stroke. As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you. I feel bad for people who have that much hate for what they fear.
Secondly, as I and others have pointed out, the victory you claim was, essentially, a Pyrrhic victory as it cost over $100M, the vote was much, much lower than the previous election, and was close enough that when it's brought up again—and it will—it won't stand a chance no matter how much money is thrown at it.
Third, you never answered my questions about your feelings about Loving v. Virginia way "back in the day". You might truly be offended by the comparison, but given your stated age and the fact that your Christen-based arguments being identical in vein to the objections of interracial marriages I can't help but think you would have objected to it. I don't hold it or your current stance on other civil rights against you as hatred and intolerance is learned. I am genuinely curious why your stance on on Loving v. Virginia changed or if it changed at all, for or against.
Lastly, you've made mention many times why the Bible backs up your feelings of homosexuality is wrong and marriage is sacred, but when I ask you about the other matrimonial-based sins and refreshed your memory on the vast changes to marriage over the eons you have failed to respond.
First of all, I'm way to young and in shape to be likely of having a stroke. As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you. I feel bad for people who have that much hate for what they fear.
Secondly, as I and others have pointed out, the victory you claim was, essentially, a Pyrrhic victory as it cost over $100M, the vote was much, much lower than the previous election, and was close enough that when it's brought up again?and it will?it won't stand a chance no matter how much money is thrown at it.
Third, you never answered my questions about your feelings about Loving v. Virginia way "back in the day". You might truly be offended by the comparison, but given your stated age and the fact that your Christen-based arguments being identical in vein to the objections of interracial marriages I can't help but think you would have objected to it. I don't hold it or your current stance on other civil rights against you as hatred and intolerance is learned. I am genuinely curious why your stance on on Loving v. Virginia changed or if it changed at all, for or against.
Lastly, you've made mention many times why the Bible backs up your feelings of homosexuality is wrong and marriage is sacred, but when I ask you about the other matrimonial-based sins and refreshed your memory on the vast changes to marriage over the eons you have failed to respond.
Interracial marriages are not the subject here, gay marriages are. I oppose gay marriage, just like the majority in this country. If you don't accept that, then you're lying to yourself.
Interracial marriages are not the subject here, gay marriages are. I oppose gay marriage, just like the majority in this country. If you don't accept that, then you're lying to yourself.
I accept it as it currently stands, but I also accept that progress is not stopped by a short term roadblock, just delayed a little.BTW, I care about California law and homosexual marriage as much I care about your rights to Social Security, freedom of speech, religion, etc. Meaning, I care only about the essence of civil rights and the freedoms from church and state that this country was founded on, but I have no personal stake in any of it so it's quite impossible for me to get angry about it.
As for religious feelings of gay marriages today and interracial marriages of 40+ years ago, there are extensive comparisons on the subject. Since you would have been an adult around my age back then I thought you could shed some light on your feelings on that situation. I think by exploring this subject it may show you that no matter how much you try to strip people of basic civil rights, even to the point of considering other human beings as chattel, eventually humanity will prevail when the fear and hatred subside. it's not a fast process, but it is a process that will ultimately prevail, whether you accept it or not. Assuming you live to the median age for adult male in the US, I think you'll see the the law changed in California, however you probably won't see it made nationwide. For your sake, I hope you don't see either of these come to fruition in your lifetime.
Control yourself. YOU are the one that is intolerant, making up all manner of things to accuse me of. You lost on the gay marriage issue, and you still won't tolerate the will of the majority. Maybe you'll give yourself a stroke, one can only hope.
Give it up zinfella. I'm on your side, but you will never win here. You know why?
One is only able to understand something when one is whiling to take responsible for that very thing. Do you think people who support gay marriage are taking responsibility for our future, our children, our society? Arguing with someone like that is pointless, or worst, you are giving them power by doing so.
Fact is, the enemy is something that was imported into the US after World War 2, Phycology. Phycology is in the business of destruction, the decline of our civilization in the US stared at that very moment. All one needs do is take a look at the statistics. Education has been on a decline curve ever since, so has morality, so has freedom and so on.
You are trying to communicate with people who have been indoctrinated into this Cult. Argue not with the insane for that only ads fuel to the insanity. Instead take action to destroy the enemy and liberate our country for this death machine called Phycology.
[...]
Fact is, the enemy is something that was imported into the US after World War 2, Phycology. Phycology is in the business of destruction, the decline of our civilization in the US stared at that very moment.
[...]
Instead take action to destroy the enemy and liberate our country for this death machine called Phycology.
phy·col·o·gy |fīˈkäləjē|
noun
— the branch of botany concerned with seaweeds and other algae.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I accept it as it currently stands, but I also accept that progress is not stopped by a short term roadblock, just delayed a little.BTW, I care about California law and homosexual marriage as much I care about your rights to Social Security, freedom of speech, religion, etc. Meaning, I care only about the essence of civil rights and the freedoms from church and state that this country was founded on, but I have no personal stake in any of it so it's quite impossible for me to get angry about it.
As for religious feelings of gay marriages today and interracial marriages of 40+ years ago, there are extensive comparisons on the subject. Since you would have been an adult around my age back then I thought you could shed some light on your feelings on that situation. I think by exploring this subject it may show you that no matter how much you try to strip people of basic civil rights, even to the point of considering other human beings as chattel, eventually humanity will prevail when the fear and hatred subside. it's not a fast process, but it is a process that will ultimately prevail, whether you accept it or not. Assuming you live to the median age for adult male in the US, I think you'll see the the law changed in California, however you probably won't see it made nationwide. For your sake, I hope you don't see either of these come to fruition in your lifetime.
I oppose gay marriage, I'm not obsessed by it. You completely misread me.
As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you.
One thing that it says about me is that I don't suffer elitists well at all, and you're an elitist. You've made some wild assumptions about me, with nothing to support them, beyond your imagination. Not only did you reveal an utter contempt for religion, but you don't want anyone else to see anything positive about it.
You probably have no military service on your record, and you probably abhor the military anyway, like a good little liberal. Your life experience is not near what you think it is, take my word for it. You're probably a supporter of abortion, and I always wish that such people had mothers that practiced it.
phy·col·o·gy |fīˈkäləjē|
noun
? the branch of botany concerned with seaweeds and other algae.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Don't mock zinfella's God!
It is people who have chosen to interpret the bible in a way to suit their own view of morality... and yes, it goes both ways. I, as a gay man, choose to interpret the bible in terms of love, tolerance and understanding... to do unto others as you'd have done unto you. Unless it hurts others, live and let live.
Gay marriage doesn't hurt heterosexuals but it gives validity to a way of being that some find offensive. Well you know what? Too bad. I find it offensive that people use the bible and religion to justify their intolerance and hatred of their fellow man.
There are a lot of positives that comes from religion and religious teachings. But you have to be consistent in your beliefs and understanding. You can't pick and choose who to tolerate and who not to tolerate. You can't say marriage is sacred so let's prevent homosexuals from using the term yet think it's okay to divorce if your marriage doesn't work out. You can't love thy neighbor and talk behind his back and judge his way of life. You can't cast the first stone unless you yourself are without sin.
...And you can't say the way I love another human being is any less valuable and valid than the way you love another human being.
Not only did you reveal an utter contempt for religion, but you don't want anyone else to see anything positive about it.
Don't mock zinfella's God!
You are beyond being moronic.
First of all, I'm way to young and in shape to be likely of having a stroke. As for wishing that upon anyone for disagreeing with you says a lot about you. I feel bad for people who have that much hate for what they fear.
Secondly, as I and others have pointed out, the victory you claim was, essentially, a Pyrrhic victory as it cost over $100M, the vote was much, much lower than the previous election, and was close enough that when it's brought up again?and it will?it won't stand a chance no matter how much money is thrown at it.
Third, you never answered my questions about your feelings about Loving v. Virginia way "back in the day". You might truly be offended by the comparison, but given your stated age and the fact that your Christen-based arguments being identical in vein to the objections of interracial marriages I can't help but think you would have objected to it. I don't hold it or your current stance on other civil rights against you as hatred and intolerance is learned. I am genuinely curious why your stance on on Loving v. Virginia changed or if it changed at all, for or against.
Lastly, you've made mention many times why the Bible backs up your feelings of homosexuality is wrong and marriage is sacred, but when I ask you about the other matrimonial-based sins and refreshed your memory on the vast changes to marriage over the eons you have failed to respond.
You just LOVE the pro gay marriage talking points, no matter how much they don't apply here. Here's a couple of links that spell it out as far as I'm concerned.
http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...e_right_to_win
http://townhall.com/columnists/Denni..._the_new_black
You're comparing apples to oranges. Now, why don't the pro gay marriage sore losers protest in black neighborhoods, like they do in others?
A previous supporter of gay marriage ban speaks emotionally against it. Glad to see there are people who are not too old or closed-minded to admit when they're wrong.
Wasn't Arnie previously against gay marriage as well?
Here in Canada, one of the last thing our previous Liberal Government did was to legalize gay marriage across the country. When the Conservative government came to power a few months later, our new Prime Minister who was vocally against gay marriage fulfilled a campaign promise to put the debate back on the table and to put it to yet another vote. Even with a party that did not support gay marriage in power, that vote permanently redefined marriage as being between two persons, NOT just between a man and a woman.
To my friends south of the border, KEEP UP THE FIGHT! It's not over by a long shot, despite the rhetoric of finality by the likes of Zinfella (or more accurately, Sinfella). I truly hope he lives to see the day.
Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court
That is no guarantee of success for gay marriage.
Here in Canada, one of the last thing our previous Liberal Government did was to legalize gay marriage across the country. When the Conservative government came to power a few months later, our new Prime Minister who was vocally against gay marriage fulfilled a campaign promise to put the debate back on the table and to put it to yet another vote. Even with a party that did not support gay marriage in power, that vote permanently redefined marriage as being between two persons, NOT just between a man and a woman.
To my friends south of the border, KEEP UP THE FIGHT! It's not over by a long shot, despite the rhetoric of finality by the likes of Zinfella (or more accurately, Sinfella). I truly hope he lives to see the day.
It's funny to see how quickly the idea of 'gay marriage' becomes permanent when its supporters win.
However, when they lose, the idea is to be forever revisited.
The idea of 'gay marriage' is by no means settled in Canada. It was legalized by the weakest and lamest Prime Minister in our country's history, who was thrown out of office at the electorate's first real opportunity. That Martin was weak and relied heavily on gay activists during his short tenure is a matter of public record.
As was its champion, the idea of gay marriage would be tossed out by the Canadian electorate if they were given a vote on it as in California. This cheap facsimile of what marriage really is has always been eventually legislated in weak, decadent societies, from ancient Babylon to the Roman Empire.
And once those societies either fall or recover, it has always been tossed aside by subsequent thinking populations.
Whether or not gay marriage would have been legalized had the Canadian electorate been given the vote is debatable. However, it has been legal for a few years now and it hasn't changed a thing, other than to allow homosexuals to marry. Some may be offended by this but this is no basis for denying equality to a segment of society. Because of this, I believe that if the Canadian electorate was allowed to vote on this issue today, a majority of Canadians would support it. There will always be narrow-minded people like you but just as we still have a small group of hateful racists who participate in groups such as the KKK, one day, the homophobes will one day also be considered just another hateful, ignorant minority dismissed by the rest of society.
I find it funny that the same people who hold marriage to such high standards turn a blind eye to the high rate of divorce. Would you deny heterosexuals the right to marry if you knew it was done so on a whim or for publicity sakes? Face it dude, marriage isn't the sacred union it was once considered to be and is this way because of the behaviour of heterosexuals. You sound like one of those people who stereotype heterosexuals as promiscuous, sex-crazed, druggies (representing the weak and decadent part of society). Yet, you would deny the right of two people of the same sex who want to make a commitment to each other the right to do so.
As far as using Babylon and the Roman Empire as comparisons to Canada, all I have to say is, you're bloody hilarious! Thanks for the laugh... now I know not to take you seriously.
It's funny to see how quickly the idea of 'gay marriage' becomes permanent when its supporters win.
However, when they lose, the idea is to be forever revisited.
The idea of 'gay marriage' is by no means settled in Canada. It was legalized by the weakest and lamest Prime Minister in our country's history, who was thrown out of office at the electorate's first real opportunity. That Martin was weak and relied heavily on gay activists during his short tenure is a matter of public record.
As was its champion, the idea of gay marriage would be tossed out by the Canadian electorate if they were given a vote on it as in California. This cheap facsimile of what marriage really is has always been eventually legislated in weak, decadent societies, from ancient Babylon to the Roman Empire.
And once those societies either fall or recover, it has always been tossed aside by subsequent thinking populations.
Zinfella, were you for or against interracial marriage, or individual States' rights to ban it, back in the day? I really would like to know the answer to this question.
And please be honest. Remember, you're a Christian, and Christians don't lie. Right?
Canuck raises a hell of a good point.
Zinfella, were you for or against interracial marriage, or individual States' rights to ban it, back in the day? I really would like to know the answer to this question.
And please be honest. Remember, you're a Christian, and Christians don't lie. Right?
If you had read the links that I posted on the 19th, you'd know the answer.