# Same-Sex Marriage



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

So, there is a parliamentary committee currently examing the issue of whether same-sex marriages should be made legal in Canada...where do you stand on the issue? 

Please keep your posts thoughtful and tasteful, without a lot of inflamatory religious dogma. 

Personally, I am 100% supportive of gay marriage...because the "institution" is really about two individual's commitment to one another and not about their gender. 

Two men or two women being married has no impact on other people's marriages...plain and simple.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

RtC, why can't the government "afford" to do so? Please explain what you mean. 

I'm for same-sex marriages. This is supposedly an open society and this is the 21st century.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I would agree with VGG's statement that "...the institution" is really about two individual's commitment to one another and not about their gender." While I am happily married to a woman, I see no reason to deny someone this legal committment be they two men or two women.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G.,

what about your 2 doxies?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Affection attraction sexually is genetic and simply should be recognized as such. The nature of the commitment is what counts not the particular flavour.  
Bring it on...everywhere.
Okay so I was wrong - carry on


----------



## Kirtland (Aug 18, 2002)

The government should stop wasting tax payers money trying to fight something that is a basic human right.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macspectrum, we intended to breed Daisy and Rootie, the only two Standard Wirehaired Dachshunds in all of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we just discovered that Rootie has a heart murmur, which is genetic. Thus, sadly, we won't breed them as a way of not extending this trait. Daisy has become the dominant doxie in this house, and the fact that she outweighs Rootie by 4 pounds makes a difference. Still, they have fun together playing tag out in the snow.

Why would I want to interfere with any two people having such fun out in the snow.....or wherever?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Affection attraction sexually is genetic and simply should be recognized as such.*

Has that been concluded? (I'm asking, I don't know)


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Dr G wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Daisy has become the dominant doxie in this house <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course she is, she's a female! 
There often seem to be "male and female" traits with same-sex couples. I wonder if the one type of characteristic results in a tendency to be more dominant in those relationships? Just thinking out loud, so don't go dumping on me folks. 
I'm a bit of a traditional thinker and make no apologies for that. Same sex relationships don't bother me, but I can't help wonder if these relationships, if made "legal", shouldn't maybe have a different title or legal designation other than the traditional "marriage license". Giving it the same designation as a (usually) procreative heterosexual marrige seems to be what's getting many upset. It IS a different relationship to those who see marriage as a (often religious) contract between a man and a woman, with procreation being a fundamental concept. The influences of the male and female gender (if they stay together) are part of the family unit. So, although both types of relationships are based on love and sex, there is a definite difference in the players, according to the tradition. And since much of the world's societies are based on tradition, maybe it's best to create new designations rather than change current ones. Again, thinking out loud and open to non-fanatical feedback. I'm not stuck on this opinion, just not sure of the comfort zone


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

As far as I've heard, the attraction thing has not been proven to be genetic or learned either, they haven't been able to provide conclusive proof that it is one way or the other, all they know is that sometime during development a switch goes slightly off and a person sees desirable traits in another human being of the same sex. Personally, I don't agree with same-sex relationships, but if someone wishes to do it, then it is up to you, I have my right to not like it, but if I hold it against you, shame on me.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

This is a tough topic for me because I think marriage is more and more a legal arrangement these days. Of course I come at this from the standpoint of an agnostic. And, perhaps, I'm jaded about the divorce rate. Despite my personal beliefs in legally recognized marriage, it is not just or correct for Canada to disallow same-sex marriages. It's far past time certain conservative nay-sayers were dragged into the future.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Giving it the same designation as a (usually) procreative heterosexual marrige seems to be what's getting many upset. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would you have people call it? The issue for gays and lesbians who support gay marriage is ensuring equality under the law. Several courts have already ruled that the definition of marriage is discriminatory because it excludes people based on sexual oriantation. If two people, regardless of gender, want to marry one another, they should be permitted to do so.

Creating a separate designation or institution does not solve anything...it stigmatizes an oppressed group further by segregating. In fact, it would be legislated discrimination. "Separate but equal" is not equality under the law.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It IS a different relationship to those who see marriage as a (often religious) contract between a man and a woman, with procreation being a fundamental concept. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not a different relationship in the least. It consists of two people in love...just like "straight married couples." They have homes, mortgages, car payments, dreams, ups and downs, career goals, family joys and tragedies...just like straight marrieed couples. Oh, and they also pay taxes...just like straight married couples.

This whole "religious contract" thing is what needs to be straightened out (pardon the pun). Couples do *not* get "married" in a church. They never have and still don't today. Couples have their relationships *blessed* before God...but they are not married. Couples are blessed according to the doctrines of the faith of their choice. 

Couples enter into marriage (a civil legal contract) by signing the paper contract afterwards. The priest (or other religious leader) is a *witness* to the signing of the non-religious paper. That is all. 

Granting gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, would also have *no impact* on religious communities' right to exclude same-sex couples from being blessed...this is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (freedom of religion).


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I shouldn't post this, because I will probably be hunted down and killed by the ehMac team, but I guess opinions don't hurt. 

Being a Christian, I am *very against* same-sex marriages of any kind, whether two guys, or two girls, doesn't matter. As Christantly states, the marrying of two same-sex couples is wrong and sinful to God's mind, and what he mean't for us to be. Even the Bible itself states that the marrying of two same-sex couples is wrong. Therefore, I am not in favor of same-sex marriages.

Now, be advised, this is solely *MY OPINION* and that I am not breaching on anyone else's thoughts, rights, or opinions to what they are or what they see is right and/or wrong.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Has that been concluded? (I'm asking, I don't know)"
Yes it has.

Peter 
A family unit is a family unit regardless of makeup and needs to be treated as such.
Anything "different" is discrimination.

ooooh yes many of the societies are based on tradition, let's have female circumcision too, that's traditional in lot's of societies....
Being "traditional" adds nothing to an argument, it only serves to maintaim oppression.
Women couldn't vote - shall we revive that traditiion, how about women as property, slaves as property, Manifest Destiny, feudal rights, smokers rights, divine right of kings, or how about "jus prima nocits" that should go over well. 
All "traditions" at one time.
Unthinkable now.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Being "traditional" adds nothing to an argument, it only serves to maintaim oppression. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's a pretty blanket statement. Many people in this world would fight bitterly to protect their traditions. Maybe they can be backward or oppressive at times, but that doesn't make tradition,in itself a bad thing. What I was getting at is that tradition is not always an easy thing to change and be accepted. Progress can sometimes be better achieved by harmonizing rather than changing.
If you guys are going to get stupid on me with ultra liberal or intollerant ranting, as I was afraid, I'll drop the post and live in peace. I dipped my toe in the water to see if there could be gentle discourse for a change. I'm not looking for shark attacks.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A family unit is a family unit regardless of makeup and needs to be treated as such.
Anything "different" is discrimination. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never said same sex couples shouldn't be a family. I said, "It IS a different relationship to those who see marriage as a (often religious) contract between a man and a woman, with procreation being a fundamental concept. The influences of the male and female gender (if they stay together) are part of the family unit. So, although both types of relationships are based on love and sex, there is a definite difference in the players, according to the tradition."


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Well, as a practicing Christian myself, I must whole-heartedly disagree with your interpetation of what the bible says. 

For starters, you should know that same-sex marriages existed long before Christianity ever did. Second, marriage has been and continues to be an ever-changing institution.

Marriage was once a contractual arrangement that transferred ownership of a woman from one man (her father) to another (her husband). A dowry (aka payment) was always included. I would suggest that we all agree that marriage is no longer that kind of arrangement.

Even the vows of marriage have changed in order to remove a woman's "obedience" to her husband. It is pretty much understood that women are equal partners in any marriage.

There are many historical changes to the institution of marriage. By extension, why should this not include the legal recognition of a marriage between two consenting adults of the same gender?

I guess what I am really trying to get at is an answer to the following question (because no one has ever had a rational reason): *How would two men or two women being married to one another "destroy" the institution of marriage?*

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Even the Bible itself states that the marrying of two same-sex couples is wrong. Therefore, I am not in favor of same-sex marriages. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it doesn't. Please quote the chapter and verse you believe it says this. Keep in mind that this discussion is about *marriage* and not the *blessing of a union* before God. These are two different issues.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Whenever the bible is utilized, it makes for an interesting arguement. I have heard of all sorts of social situations that have been supposedly supported/condemned somewhere within the bible.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

I agree...like these for instance:

a) When burning a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, i know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 

b) A friend would like to sell his daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what would be a fair price for her? 

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Americans. Why can't I own Americans? 

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? 

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. How can we settle this? 

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 

The bible is a wonderful book...but sometimes is a little vague on the details.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

VertiGoGo wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> you should know that same-sex marriages existed long before Christianity ever did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Was that same sex relationships or actually sanctioned marriages? In what culture did these "marriages" exist? I'm not aying you're wrong, I just don't know of it.
The bible quotes you have offered have been heard before and there are many more. The translations of the early Bible languages is often misleading, as they pertain to a very different culture and time, not to mention the often multiple number of words used that the English language has only one word for (e.g."love" has multiple meanings and for which the Greeks had numerous words) 

Since it has now been declared that (if all goes right - and it often doesn't) a heterosexual marriage raising offspring (family line) with a male and female presence is exactly the same relationship and family structure as a same sex couple who might possibly adopt a child and raise it with a double single sex influence. It's that simple! I'll tell that to my daughter the next time she wants to shopping for "feminine" items and to my son when we wrestle and play ball. Thanks for the enlightenment! 
On a lighter note, this, of course means that all computer users are equal and PC lovers should no longer be "bashed" by the often snobby Mac users. The terms PC and Mac should be abolished as they are used in a discriminatory manner. We are just "specific brand" CPU users now.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I am totally neutral on the subject of this thread...but I just wanted to say to VertiGoGo...

Excellent!! Had me chuckling!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

VGG, YOu forgot to mention that according to the Bible it is forbidden to eat prok, and yet most good christians do so without worry.

COnisdering the divorce rate, why not let same sex marriages happen? As I see it one of two things wil happen, they will either have all the same problems that todays heterosexual couples have and their divorce rate will rise to the same level as the current standard, or they will get it right and all of the heterosexual people in the world might tbe able to learn something from it.

--PB


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

People can be married by a Justice of the Peace and no religious person is necessary to the best of my understanding. Marriage can be done as a legal contract without any specific religious blessing. My friends chose this approach last year.

Ironically enough, I thought the Justice of the Peace was tacky and lacked a spiritual element. Geez I can be a hyprocite sometimes. . .  

If religious groups oppose same-sex marriage that's fine as long as they don't interfere or spread prejudiced ideas about it. A lot of religious doctrine is interpretation and some of it is out-dated. In my opinion, beliefs need to evolve.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

C C wrote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>* A lot of religious doctrine is interpretation and some of it is out-dated. In my opinion, beliefs need to evolve.* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Amen. Fortunately, a lot of it has in some of the faiths (maybe too much in a couple).


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Quoting snippets from the Bible totally out of context either for or against religious matters is pretty frustrating to me. So many people have conceptions and pre-conceived notions of the Bible who haven't spent more than 10 minutes reading it. 

Not to get into a Bible discussion, but FYI...

Regarding slaves in the Bible... using quotes out of the book of Exodus, the message is talking to people who just came out of brutal slavery from the Egyptians. (All those great objects in Egypt had to be built by someone.) Old Bible translations use the word slave, but newer ones use the term servant. Today we could use the term employee. We're talking about a book from the Old testament, thousands of years ago.. they didn't have quite the same 9-5 job arrangements like we do today. 

The same chapter in Exodus describes how one could only employ a servant for six years than give them the option to leave on the seventh year. Also, if an employee/servant/slave loved his master/boss he has the option to keep working for him. Later in the Bible in Jeremiah 34, it talks how God is upset that the people didn't listen to his command to free servants after the 6th year. 

Also, the book of Leviticus has some peculiar requests..but the book was written for the Levites and mostly those who conducted worship at the Holy Tabernacle. The guidelines where for people entering the Most Holy Place that contained the Ark of the Convenant which symbolized the throne of the Lord (Raiders of the Lost Ark) The book of Leviticus is not a guideline for worshiping for Christians today. 

The Bible is a fascinating book. Especially when read. There is a niced paraphrased version here. 

To quote Dr. G... thus endeth the sermon.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> People can be married by a Justice of the Peace and no religious person is necessary to the best of my understanding. Marriage can be done as a legal contract without any specific religious blessing. My friends chose this approach last year. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is precisely the issue, Cynical Critic. So many people who object to same-sex marriage do so on religious grounds. The issue isn't about religions accepting same-sex marriage, it is about the State (which IS responsible for marriage) granting two people who are in love to marry, regardless of their gender. 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Quoting snippets from the Bible totally out of context either for or against religious matters is pretty frustrating to me. So many people have conceptions and pre-conceived notions of the Bible who haven't spent more than 10 minutes reading it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point exactly, ehMax. Frequently people throw all kinds of ideas about the bible around and expect others to simply accept it as truth. That is why I posted all those so-called "rules" from the bible. Taken out of context, one can "prove" anything about same-sex marriage...or any other topic for that matter.

I dunno, I guess I was just hoping to read some really well thought arguments against same-sex marriage...that is all. It's mostlly because I simply cannot wrap my head around why discriminating against two people who love one another in this way makes any sense to anyone.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>*I guess I was just hoping to read some really well thought arguments against same-sex marriage...that is all. It's mostlly because I simply cannot wrap my head around why discriminating against two people who love one another in this way makes any sense to anyone.* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In other words, in your mind there are no valid good arguments against same sex marriages, but you'd like to see one anyway. ?? Sounds like bait lure to me.  
I threw out the question as to whether same sex unions should have the same legal designation as heterosexual marriages to apease the critics and traditionalists, but other than the blanket equality/discrimination chants, I'm disapointed that more logical (vs. emotional) discussion hasn't been offered. Thanks to ehmax for his support on the Bible quote issue. Good night!


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I think the problem is that you're looking for logical and good-sense reasoning from our government.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In other words, in your mind there are no valid good arguments against same sex marriages, but you'd like to see one anyway. ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary...while I am a HUGE supporter of same-sex couples' right to marry, I am still open to other opinions on the issue. However, I have never heard a better argument than "the bible says so," and as a Christian I reject that statement because it is either not true or simply an interpretation. That is all.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Society has a vested intrest in replicating itself. Same gender marriages do not contribute to the growth or continuation of society.

Marriage is about more than sexual fidelity, it is about how society sets itself up for the future. Marriage is about raising children and teaching them. Marriage is about cultural indoctrination.

Society has little, if anything, to gain by sanctioning same gender marriages. While I certainly support tolerance for sexual identity diversity, I do not think that that means that there should be a dilution in the institution of marriage.

<flame on>


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Same gender marriages do not contribute to the growth or continuation of society. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither do heterosexual marriages that do not produce children...either by choice or due to medical reasons, yet we do not forbid these individuals from marrying. 

Many heterosexual couples get married these days and have absolutely no intentions of ever having children. Should they be forbidden from having the choice to marry?

In contrast, many gay and lesbian couples have children...either through adoption, artificial means or through an earlier heterosexual marriage. Should these same-sex couples be permitted to marry because they have children?

It seems to me that if marriage were really only about procreation, there should be some kind of clause in the marriage contract or another legal mechanism that would oblige married couples to have children. Alas there is not.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

I would not assume it is in society's interest to ensure that couples physically procreate. Rather, it is in society's interest to pass our beliefs, wisdom and all good results of our accomplishments down to the younger members of our society - that gives our own lives meaning.
Now, what about the individual's interest, eh? It should be each one's right to bring up children, according to each one's ability.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Britnell:
*Society has little, if anything, to gain by sanctioning same gender marriages. 
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Openness.
Freedom.
Understanding.
Cooperation.
Civilization.
Righteousness.
Harmony.

Priceless.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

Personally, I have no problems with same-sex marraiges. After all, why should gays be exempt from the horrors and pains of marraige...

But seriously. Other than the whole "procreation" aspect to marriage (at least, that's the rumour in some marraiges, which might better be described as "no-sex marriages"...) There isn't any compelling non-religious reasons to not support same-sex marriages.

As for religious, well, I'm at best agnostic, so relgious reasons don't hold much water to me. I can appreciate and respect others religious beliefs, but I won't often agree with them.

I did get a chuckle out of VertiGoGo's 'interpretations' back in the previous page. They do bring up a good point. Religious texts like the bible are often vague and open to interpretation.

Is there a God?

Personally, I haven't a clue. I've never met God (only people thinking they were god), but if I do, I'll let you all know by posting it here.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*As for religious, well, I'm at best agnostic, so relgious reasons don't hold much water to me.*

I think I'm agnostic on the issue of homosexual marriage.  I think its inevitable for the "state" to recognize it, but in many faiths its not what marriage is defined as. 

Having said that, I once saw a story on 20/20 about 2 men in a gay relationship who adopted something like 15 kids, all who were special in that they were either "crack" babies, or had deformities etc.. I never saw a better example of true love before. The majority of these kids were growing up to be amazing people. The parents one rule was that the kids they adopted had to finish school and adopt one child of their own.







Brought tears to my eyes. 

The thing was, the state they were in did not recognize their marriage and thus the kids could not be officially adopted. 

That's one end of the coin.

The other end is when I see some people in the gay community marching in gay pride parades in leather thongs with their schlongs hanging out. To me, selfish sexual indulgence for either gay or straight people is immoral and a poor basis for marriage. 

But again, that has religious basis and may be meaningless to some.  

PS. The Bible makes about 50 references to the word Hate (Many stating not to do it.. don't hate your brother, hate evil, even don't hate those who hate you) and over 900 references to the term Love... (The greatest commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself). 

Ok.. I'll stop the Bible thumping.


----------



## timmer (Aug 10, 2002)

Ehmax, I saw the same 20/20 I believe. It was a while ago but none the less a fine example of a family. Love is love. 

As for you comments on the parade. You would be surprised how many gay people don't appreciate the parade as well. I live out here on the coast and the parade rolls by my window every year.  Not that I have a dislike but it usually around 9am on a Sunday. Have you ever had a rave roll by your window before?







Quite the party let me tell you. And out here it's HUGE! I can't begin to tell you how many people clog the streets to party. And we thought a lot showed up for a peace rally.


----------



## emceepj (Aug 18, 2002)

for my partner and i to be recognized under the law, that's a plus. (ie; marriage license)

to be recognized through a religious ceremony, not such a big deal for myself. (as neither of us are religious.)

this is a big deal in the gay community, with people who are pro gay marriage, and con.

but i'm happy to hear a lot of my fellow ehmac-ians opinion on this subject.

Phil


----------



## emceepj (Aug 18, 2002)

(from the simpsons)

Gay guys on float: "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!"

Lisa: "We are used to it! You do this every year!"

heh heh, Phil


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

(From the Simpsons)

Lisa and Homer went to paint houses for 'Habitat for Humanity' and Homer was having fun...he's painting and Lisa comes up to him and says 'Dad,what's that?' and Homer says 'well, Bart does graffiti where he writes "El Barto" so i've written...' and the camera pulls back to reveal that Homer has painted "El Ho mo" in giant purple letters.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Yo gotta love Homer. He crosses all the boundaries we can only wish to.
Going back to an earlier comment on the brazeness of the gay parade, I have a gay friend who is loyal to his partner and has no use for "*******", as he calls them. He is referring to those gay persons who flaunt their sexuality in appearance and bold actions. He finds it revolting and a negative image to the gay community as a whole.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Re: the gay pride parades...yeah, they are pretty crazy and I have little use for them either. Although I have to admit it is one helluva party! It's just too bad that all that sticks in people's minds are the drag queens, leather daddies and ***** on bikes...never the same-sex couples and their kids or PFLAG (parents and friends of gays and lesbians).

All this to say...if two people of the same gender are in a loving, caring, monogamous relationship and they want to get married by the state (not church)...why the hell should they not be allowed? My partner and I long for the day we can be married (so does my 92-year-old grandma...who absolutely wants us to tie the knot before she kicks the bucket).  Gotta love grandma!!!


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

VertiGoGo, the one icon was blushing. Is your partner the same sex or the opposite sex? Not that I care..I'm just trying to see from what angle you view this topic. I don't even know if you're male or female.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Male or female...same sex or different. It's all the same to me. If you have a good strong loving relationship then that's all I need to know. I say more power to you!   

And THAT is coming from ehMac's resident "Right-Wing *******" (or so I have been called)


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

As to the pride parades, see this Onion article: Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance of Gays Back 50 Years.

Marriage should be allowed between any two consenting adults!


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

That article is freakin' hilarious and frustrating at the same time.







...and it is frequently debated among the gay community itself. 

C'est la guerre.  

For the record, my same-sex, male partner and I have been in a stable, loving and nurturing relationship for 2.5 years. We live together. We have a wonderful cat. We both practice our own religious faith (one Christian, one not). And yes...we want to be legally married to one another. Hell...we both use Macs for goodness sake...how "evil and wicked" could we possibly be?   

However, just because I have this "bias" does not mean I am not open to a rationale and thoughtful discussion of the issue. In fact, it is precisely why I started this thread.

Although, I am refreshed to see many supportive folks on here.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You've got my vote VertiGoGo! You had it before you started this thread...based on what you had written in the past.  

If anyone ever asks me to vote on this question...they haven't yet...I will say YES! Why the hell NOT?

Just my two centavos worth.


----------



## emceepj (Aug 18, 2002)

The onion article: too true. my grandma wanted me to march with her in the parade last year, but i gracefully declined. the parade is not who i am. sure, it's a party, but i don't feel i can associate myself with the circuit boy, the leather daddy, the ***** on bikes, or the families who march (yet  ). 

*sigh*


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

The fun-loving side of me says: Hey these parades are fun! But the rational and conservative side says: They stereotype the gay community in various ways - not all of which are negative, but still restrictive and unfair.

I've been stewing over more to say but it frustrates and confounds me. I was writing a rant about categorization and generalization but it was getting too long and convoluted. 

The bottom line is: I think the government should allow same-sex marriages - or at least put it to a vote.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree CC...and I also think that it would pass the fifty percentile without any real problem.

But I have to agree with the other sentiments here re: Gay Pride Parades.

As a comitted heterosexual, I would be just as repulsed by a blatant display of sleazy hetero behavior in public...especially if it were parading loudly down my street for two hours or so.

Not trying to judge others here...just my own personal thoughts on this.

Whatever floats yer boat is fine...but if you jam it into eveyone's face, you might just spur some resentment and repulsion. Especially among some of the more quiet segments of our society. That might be quite a LARGE group, when all is said and done.

My humble advice for ANY group? Tone it down a notch or two...if you want to get everone's attention without totally pissing them off at the same time.

No matter WHAT your preference.

Know what I mean?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"should allow same-sex marriages"????
Should doesn't apply and the same comment goes for Macnutt.
The Charter says no discrimination based on sex.
Unless the Charter gets overturned this is not a voting issue and the governments have no choice in the matter as they will lose a Charter challenge ever time on this issue.
The Shriners, football cheerleaders, the local Italians during World Cup, the Catholics at Easter et al do a pretty good job of making asses of themselves in some eyes while they celebrate their particular cause........thanks to the Charter and a tolerant mulitcultural nation they are free to do so without risking legal shenanigans to "tone them down"  
Democracy ALSO protects diversity.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

In an office of six, we are unanimously opposed to same sex marriage. We have also become very accustomed to being labeled homophobic. It's the price we are willing to pay for our beliefs. Much like the *debate* over an impending war in Iraq, there seems to be no right or wrong. Each "side" deserves the right to their opinion without threat of contempt.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> *The Charter says no discrimination based on sex.* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe that pertains to gender, NOT sexual orientation, even though they can cross.
Parades and public parties will often have a bit of exaggeration and fun. There are levels of decorum that should be observed when in public, and this example of a Gay Parade certainly doesn't meet that requirement, in my opinion. Not because it's a gay theme, because it's sleezy and inapropriate for in-the-street, public intrusion, no matter who the participants are. Try doing that outside the umbrella of the parade and see how the public reacts.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I believe that pertains to gender, NOT sexual orientation, even though they can cross. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct and not correct. This does pertain to gender, however several courts (including the Supreme Court of Canada) have ruled this also includes sexual orientation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There are levels of decorum that should be observed when in public, and this example of a Gay Parade certainly doesn't meet that requirement, in my opinion. Not because it's a gay theme, because it's sleezy and inapropriate for in-the-street, public intrusion, no matter who the participants are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...kinda sounds like Mardi Gras to me and no one gets upset about that.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In an office of six, we are unanimously opposed to same sex marriage. We have also become very accustomed to being labeled homophobic. It's the price we are willing to pay for our beliefs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you are entitled to your beliefs. However, I would like to know why you are opposed to it and how you think two people of the same gender getting married affects your rights?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

VertiGoGo wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Hmmm...kinda sounds like Mardi Gras to me and no one gets upset about that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good point, but I don't think Mardi Gras has the same offensive flavour to it, does it? (I'm not referring to the gay aspect, just the brazen, in-your-face raw sexuality) I've never been to one or have had any interest in watching videos of it.
BTW, VertiGoGo, I like your cool and open attitude with this topic. It' makes for a much better discussion (and learning experience) than with a dictating hard liner. I'd have a beer with you anyday.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VertiGoGo:
*However, I would like to know why you are opposed to it and how you think two people of the same gender getting married affects your rights?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am one of "those" who believes homosexuality is not normal. I've debated this issue so often, I've lost the will to continuously explain myself in detail. Please forgive me. Perhaps you misread my reply if you assume I feel same sex marriage affects my rights. I was only expressing my concern for my rights as one who isn't part of the mainstream in all matters.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I know it can sometimes be difficult for others to realize the intention of the written word.

Cheers!


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am one of "those" who believes homosexuality is not normal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There has to be a better word than "normal".
I think I know know what you're saying......that by _design_, the human race is comprised of male and female and that design encompasses attraction, love and procreation. Everything has a designed fit, like a round peg in a round hole (pardon the pun). However, if the chromozone makeup of an individual is such that he/she is naturally attracted to a member of the same sex, does that make that person "unnormal"? Hmmm. a variation of the design, to some, perhaps, but otherwise perfectly normal in their own right. The physical matchup is what you see as "not normal", but the emotional makeup is not changeable and has a right to be fulfilled. Society pretty much now realizes this and tends to leave gays alone and is learning to embrace them. The challenge to the traditional "marriage" institution, which has been reserved for heterosexual couples, is the hurdle now in question and is opposed, in that designation, by a large portion of the public. That's why I brought up the idea of a unique designation for same sex unions....would it appease the critics? Just a question.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BTW, VertiGoGo, I like your cool and open attitude with this topic. It' makes for a much better discussion (and learning experience) than with a dictating hard liner. I'd have a beer with you anyday. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>








Gee, thanks. As for the beer...if you're buying, I'm drinking!  

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I was only expressing my concern for my rights as one who isn't part of the mainstream in all matters. I'm not trying to be argumentative. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nor do I think you are being argumentative. As I have said, I am simply trtying to understand the other side of this debate...and so far, I still don't.









Oh well. Needless to say...all of ehMac will be "virtually invited" to the wedding of my partner and I when it finally happens.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

If you're ever coming to Kitchener, e-mail me...I'll buy.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I second the motion that the term "normal" must be replaced or explained. Things are only normal because society has normalized them. Different cultures have different norms and, indeed, subcultures have different norms also. 

You're, of course, allowed to believe whatever you like without discrimination (as long as your actions don't interfere with other's beliefs or freedoms). I think the distinction just needs to be made that "normal" or "natural" are not absolutes but mutable and ever-changing. For instance, in 500 years (just to make it a distant time and to be a bit cute) homosexuality may be completely normal in all cultures. Hopefully, it won't take that long but you get my meaning I hope.

As for "should," let me re-phrase: same-sex marriages _must_ be allowed by our government! Better?


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

AFAIK, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Homosexual behaviour certainly takes place in nature, not just with humans.

One does not choose to be straight or gay or something inbetween.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I agree completely Britnell.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

On a lighter note, looking back at the article about the Gay Rights Parade in Hollywood....is that Leslie Nielsen at the top??


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*The Shriners, football cheerleaders, the local Italians during World Cup, the Catholics at Easter et al do a pretty good job of making asses of themselves in some eyes while they celebrate their particular cause........thanks to the Charter and a tolerant mulitcultural nation they are free to do so without risking legal shenanigans to "tone them down"*










And yet, some people get their nickers in a knot over the phrase Merry Christmas.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

That had crossed my mind as well ehmax.

Apparently the above is considered "politically correct" and "Merry Christmas" is not.

Interesting world we live in, no?


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

That picture is NOT "politically correct" and is certainly not representative of anyone I know. It is, however, indicative of media who love a hype-shot.

As I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, it's always the drag queens, leather daddies, ***** on bikes and other fringe elements of the gay community that make it into the news...and rarely the "normal" (and I use the term loosely) looking people. 

The "fringe" certainly makes it more difficult to advance equality rights for gays and lesbians by being just about the only point of reference for those who are opposed to such rights. It's hard to be taken seriously when people have the abome mental image in their heads.

And no...that is not how I dress on weekends.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Because Merry Christmas is the same as asking some who you see with a wedding band on "How's the wife". 
Or a woman who is pregnant or with a newborn " How is your husband handling it all"








Got it!
It's called assumptions.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Assuming what? That their christmas is not going well?

Sure, it is a christian holiday but in the last couple of decades (or since Coke gave us the Santa Claus we know and love today) it has become more of a commercial holiday if you ask me.

Then again, there are many christians who may disagree with me.

--PB


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Then again, there are many christians who may disagree with me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...including this gay Christian.  

Coke be damned...it's all about the birth of Christ, baby!


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...including this gay Christian. 

Coke be damned...it's all about the birth of Christ, baby! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VertiGoGo, make that TWO beers!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macdoc:
*Because Merry Christmas is the same as asking some who you see with a wedding band on "How's the wife". 
Or a woman who is pregnant or with a newborn " How is your husband handling it all"








Got it!
It's called assumptions.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, those examples just sound like nosy questions to me... Anyway, its very easy to see the double standard of saying to tolerate a parade that contains some greased up naked men in thongs and drunk loud Italians during World Cup and that it shouldn't be toned down, yet stating people should show discretion when they want to say a well wishing phrase during Christmas. 

Assumptions... the assumption being made that whoever says Merry Christmas is a Christian. Just like assuming everyone at a gay pride parade acts like the photo above.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Is Homosexuality a sin? For those who would consider this a valid question, here are a couple good links to one side of the arguement... (Its probably not the side you think)

Is Homosexuality a Sin by Rev. Dr. Kathlyn James. 

Also, if you've got some time, four VERY interesting sermons onhomosexuality and the Bible in Real Audio format. Contains a real hard look at the scriptures many church goers quote when arguing against homosexuality. 

If you don't want to listen to four sermons  you can get the gest of it in a description of the book The Children are free where you can see the first couple of pages of the first chapter in this book.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

eHmax nobody wants you to watch the parade if you are offended by naked men in thongs just like you be uncomfortable and be "inappropriate if dressed" at any number of nude beaches around the world including Toronto.
"Merry Christmas" is not innocuous - Happy Holidays IS. We've been around that block.








Celebrate, play with snakes, speak in tongues, dance or not dance, sing with an organ or without, pray standing up or kneeling, sprinkle water or be "emersed" all you want within your particular belief structure and within your own community and you can carry all the crosses down Toronto streets you care to, permits permitting, as I DON"T have to watch just like you don't have to celebrate with gays. 

What's so hard to understand about neutralizing greetings to be non religious and upping your sensitivity to differing lifestyles and and beliefs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BTW the December holiday season is NOT about the birth of Christ which was in the summer but about co-opting the pagan ritual of Winter Soltice... I for one am very glad the Wiccans are bringing that wonderful "turn of the sun" to longer days back into vogue.
It is a magical part of life of life on earth, that tilt of the poles producing diverse weather.
BTW I have an interesting question to see if you can get around your assumptions.
" Is the earth closer to the sun in winter or in summer"?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Celebrate, play with snakes, speak in tongues, dance or not dance, sing with an organ or without, pray standing up or kneeling, sprinkle water or be "emersed" all you want within your particular belief structure and within your own community and you can carry all the crosses down Toronto streets you care to, permits permitting, as I DON"T have to watch...*

So by that logic, should gay people not hold hands in public when other people are around and just do it within their own community? Should seiks not wear a head dress?

Maybe I'm not the one who needs to up my sensitivity to differing lifestyles, beliefs and phrases. I'd be fine if someone wished me a Happy Winter Soltice... just so long they weren't wearing leather with their schlong hanging out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The issue was "over the top" behavior. Holding hands is common gay or not gay with the same sex all over Asia and who cares it's hardly over the top behaviour - it's affectionate...period full stop .Wearing a turban hardly qualifies as "over the top" except as a bad pun.
The fact that YOU don't mind being wished a Happy Winter Solstice is irrelevant....and winter solstice is not a religious event it's an astronomical one...it's secular.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

And Merry Christmas is over the top? 

Happy Winter Solstice, Happy Hanukah whatever anyone wants to say. I can not only tolerate, I can fully accept. 

Gay people holding hands its not offensive to me, not offensive to you but is offensive to many people. It should be tolerated

There are people who are offended by people wearing turbans in the police force etc... It should be tolerated. 

Millions of people celebrate Christmas for both religious and secular reasons... part of the tradition is wishing merry christmas... its relevant to you because it offends YOU and all these people should tone it down. Now tell me, is that being tolerant???

There is a double standard. Period, full stop.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There you go, perfect - why don't you say Happy Hannuka? - you would if you knew the person was Jewish - you wouldn't if they weren't.
That's exactly the point.

BTW no one has answered this
" Is the earth closer to the sun in winter or in summer"? Yes it's relevant.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macdoc:
*Is the earth closer to the sun in winter or in summer?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is closer to the sun during winter.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macdoc:
*There you go, perfect - why don't you say Happy Hannuka? - you would if you knew the person was Jewish - you wouldn't if they weren't.
That's exactly the point.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No...If a Jewish person came up to me and I knew they were Jewish and they said Happy Hannukuh to me, I would still reply Merry Christmas. That's what I celebrate. I don't celebrate Hannukuh. I would not be offended if a Jewish person knew I wasn't Jewish and still said Happy Hannukuh to me. Same if a person wasn't a believer at all and said Happy Holidays.etc.. Same if a person who wasn't a believer said Merry Christmas. 

To a person that I knew was Jewish, I will still offer a Merry Christmas and would be happy to have a Happy Hunnakah replied to me. Christmas is what I celebrate. Hannukuh is what he/she celebrates. We don't have to tuck away our beliefs or tone them down or dilute them. Our diversity of faiths is to be celebrated. In Canada we are free to believe in what we want. Wish me a Happy Chinese New Year! Wish me whatever... they are all * KIND GESTURES!!!!! * for crying out loud. 

You are offended by things religious as you've stated before and would be happy to have religious phrases toned down. Am I wrong? Yet, you state that naked people in the street should be tolerated. 

I can't fot the life of me understand how this is not a double standard. 

And just so we're not confused on the subject, I can tolerate all aspects of the gay price parade.. Even the "over revealing" aspects.. I don't agree with that part, but can tolerate it and not demand it be toned down (I'll leave that to many members of the gay community who are requesting that) I'm in full agreement with tolerance... 

Just why is that not applied to wishing Merry Christmas? *sigh* I'm done on the subject of Merry Christmas... until next December.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

or in my case, next January
yeah, what about those of us that celebrate Chirstmas on Jan. 7?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BTW I have an interesting question to see if you can get around your assumptions.
" Is the earth closer to the sun in winter or in summer"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you "assume" we don't know the answer??  I think ehMax is educated enough to know that answer, as well as to have a fairly good grasp of this topic. Although no one is forced to attend any kind of parade, sometimes you can't help but be witness to one. The difference is whether the parade is offensive (intentionally is worse) to bystanders. If you can't say Merry Christmas in good faith without possible offending someone, then certainly you can't go into the public view in an outrageous manner without expecting to offend NUMEROUS people. So by macdoc's own suggestion, all things should be innocuous and neutralized as not tro offend those of different lifestyles and beliefs. 
If the December holiday season is not about Christ's birthday, then why is the only holiday of December called "Christmas Day" The argument of whether the chosen day is historically correct is secondary. This is the day decided long ago as the day of celebration of the birth. It's a Christian holiday that all religions benefit from if they get a day off with pay. I think this goes back to the "traditions" debate earlier in the thread and I don't hear anybody complaining about this holiday EVER.
At any rate, I think that VertiGoGo's view on this parade issue is accurate and I, for one, thank him for his open mindedness, non-militant stand, and ability to debate without attitude. I feel he is most qualified to express views on this topic.
Good night everyone, wherever you are.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Originally posted by macdoc:
Is the earth closer to the sun in winter or in summer?
The earth is the same distance from the sun in the summer and in the winter. The difference is with the rotational axis being tilted somewhere around 23 degrees, So the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun during the winter months, whereas the southern hemisphere is tilted closer and is having it's summer. The reverse is applicable when the earth is at the opposite side of it's rotation around the sun. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Did everybody remember that?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let's see
You are wishing me a Happy "your holiday".
Not a Happy "my holiday". even if it happens NOT to be "your holiday" and does happen to be my "holiday".

Do you say Happy Birthday to everybody on YOUR Birthday.....noooooo, I don't think so.

Don't you think that most people would look at you very strangely if you went about on your birthday wishing them Happy Birthday.

Can you not see the difference between saying to a stranger
"Isn't this a beautiful day?"
and
"Allah has granted us beautiful day, hasn't he?"

Being aware and sensitive to the "differences", celebrating "other's" special days develops harmony and understanding.
I'm not Jewish but I wish my leasing guy Happy Hannuka at that timeof year because HE appreciates it.

Michael Kulyk would GREATLY appreciate being wished Merry Christmas in January. It is especially important to give those who are part of a minority just a bit extra reassurance that you are sensitive and aware that this is a multicultural society.

Just consider the Birthday analogy above I think you'll understand.

It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs and everything to do with sensitivity.

If you knew a little girl who lost her daddy - you would be very considerate of her feelings and NOT for instance bring up what your kids bought you for Father's day. Normal courtesy.
Now if you happen to KNOW the girl has a good relation with her father you would feel free to bring it up and share with her.

What do you do when you DON"T KNOW?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Peter
The earths's orbit is not circular. My question stands, you are close but not quite there.
"The earth is the same distance from the sun in the summer and in the winter." IS WRONG.
Think about the question. 
The orbit is not circular.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Macdoc, I don't appreciate your leading question. If you have a point, please make it. I respect your opinions and your posts but I'm tired this evening so please answer your rhetorical question.

As for Christmas, isn't Happy Holidays is a more sensitive greeting. Holidays implies more than one! I think many people are upset because when they say Merry Christmas they mean it as a general and season greeting of good will that should not be dependent on particular religious beliefs. I often say Merry Christmas to mean Happy Holiday season and I'm not Christian. Heck, I know Jesus wasn't even born on Christmas. Then again maybe that's a naïve analysis that gives into the dominant religious ideology. I also find it frustrating that sharing a good spirited greeting or holiday cheer has become so complicated. I mean unless you get to know every person you meet and their religious/spiritual beliefs you can't properly great them or wish them well it seems. Where's the middle ground? Where's the point of comprimise? Plus isn't there a difference between what your words mean within their cultural context and what the intent you have behind the words. Or are we always pawns to our language and our culture? Does good intent or good will have to be so P.C.? (I agree it should strive to be but to what extent. . .) 

This topic has changed quite a bit but I'm glad to read everyone's posts. Thanks everyone for sharing!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Do you "assume" we don't know the answer?? I think ehMax is educated enough to know that answer, as well as to have a fairly good grasp of this topic. "

Aside from knowing the orbit is not circular it's not a question of knowledge but of approach.
I almost lost a good friend over this exact question, we were both well trained in science and both very insistant we were right yet our answers were complete opposites. We had both been taught accurately.
When "the light dawned" we got a good laugh from it and I took away a lesson in perception I have never forgotten.
••

As to December holiday all religions can designate a different substitute day under Canadian law and many do. 
Regarding tradition, you are in a bit of a circular argument. "It was decided long ago" so that makes it okay??
The very phrase "It's a Christian holiday that all religions benefit from" is the kind of cultural/religious imperialism that many find so infuriating about the west.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

CC - sorry - are you speaking of the "what do you do when you don't know question?? or??

••••
"Then again maybe that's a naïve analysis that gives into the dominant religious ideology. Spreading awareness and sensitivity is great, but political correctness needs to be done gradually (sadly) because any big changes will receive big resistance"
Women's rights, no slavery, separation of church and state, aborginal land claims, gay rights, the list goes on and on and had to start with awareness. You are indeed correct change takes time but you can bet everyone reading this thread thinks about it a bit now. 
"( sadly)" ( from your original post ) is unfortunately the operative truth.

Wishing someone well, happy holidays, the best of the season, happy New Year certainly expresses good will.

With the cultural landscape so diverese and even the family landscape changed dramatically, innocuous phrases like "can't your dad drive you" can be loaded - you'll notice schools use parent.

If you wanted the answer to "what do you do?"
Don't make cultural or situational assumptions and be conscious that "casual phrases" could hurt.
If you were in a foreign country and unsure of the customs, say bowing in Japan, you would be very aware and very neutral to not risk giving offence inadvertently.
That's a good approach in today's diverse world.
I like Sniper's approach laid out in another thread. "Respond in kind"..it's safe and considerate when you don't know.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc, I don't honestly think that many people out here still think of Christmas as a religious holiday. Vancouver is about as racially diverse as you can get...large sections of the city are dominated by people who have no European ancestors and no connection to Christianity...and yet, at Christmas time you will hear almost everyone saying "Merry Christmas" to each other.

The local TV station did a series on this last Christmas and it seems that everyone they asked, no matter where they came from or what they believed in, said the same thing...

They ALL thought the holiday was a Canadian tradition and loved celebrating it for what it was...to heck with any religious signifigance. Nobody they interviewed (and they talked to LOTS of people) thought that it should be made into a generic holiday for PC purposes.

Sikh neighborhoods who were having competitions to see how well they could decorate their houses for the season and christmas tree sales at record levels in Richmond...where English is very much a second language.

None of them seemed to have a problem with "Merry Christmas" at all. Just as we of European descent have no problem with any of the other ethnic-specific holidays out here. It's all fun!

Tempest in a teapot, if you ask me.

Political correctness is one of the problems...not one of the solutions,IMHO.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt I suspect you've answered your own comment
"I don't honestly think that many people out here still think of Christmas as a religious holiday"
The West Coast is already diverse and not so mainstream so the sense of "dominant culture" is highly muted or gone - it's "just" a holiday.
But, you wouldn't believe some of the rhetoric in the Star ( letters to the editor) and in many of the US papers.








The "It's my holiday, if you don't like it tough" attitude was pretty scary... I think you can see a bit of that in this thread.
 
Getting it to a "seasonal celebration" that is fully inclusive and secular is an admirable state. The edges are where cultural accommodations occur first.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This sort of diversity makes for some really great restaurants too!

BTW-you should see "Chinese New Year" out here..._Everybody_ celebrates that one! 

Personally, I think this sort of ethnic mix is better than a dull old monocultural "norm".

I wouldn't have it any other way!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I could not agree with you more.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Macdoc, can you elaborate or answer your question about the earth's distance to the sun. That's what I was referring to. I don't understand what two perspectives you're speaking of. It's been a long time since I've done any astronomy but I'm a quick learner. I hope I didn't sound to angry or peevish in my earlier post. After re-reading it I thought that might be the assumed tone and that wasn't my intention.

As to sensitivity, I agree always being aware of the words and phrases we're speaking is important. I guess I'd just like to see people be more tolerant and understanding of those of us who are trying our best to be sensitive. It's hard to be totally self-aware of any culture when you're stuck within the middle of it. As literary and cultural theorists have shown again and again, there's no position of exteriority so we have to make the best of what we can from within. 

Also it can be trying when you feel like you have to give up (to some extent) your own holidays or beliefs to accomodate others. That's a slightly hyperbolic reaction but it's not totally unfounded. I'm thinking of office buildings that had to take down Christmas trees in the U.S. for sensitivity issues. I think that was the case anyway.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Cripes, I leave this thread alone for one night and it all goes to pot! Stay focussed people (insert gay slapping of the hands and lisp here).  We're talking about gay marriage here, not the orbit of the Earth (although that would also make an interesting discussion).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Gay people holding hands its not offensive to me, not offensive to you but is offensive to many people. It should be tolerated <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why should gay people just be "tolerated?" Is it not possible to go a little beyond tolerance...to say...um...acceptance? It's not as if gay people only "tolerate" opposite-sex couples holding hands, kissing in public or...God forbid..playing tonsil hockey on the bus or metro. We accept it...although that last one makes many people squimish...I mean, rent a ROOM people!  

For the record, my partner and I hold hands in public and kiss one another goodbye as we walk to our separate jobs in the morning...like any other "married" couple would. 

Peter...I'm gonna hold you to that two beers business. 

And for the record...leather pants and schlongs hanging out is just tacky.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why should gay people just be "tolerated?" Is it not possible to go a little beyond tolerance...to say...um...acceptance? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, better choice of words Vertigogo (and attitude)


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Sorry VertiGoGo, but I just came on-line and want to flip back to the "off-topic" item of the "earth to sun" distance thing. I am fully aware that the earth's travel around the sun is spherical, as opposed to circular. However at opposite seasons (i.e. 180 degree opposed positions in the orbit) would the distance from the earth not be the same? Draw it on a piece of paper and look at it....I "assumed" that was the correct answer and I hope no-one was offended by it if it was wrong, although it made sense to me at the time.
The Christmas issue is getting blown waayyy out of logical proportion, in my view. The reality is that this continent has a history of strong Christian heritage (my apologies to the natives) that recognizes Dec 25 as a day of celebration of the birth of Christ. The "Christian" movement is strong enough to warrant that tradition being upheld, even in it's modern, commercialized abomination. It has become a generic celebration of fellowship and good cheer and I think it is culturally more sensitive than the people who speak out to oppose it. As macnutt pointed out, it is openly celebrated by people of many different backgrounds and religions. If any religious based celebration can foster such a widespread joy, why must the majority bend to the uncompromising, vocal opponents? They have their freedom to believe what they want to, but do they have the right to be "the tail wagging the dog"? The same goes for all extreme groups, from the bunch in that gay parade article to the neo nazi marchers. I'm ranting out loud and am sure to be hammered by macdoc. But I'm at an age where I'm really getting tired of people saying "you can't do this, you can't do that: don't say that, it might not be politically correct. You don't any longer have the right to do what you've done since you were a kid. If it's wrong, that's one thing, but because someone else has moved in that might not hold the same traditions, I'm supposed to, give up mine???? I must now leave and seek professional therapy to release these demons trapped inside of me. Ehmax, VertiGoGo, MacNutt...help me!!!
Back to the topic of same sex relationships. I still think VertiGoGo has the "balanced" view. We have views from both extreme ends of opinion poll. I don't normally tend to agree with anything that is at the extreme end (left or right) and that's why I stay out of most of the heavier discussion (I don't enjoy getting beat up  ) Peace, everyone!


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Peter Scharman:
*Originally posted by macdoc:
Is the earth closer to the sun in winter or in summer?
The earth is the same distance from the sun in the summer and in the winter. The difference is with the rotational axis being tilted somewhere around 23 degrees, So the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun during the winter months, whereas the southern hemisphere is tilted closer and is having it's summer. The reverse is applicable when the earth is at the opposite side of it's rotation around the sun. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Did everybody remember that?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


ACK

Earth is NOT in a perfectly circular orbit.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The earth sun issue is not off topic as it deals with "thinking different" which as all good disciples of St. Steve we all practice. We use Macs don't we??

Here's why it's on topic and it reflects directly on the comment "what you were taught" Peter.
You see my friend was taught all through school that the sun was nearer to earth in the summer.
I on the other hand was taught that the sun was nearer to earth in the winter.
What we both forgot in our bellowing and posturing was that he grew up in Bolivia and I in Ontario..
So of course we were both right and both taught correctly. It was a good lesson in perspective for both of us.

I was frankly shocked that there would be even much discussion about the topic of gay marriage amongst Mac owners who are used to being patronised and looked down on by the "majority". You know that "attitude" you get when you are in a Future Shop and ask for something Mac oriented.  
You know that "Oh you use a Maaaaac.....well..."

As Mac owners you don't like assumptions being made about your choice of platform and don't like being "marginalized" through ignorance or prejudice and you are in most part very sensitive to the slights that result.

Take a page from that.
There were many things it the past that were socially acceptable - hey spittoons were very popular - practices that are now VERY unacceptable.
Hurtful and prejudiced jokes about gays and other minorities being one of them.

Is it so hard as Mac owners, who have suffered in a small way similar "hurts" and "annoyances" due to unknowing or even purposeful slights and comments to see that something you view as innocuous may indeed be hurtful to others. Why is that so hard a concept to grasp???.  
Just because you are in the majority does nothing to lessen the hurt and annoyance - in fact it makes it that much worse.
I KNOW gays and Jews and native peoples and visible minorities get hammered day in a day out with the "casual hurts" dished out by insensitive use of language.
Vertigogo you know exactly what I'm talking about and I bet you can site a dozen examples.

Peter you want to rant and rave about having to watch your language and not being able to express your "tradition".
Boys' locker rooms have lots of "traditions" about "queers and ****" too. 

Traditions can wonderful community get togethers and very affirming FOR THOSE THAT CELEBRATE THEM!
They can be hurtful and excluding for those that don't.
Want a good picture of it..read this and then think next time http://www.generationj.com/issues/nov_02/life_rt2.html 

The LINK works now - not sure why it didn't before.

This guy writes with fun and humour but underneath it he acknowledges the pain.

Most of you know me as pretty centred and inclusive. Do you really think I'd stress this to this degree if I was just being neurotic about it.
READ the early paragraphs of the link above and hopefully you'll get a very different perspective.
Think Different - please, please Think Different............


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Is it my Safari or is the link you posted broken Macdoc? Anyone else having problems?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Macdoc wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> *Peter you want to rant and rave about having to watch your language and not being able to express your "tradition".
Boys' locker rooms have lots of "traditions" about "queers and ****" too. * <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I knew you would take a hit at me. I have to hand it to you..you can always take something and twist it around to make your point. I suspect you took debating in college. "Rant and rave"? Isn't that painting the kettle black??? I don't recall saying I had a problem with having to watch my language. I have a problem with people telling me I shouldn't do the things I always had a right to do because someone else has decided they don't want to do it, so therefore nobody should be allowed to do it either. I'm not talking about abstract or blatently insensitive things. I'm talking about having to worry whether the person who wished me a Merry Christmas because he knew I was Christian will possibly be offended if I return the gretting without first aking what faith he is of. I'm talking about being able to have a view or opinion that is different than someone else's and not being called insensitive or blatantly wrong. I don't have to agree with your religious outlooks, position on political correctness, agreement with same sex marriages, sodomy or any other issue. Does that automatically make me wrong and another person right? The best debater isn't neccesarily right..but he will likely win the debate. That's how lawyers get criminals off the hook all the time.
The "boys in the locker room" is a cheap shot at what I was referring to as tradition. That's not tradition....that's ignorance and discrimination in action. Just because something improper has been going on for a while, that doesn't qualify it as a tradition. A multicultural society with each being allowed to celebrate their cultural or religious traditions (if legal and decent) makes for a much more interesting and understanding society than one where everything has been stripped down to generic blandness. If I accidentally say "Merry Christmas" to a Jewish person, I would expect him to say, "Actually, I'm Jewish", to which I would say," Sorry for the mistake, I wish you then a Happy Hannukah"....not being called an insensitive, imperialistic Christian.
Most of all, if someone has an outlook different from mine, I welcome a friendly and educational dialogue on the topic, like VertiGoGo does. My back gets up when I'm _told_ that I'm wrong and had better start changing my mind because I'm not agreed with.
Now THAT"S a rant!!  Ifeel better now. That should shorten the next visit to the therapist. Now if only what I said makes sense and I don't get **** on again.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

for Peter!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:
*The earth sun issue is not off topic as it deals with "thinking different" which as all good disciples of St. Steve we all practice. We use Macs don't we??*

Well, everyone except for Dr. G.

*cough*.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

He's with us in _spirit_ at least.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Peter why did you mention "sodomy" in your rant? Was it something offhand? Or did it refer to something in particular? I don't mean to knit pick but I'm curious what you meant (if anything) by it.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

"oo, this ought to be good," he said as he prepared to sit back and watch the fireworks.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Peter and EhMax if you haven't read the link then I suggest you do so before all the mutual back patting. http://www.generationj.com/issues/nov_02/life_rt2.html 

Peter your post was a self described RANT 
"I'm ranting out loud" 
so why am I being taken to task for acknowledging what you already admitted?

The issue is not about returning a greeting to someone who wished you a Merry Christmas. You then know they are comfortable with it even if they don't share your religious views. The issue is about being sensitive in situations where you DON'T KNOW and religious greetings are only one aspect of being "considerate".

The issue is not about your right to your views or your opinions nor about telling you what to do.
ASKING that everyone be sensitive to differing viewpoints, that everyone be considerate of minority views in their language is hardly "telling you what to do". It's asking. 
Pointing out that your of "universal joy and goodwill" may not be shared universally is the "perspective" which I've discussed. Just because you have been taught it and done it for years does not make it "okay" in changed circumstances. AWARENESS of changing standards means less harm done by casual slights.
Your own words give evidence that all is not well in "Christmas land". Your apt phrase "It's modern, commercialized abomination" speaks volumes and is directly to my point.

You ARE sensitized because you caveat your comment about the "Christian continent" with "my apologies to the natives". 
Why is it so hard to take that one step further and have a look at other assumptions about what you view as a casual, "seasonal" greeting that you've done "since you were a kid".
Your own defence of the issue says it's way more than casual in your own mind and that the challenge to that "tradition" is disturbing for you.

I think if you read your post NOW after the fact you will see where I'm coming from.

If you read the link you'll see where I'm coming from.

If you ask Dr. G or Vertigogo about "everyday" casual sometime even "unconcious" discriminatory language they'll offer you many examples.

Awareness is the first step in social change.
Part of a gay parade is celebration of their own unique community, part, and especially early on in the struggle for gay rights, is awareness.
As Mac owners we ARE a "vocal minority" - used to being slighted and having to fight for equal standing in schools, businesses etc.
That why I was quite surprised that the concept of gay marriages would even raise an eyebrow in this community.
I guess my "assumptions" were wrong.....unfortunately.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Vertigogo since I know you are up early - how DO you feel and react to the "casual slights" you must experience??
Are you not very appreciative and aware of those who are careful and inclusive in their language??


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Re Macdoc'statement that "If you ask Dr. G or Vertigogo about 'everyday' casual sometime even 'unconcious' discriminatory language they'll offer you many examples.", you would be amazed at how subtle, yet hurtful and hateful phrases are used in our language each day, almost unconsciously. Various over phrases like "he dresses like a ***" or "you can't out-Jew a Jew" are being replaced with covert terms/phrases, but the intent is still the same. It is the unconscious use of terms that need to be exposed. This awareness will, hopefully, change attitudes. However, even if the person using the phrase does not change in their attitude, at least they are aware enough to stop using that particular term. Thus, terms like "African-Canadian" or "African-American" will be used instead of "*****" or "black". The person using the phrase may not have changed their attitudes towards this "person of color", but at least he/she is not overtly displaying covert hostility. At least it's a start. The idea of "live and let live" has a long way to go in becoming a reality.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:
*As Mac owners we ARE a "vocal minority" - used to being slighted and having to fight for equal standing in schools, businesses etc.*

I'm vaguely disturbed that you'd equate using a computer platform other than the currently popular platform to being gay or being Jewish. Last time I looked, no one's been killed over a matter as trivial as the operating system they use.

As for not wishing people a Merry Christmas[1], I can do that. Does that mean, though, that I'm allowed to feel slighted or offended if someone wishes me a Happy Hanukka, and that I should tell them not to (because, clearly, they're making assumptions about me)? 

And here I always though that multi-culturalism was about learning about and respecting other people's cultures, not grinding everything down into some sort of lowest-common-denominator pap. 

[1] Fun fact! I'm not even Christian!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jfpoole, point well made ("I'm vaguely disturbed that you'd equate using a computer platform other than the currently popular platform to being gay or being Jewish. Last time I looked, no one's been killed over a matter as trivial as the operating system they use.)! While I am not gay, I am Jewish, and I have experienced discrimination during my lifetime for this belief. Still, when I know that a person means no disrespect towards me by wishing me a "Merry Christmas", I simply say thank you. I used to say "and a Happy Hanukkah to you too", but then I realized that was an act of covert hostility and resentment that I should not be fostering. Such is Life.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

CC wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Peter why did you mention "sodomy" in your rant? Was it something offhand? Or did it refer to something in particular? I don't mean to knit pick but I'm curious what you meant (if anything) by it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know why that spewed out of my head. I think I was picking something extreme and controversial. I meant nothing else by it and apologise if it was in bad taste. These things happen when you're ranting late at night.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Once again, macdoc has eloquently debated himself out of the corner and has backup ammunition. You know folks, I don't have any problem with being sensitive and respective to others rights. I get cranky when I have to bend over backwards to accomodate the wishes of others who often appear to not care about mine. And then being told v.s. encouraged to shift my thinking. I'm not going to continue arguing this issue. I just needed to vent frustration and challenge some assertions Have a great day, everyone.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And for the record having known Peter for uncounted years he actually IS a very kind and sensitive soul.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Peter and EhMax if you haven't read the link then I suggest you do so before all the mutual back patting. http://www.generationj.com/issues/nov_02/life_rt2.html *

And how many times have you used or requested the appluase emoticon? 

I read the article. I can empathize with his point... Most Christians think Christmas is a royal pain in the _tuchus_ as well when looking at the malls and how commercialized the holiday is and how early it starts. I stay away from the malls for this very reason as well. I also empathize with his sisters experience in school. Kids are very mean at times. 

I can see his point especially if people start saying Merry Christmas in November.







Usually when I say Merry Christmas, its during the actual statutory holiday or the day before. 

I do understand Macdoc's argument. 

There are so many things that people say that can be well meant that actually are a pain in the tuchus. Growing up, because I was tall, was always asked if I played basketball, how the weather was up there... Also told how skinny I was..

People say things to me like I am the way I am because I'm a Virgo (I don't believe in astrology), say "oh my god" like a regular common phrase etc... 

Should I let it be water off a ducks back or should I ask everyone to tone it down to be politically correct and sensitive?


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Vertigogo since I know you are up early - how DO you feel and react to the "casual slights" you must experience??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do I react to "casual slights?" Well, I guess that depends on the situation. I sometimes simply "consider the source" and just let it roll off my back like water on a duck's @ss. 

However, there are many times when I challenge people on what they say and note that what they have said is inappropriate. I always correct people who ask me how long my "wife" and I have been married after they see the ring on my finger and note that my partner is also male. Generally the response is, "Oh...sorry" and then we move on. It will take more people doing that before assumptions of heterosexuality are broken down further. 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Are you not very appreciative and aware of those who are careful and inclusive in their language?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not that I am not appreciative of some people's "inclusiveness," because I am. However, I generally just expect it from people. I am an individual with feelings and sensitivities, just like anyone else, and I expect people to treat me with respect and dignity and if I am not treated that way...we will have words.  Besides, I normally surround myself with friends who don't give a damn about who I sleep with...just as I don't give a sh!t who they are boinking. It is none of my concern. 

You see, the problem is that when many people think about same-sex couples, all they see or think of is a sexual act and not the people. Well, I am so much more than a sexual-act...in fact, it is a rather small part of who I am as a person. 

I know this is kinda the long-winded version of a response...but, I am a person. A Christian. A gay man. A brother and beloved son of my parents. A respected citizen. A civil servant. A wonderful singer (1st tenor). A terrible pool player (but I try). A devoted and loving partner of my husband of 2.5 years. And an all around good guy. So...if some people fail to see all these other cool and wonderful things about me (and this is not an exhaustive list)...to hell with them. 

I don't need their acceptance, but I will demand their respect and fair treatment under the law.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thank you Dr. G. I agree the "platform choice" is trivial in comparison BUT it was a common irritation all Mac users experience that I could draw on as an example.
My point was, if that trivial "difference" is annoying then it just highlights how very hurtful when it's a serious and systemic degrading language casually tossed off in everyday conversation.

eHmax - exactly. The US is even worse starting right at their Thanksgiving - it's become ludicrous - annoying even to those who believe it is a sacred time and extremely intrusive to others who sometimes wish it would all just go away.

Thank you ALL for taking the time to give this some issue some serious thought.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Since we hijacked this thread a little bit.. I started a new thread that might be informational to everyone...


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

And now...back to the Same-sex Marriage discussion.

Please post away!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Vertigogo et al - I still think the thread has not been hijacked since being aware and inclusive IS a large part of the "same sex marriage" discussion.
That said we can continue the "seasons greetings" debate elsewhere.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Vertigogo that was a great post. Bottom line you are human......with all that implies.
I really like your approach. There are times when it has to be let go ...I have an associate who is pretty bigoted on a variety of fronts and I know he is not going to change so we avoid the debate.
The real headache is even having to deal with it.
You should expect and get treatment exactly the same as any other person. Not patronizing, not sympathizing, all those are subtle discimination in their own right.
Saying things like partner instead of wife or husband should be the everyday norm when the particular family arrangement is not known.
I'm glad you are willing to speak out too - it's uncomfortable at times but so is "letting it roll off....".
"To hell with them" is indeed a lovely condemnation of discrimination and insensitivity of all sorts......especially potent coming from a Christian  

I can't play pool worth a damn either -


----------



## Rock Lobster (May 15, 2002)

Sounds like we need to organize a pool tournament to settle this issue...
just who is the worst ehMac pool player!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I've been reading the threads on this debate and I sense from the politically correct tone on this subject that most people here are of the opinion that there is no such thing as right and wrong. There is only right for you and right for me but they are both right. Assuming that this is true lets add some more oppressed people to the list.

Pedophiles...
Ask a Pedophile about his "sexual orientation" and he will likely say he has been attracted to children since he can remember. He was just born that way so how can we discriminate against his biologically programmed sexual orientation? In fact we should celebrate his diversity and "educate" people so they accept it as normal. Imagine the hurt and the pain one must feel to have his face posted on trees all over town warning that he is a danger to society or seeing the glaring eyes of concerned parents.
Oh but he is victimizing children you say? Don't enforce your "old outdated beliefs on him". Who ever came up with this discriminatory aging system anyhow? Probably some religious fanatics trying to impose there belief system on the rest of us. Some cultures allow marriage of Children. Pedophiles have been around since the beginning of time so it must be normal. Some ancient civilizations saw nothing wrong with it so why should we today? Get with the times. Kids are so "sexually advanced these days we have sex education for them in Kindergarden, condoms in the bathrooms and nice people with bananas to show them how to put them on. If they make a mistake we can wisk them off for a quick abortion without even telling mom and dad. In the "dark ages" it was looked upon as wrong to have sex before you were commited to somebody in marriage but thank God (or deity of your choice or yourself) we have become so enlightened and educated (implication: if you don't think like us you're stupid). If the pedophile and boy love each other what is wrong with that? 
Look at poor Michael Jackson, nothing wrong with him. If it bothered you to see him holding hands with his 11 year old bed buddy, How dare you! Pedophobic are we? The 11 year old was quite happy to share Michael's bed as were many others. If a guy on a float on Young street dancing with his privates boucing freely in the wind in front of small children doesn't bother you then why would this?
Yes we Mac users should have no problem accepting this since we are used to being an oppressed minority and we do Think Different! So lets get some legislation out there to stop this discrimination of these poor oppressed people.

Bottom Line
Fact is, in a politically correct society anything can be made justified, even pedophilia. How do you draw the line on anything? Anyone want to argue against this one? Remember that you can't be intolerant or bigoted towards the pedophile or inflict your religious belief system on him. 

Good Luck


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Actually, some believe that the word translated as homosexual in the Bible, is actually better translated as pedophile - a man who takes a young man hostage as a sex slave. [edit: what I'm saying is, claims that "God doesn't approve of gays" seem to be a result of mistranslation, i.e. the line was drawn wrong - it should have been "God doesn't approve of sexual abusers of power"]
My belief is, it's not nice to hurt people, and that includes hurting them by condemning their sexual preference.
Having sex with a child is injurious to them, whether they agreed to do it or not.
[edit: see - it's quite easy to draw the line. Therefore your underlying argument holds no water]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Elmer
"Having sex with a child is injurious to them, whether they agreed to do it or not."
Succinct and to the point.
Societies - note the plural - tend to agree with you and have drafted legislation accordingly.
•••••
MacGuiver, I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from.
There is a sarcasm and a subtext in your post that says you have in your mind a set of "rights and wrongs" that you believe hold true and that you think should be recognised by others as having an absolute validity to them.

This thread was regarding adult interactions and you are using child adult interactions as a "flash point".
This society has seen fit to designate "age of consent" for various activities from drinking to voting to driving to consensual sex. These "age categories" have changed from time to time and there is a real question as kids are maturing sexually far earlier - something in the 2 year range physically and of course are more "sophisticated".
There is unlikely to be a "learners pemit" devised for kids and sex so that will continue to be an issue that legislators and society will debate.
Pairing this question with a discussion of gay marriages is simply a form of bigotry of the worst sort.

Pedophilia is like any behaviour deemed socially unacceptable when acted upon even tho' it is far more emotionally loaded than some others. If it becomes pathological and kids are at risk then legal remedies are employed as devised by legislation.
In the past women with severe PMS would be institutionalized - society has moved past that.
Kids used to be exploited for work at very young ages.
Society in the west has legislation marking the boundaries for that.

My best guess is you are using an emotionally loaded issue to forward an agenda you are not disclosing in the post
You are using perjorative and inflammatory images and language to belittle an approach you do not agree with and yet you do not offer an opinion yourself.
Just what, aside from sarcasm, is your contribution??
What "moral high ground" are you trying to promote??


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ask a Pedophile about his "sexual orientation" and he will likely say he has been attracted to children since he can remember. He was just born that way so how can we discriminate against his biologically programmed sexual orientation? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give me a break. This is a thread about gay marriage...the union of two consenting adults of the same gender.

For you to even bring pedophelia into this arena denotes a complete misunderstanding of the issue and of homosexuality. Those who try to make the link that gay people are, by extension, pedophiles who want to prey on the young is misleading and offensive. 

Pedophiles are deviants who take advantage of power dynamics and exploit children for their own pleasure. It is disgusting and should not be tolerated.

I am not a "moderator" or anything, but please stay on topic...and absolutely do not insult me (or others' intelligence) by trying to suggest that pedophelia is even remotely similar to the issue we are discussing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thank you Vertigogo - I was just as pissed but figured a swat from you would be more effective.
  too.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I support your reponses to the pedophile issue 100% Macdoc and Vertigogo. I'm hoping that example was brought in for some other reason than homosexual marriage. At least I hope so because it was way off-base otherwise.

Back on track then: Why isn't the government of Canada allowing same-sex marriages? I'd like theories, politics, links, etc. It strikes me as ironic and incredibly frustrating that "multicultural" Canada won't allow equal marriage rights to everybody.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MacGuiver, you aren't a catholic priest are you? 

(I'm sorry, very mean joke but just couln't resist)









Actually, in all seriousness.. I think MacGuiver does have one point in there and something that does scare me... I can't find a link, but I do remember a professor who moonlighted as a male prostitute who made the argement for having sex with young boys... (Very early teens). He used fancy words and terms, debated very well, talked eloquently and there were people in serious discussion with him. It freaked me out that people were actually debating this! 

So, there is a point there.. but yeah, relating it to this thread...


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

This is off-topic too but I felt spurred to mentioned it with much disgust: there's an organization in the States called Man-Boy Love. There's even a website for them if I recall correctly.  

This however has as much to do with same-sex marriage as does with pedophilia: NOTHING!


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

That group is called NAMBLA and they are a bunch of sick-ohs. They wanted to march in a Pride parade in the US someplace a few years ago and organizers told them to go to hell. 

Anyhow...back in reality:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Back on track then: Why isn't the government of Canada allowing same-sex marriages? I'd like theories, politics, links, etc. It strikes me as ironic and incredibly frustrating that "multicultural" Canada won't allow equal marriage rights to everybody. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The House of Commons justice and human rights committee is examing the issue of same-sex marriage at this moment. Justice Minister Cauchon struck the committee following two separate court rulings (one in Ontario and one in Quebec) that struck down the current definition of marriage as being unconstitutional and discriminatory under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both courts told the federal government it has to ammend its legislation to include same-sex marriages, but gave them two years to do so. The government has appealed both rulings.

The current definition of marriage in Canada is "between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others" or something remarkably similar. 

The government currently has three options:

1) Ammend its definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
2) Leave marriage to the provinces or religious communities to decide.
3) Get out of the marriage game altogether.

I hope you can see the pitfalls of options 2 and 3 and that option 1 is the only real alternative. The other two leaves heterosexual couples who are non-religious without a way to get married. It would create potential jurisdictional problems where a marriage in one province would not be recognized in another. And it could create similar problems for Canadian couples who travel overseas. There are other legal arguments, but I am no lawyer. A quick google search would give you lots to read.

I would also encourage you to read through documentation on the EGALE website. EGALE is "Equality for Gays And Lesbians Everywhere" and is a lobby group across the country. They are a good bunch and have done a lot for the advancement of equality rights of gays and lesbians across canada.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

RockLobster wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>* Sounds like we need to organize a pool tournament to settle this issue...
just who is the worst ehMac pool player! * <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Count me in!. And if VertiGoGo comes down, I already promised him a round of beer.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

macdoc wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> *MacGuiver, I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from. *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I read it as a sarcastic parody on the argumentative logic that he has seen along the way. I sense he is sharing some of the frustration I previousy felt before "cleansing" myself. I don't think MacGuiver meant to equate the issues at hand, but was relating to the part of the thread that dealt with accepting others behaviour and that if you don't like it, don't participate because that's the way it is and not accepting it is discrimination. At least that's my guess. MacGuiver, can you clarify your position on this for eveyone before you get tarred and feathered.?


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Mmmmmmm...beer.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

EhMax wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> *MacGuiver, you aren't a catholic priest are you? 

(I'm sorry, very mean joke but just couln't resist) * <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
After all that dicussion, how could you DARE to be so insensitive to the Catholic members. Shouldn't you have asked if anyone here finds priest jokes offensive?

As aChristian, I forgive you and love you anyway. Are you signing up for the pool tournament?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

* After all that dicussion, how could you DARE to be so insensitive to the Catholic members. Shouldn't you have asked if anyone here finds priest jokes offensive?

As aChristian, I forgive you and love you anyway. Are you signing up for the pool tournament? *


Yes I know I was bad. The joke was just there, right in front of me. I couldn't resist the temptation. Forgive me fath.... I better shutup now. 

YES! Pool, I'm in. I really, REALLY suck at pool. Although I will make a friendly wager.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Throw a bucket of water on those flaming emoticons will you. I thought the sarcasm was obvious.
Peter, You hit the nail on the head. It was a sarcastic parody of the argumentative logic that you always here that is supposed to make me accept homosexuality. It also demonstrates the inflamitory retoric you get if you don't accept it like "its the 21st century, get with the times, bigot, get enlightened, you need to be educated. Someone even had the gall to call me a Catholic Priest! (That is certainly sensitivity for ya and simply a form of bigotry of the worst sort.) 

And VertiGoGo, how did you make a link between pedophilia and homosexuality from my quote? I said a PEDOPHILE might say he has been attracted to children all his life but I didn't say a homosexual would. He'd say he has been attracted to the same sex all his or her life. Both would see this as proof that its a genetic trait therefore it should be accepted as normal. We don't accept the predisposition arguement from a pedophile as a reason to accept his sexual orientation yet we do from a homosexual. Maybe other social factors contributed to the attraction to the same sex. People often site a bad relationship or absence of a male or female role model growing up, even sexual abuse. My gay cousin sure does as have many others. Maybe that ain't it either.

I'm not ready to put my vote in the yes box for gay marriage. In my eyes, you can sleep with whoever you like but I would be deeply disturbed to see a child on a float with some guys in leather thongs and studded neck collars rolling down Young St. Since gay men can't have a baby but through adoption, what rights would a mother have if she didn't want to see her child growing up without the benifit of both sexes as rolemodels? That image just doesn't sit well with me. Sorry if it doesn't bother you but that is my opinion and the opinion of many others in this country, even some gay people. 

I know you all have the KKK neo nazi images dancing in your heads but that would be furthest from the truth. Someone even alluded to the possibility I was a pedophile myself in disquise. Not in your life!! I had drinks tonight with a Lesbian co-worker and we had a wonderful time. I don't agree with here lifestyle choice but its her life not mine. We still respect each other even though we are miles apart on many issues like abortion. If she were to be attacked for being a lesbian I would defend her to the end but I still don't agree with her lifestyle. I know this isn't a politically correct way of thinking but I tell it how I see it.

[Edit - ehMax added some paragraph returns so people can read easier]


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Thanks for the info Vertigogo. 

MacGuiver I understand what you're saying but your comparison still doesn't equate. The mutual love between two people of the same-sex cannot be compared to the one-way attraction/obsession of a disturbed pedophile and an innocent child. I get your line of logic and I agree it could be scary but it's out of context, IMHO. That being said I'm not dismissing your viewpoint or opinion. I just want to flush out your mode of thinking more.

Every argument has political and cultural determinants. Biological essentialism is a weak, weak, weak (going, going but not gone. . .) argument. Shouldn't marriages be based on love and respect? If it were solely based on the need to reproduce we might as well start cloning people or setting up birthing factories. Eugenics here we come. Okay now I'm ranting on my own now. This part wasn't addressed to anyone in particular. Consider it thinking aloud. It'd be interested to hear thoughts, counter-points. 

Marriage as a legal act should be allowed for same-sex couples. Mutual love between any two consenting adults must be acknowledged. It is a right all Canadians should have.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> what rights would a mother have if she didn't want to see her child growing up without the benifit of both sexes as rolemodels? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, she would be sh!t out of luck. She should have thought of that before giving her child up for adoption. Now, gay adoption is a whole other issue, but here is my two cents worth. Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to adopt? That is just crazy. I mean...I had a mother and father (great ones) and I am gay. So...it's not as if gay couples would raise gay children. You're either gay or ya ain't. 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That image just doesn't sit well with me. Sorry if it doesn't bother you but that is my opinion and the opinion of many others in this country, even some gay people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 

Well, it only bothers me that you don't think that a same-sex couple is capable of providing the loving environment and moral upbringing that all children need, in order to be well-rounded members of society. That's all. I respect your opinion though.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MacGuiver:
*Throw a bucket of water on those flaming emoticons will you. I thought the sarcasm was obvious.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
MacGuiver,

Thanks for the thought provoking replies. I found myself very amused at some of the responses to your first reply to this thread. I am also very pleased to see your words weren't lost on everyone, just most.

I guess there are a few of us of similar opinions... willing to speak out publicly about them. It's that "political correct" thing that is sucking the honesty and courage out of many.

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Throw a bucket of water on those flaming emoticons will you. I thought the sarcasm was obvious."
What was OBVIOUS was a very uncalled for pairing of gay marriage issue and pedophilia from someone who doesn't support gay marriage. 
You used a flashpoint topic to promote YOUR viewpoint and by inference tie the two issues together,
You don't like the idea of gay marriage fine, say so, others have in a respectful manner. Purposefully mixing pedophilia into a gay marriage discussion is bigotry - sarcastic or not it's harmful and hurtful.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

EhMax wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yes I know I was bad. The joke was just there, right in front of me. I couldn't resist the temptation. Forgive me fath.... I better shutup now. 

YES! Pool, I'm in. I really, REALLY suck at pool. Although I will make a friendly wager. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For penance, give $10.00 to a local charity and pray for forgiveness. As for the pool game wager, hmmm...sounds like a sucker bet to me!


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I guess there are a few of us of similar opinions... willing to speak out publicly about them. It's that "political correct" thing that is sucking the honesty and courage out of many. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny, I would have sworn that you refused to have an honest discussion about this issue so that those who do not necessarily hold the same view as you would understand where you are coming from.

Mississauga wrote earlier:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I've debated this issue so often, I've lost the will to continuously explain myself in detail. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you never explained yourself here, but you were certainly willing to say homosexuality is not "normal." Truth be told, heterosexuality isn't "normal" for me...but I still value and respect straight people's relationships and love.

So, if you were really interested in a dialogue, it might be nice for others to understand where you are coming from. If you are not willing to do that (as others have), I would encourage you to watch the thread quietly.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Throw a bucket of water on those flaming emoticons will you. I thought the sarcasm was obvious.* ... [snip] *Someone even had the gall to call me a Catholic Priest! (That is certainly sensitivity for ya and simply a form of bigotry of the worst sort.) *

Hmm, I'm supposed to get the sarcasm of your "comparison" between pedophiles and homosexuals and you can't see the joke or irony about Catholic preists?

Aren't these the same priests who have the same arguments about homosexuality being "wrong". Should I group all priests in the same category the way you've stereotyped all homosexuals?

This topic we are debating (I think) is about homosexuals who want to go into a committed, monogamous lifetime relationship and whether that should be recognized. 

We have TV shows in which they hand out a marriage certificates to the straight contestant who gets chosen. We have millions of straight people living together without any marriage commitment. Two gay people want to make a commitment to each other but they don't have the right to. Is that right?


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I second what MacDoc and Vertigogo said above. I have been stewing over what to say but I decided it would probably be too annoyed or inflammatory in tone. 

MacGuiver and Missaussaga I'd like to hear your honest opinions explained. I'm being sincere. Please elaborate.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VertiGoGo:
*So, if you were really interested in a dialogue, it might be nice for others to understand where you are coming from. If you are not willing to do that (as others have), I would encourage you to watch the thread quietly.







*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK. Explain what you mean by "where I'm coming from" and I'll give you a proper and detailed response to that query.

If you can live with a simple summary, I oppose homosexuality. Hence, I oppose same sex marriage. I believe homosexuality is abnormal, unacceptable and a result of biochemical errors in the human brain. Because the society we live has decided to become accepting of the many "evolutions" going on around us doesn't mean I have to accept them. And I don't. How much more detail is required to understand what I have written?

I am prepared to be shunned by some because of my beliefs. It's the price I am willing to pay for my own freedom of expression and beliefs.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*I am prepared to be shunned by some because of my beliefs. It's the price I am willing to pay for my own freedom of expression and beliefs.*

Yet you have legal rights. Who gets to decide those rights? The people who support your rights, or the people who support the rights of those you are against?

How about everyone have equal rights and priveldges and let everyone be free to have their own expression and beliefs? 

Just a question, what are you basing your beliefs on homosexuality on? The bible? You're own insight and personal experience as being a homosexual? What a preist told you to believe?


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Oh ehMax, you and that priest again.  

Missaussaga, I won't shun you because I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and to practice what they believe as long as it doesn't harm others. To add to ehMax's questions: Do you believe marriage and sexuality is biologically determined? Are we only biochemical machines? I won't necessarily disagree with this assessment. Again I'm curious. What leads you to your beliefs? Have you always felt opposed to homosexuality?

My problem is that the brain is a mysterious mass of cells and chemicals; we know very little about it so I find the argument about misfiring neurons weak from my stance as an ex-biology student. Nevertheless, perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what you mean on this subject too.

Are you familiar with Michel Foucault? He's a cultural theorist who wrote the History of Sexuality. His argument is that normalization is the product of societies discursive practices. He finds it suspect that society tries to assimilate everyone. I imagine he wasn't a fan of U.S. culture. Perhaps I'm sidetracking now but my point was that Foucault makes a solid argument and he includes science as being political. Indeed, science overall has a political agenda either directly or indirectly. There is so much unexplored and unexplained that I cannot take "scientific proof" as neutral, purely Reason, or unbiased. That said I am still interested in science and theories about biological functions.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"If you can live with a simple summary, I oppose homosexuality. Hence, I oppose same sex marriage. I believe homosexuality is abnormal, unacceptable and a result of biochemical errors in the human brain. Because the society we live has decided to become accepting of the many "evolutions" going on around us doesn't mean I have to accept them. And I don't. How much more detail is required to understand what I have written?

I am prepared to be shunned by some because of my beliefs. It's the price I am willing to pay for my own freedom of expression and beliefs."

I certainly have less issue with Mississauga as he has made his position clear even tho' I think he's very wrong. I DO have some issues with the language and hope he will think about it a bit.
"I oppose homosexuality" ......that's like being opposed to living on earth - it's not like you have any choice in the matter - homosexuality is a part of this planet and not just in our species.
I suspect you are saying you are opposed to allowing homosexuals equal rights with you.
You say it's "abnormal" - the subtext reads "needs to be weeded out" since it's "unacceptable" to you and the resutls of "biochemical errors". That sounds to me like a prescription for eugenics and I'm curious if your thinking extends to it's logical conclusion which would see an enormous number of humans who happen to be outside some "norm" which you seem to think applies. Tell us where you would draw the line - normal vs abnormal.....I'm very curious.

You may not LIKE that this society has become far more inclusive but you do have to accept it or leave it as YOU are certainly outside the "norm" in your views. You are not likely to ever see it change in a direction that you would favour.

Since you are not homosexual, I'm curious as to why you feel it necessary to comment at all given your dogmatic approach? You are always free to hold your own beliefs but "promoting" discrimination and bigotry carries more societal penalties than just "shunning."
Calling homosexuality "unacceptable" and "abnormal" comes very close to hate mongering.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Don't know if anyone caught Survivor on Thursday night, but they got into a quick little debate on homosexuals... Same arguements.. Isn't normal, procreation. 

What I find interesting, is that those who are against homosexual relationships, marriage etc.. get SO upset about it. 

To me, I do go back and forth on some issues of homosexual relationships, (Which are really the same types of concerns I have about straight relationships) but in the bigger picture, the concerns are so low on my radar.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"What I find interesting, is that those who are against homosexual relationships, marriage etc.. get SO upset about it. "

Yeah you know THEY get SO UPSET! That's not a normal type reaction eh. That must be the result of a biochemical error. That's just plain unacceptable


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by VertiGoGo:
> [QB]<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> what rights would a mother have if she didn't want to see her child growing up without the benifit of both sexes as role-models? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
> 
> Well, she would be sh!t out of luck. She should have thought of that before giving her child up for adoption.
> ...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*If you chose to sleep with a man or woman doesn't have any effect on me or others but accepting gay marriage opens a pandoras box of other issues.*

Yeah, pretty soon woman will start voting and blacks will want to sit at the front of the bus.  

*jump all over ehmax for his totally bigoted Anti-Catholic comment*

*Sigh* Yes, I think all Catholics are pedophiles.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

Wow!!!  There is soooo much stuff that needs to be said now because, frankly, you do not have a bloody clue about what you are talking about. 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> She had the right to request that her son be adopted into a family practicing the same faith as her. Seems like a pretty decent and compassionate thing to do for someone giving up her child seeing that many religions feel salvation is to be found in there faith alone. Many of these faiths reject homosexuality but you say tough sh't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to think that gays and lesbians are incapable of faith. I am a devote Christian (Anglican to be precise) and while my faith may not condone homosexuality, my parish embraces diversity and welcomes gays and lesbians as full participants in its faith community. There should be absolutely no reason why your friend's child could not have been placed in the home of a same-sex couple that practices her faith. Other than that, I am of the opinion that anyone giving up their child for adoption also loses their parental rights to make decisions for that child and leaves it to the agency or state to find a loving, caring and stable household for that child. But that is another issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Schools are already being forced to educate kids on how to practice homosexual sex even though many parents for moral and religious reasons don't believe its right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, schools are not "being forced" to teach kids "how to have homosexual sex." These are courses on human sexuality...it is only normal that schools would also discuss homosexual sex, as it is part of human sexuality (although perhaps not yours). 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Some parents have concerns for the health and happiness of there children siting statistics of higher suicide rates and STD infections in the homosexual lifestyle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And so they should. Gay and lesbian teens commit suicide more often because they are marginalized, treated disrespectfully by their peers (and by adults) and are made to feel that they are worthless. They don't commit suicide BECAUSE they are gay, they commit suicide because narrow-minded, ignorant and hateful people make them feel so badly about themselves that the only way to escape the abuse is to take their own lives. THAT IS WHY. And the for the record, being gay is NOT a lifestyle. Clubbing, raving, being cowboys...those are "lifestyles."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Vancouver recently forced the school board to incorporate pro gay literature into his kindergarden class despite refusal from the school board . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Vancouver did not "force" schools to incorporate gay literature into the classroom. The school board had its ban of the books overturned by the BC Supreme Court because it was discriminatory, unconstitutional and violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Have you even read the books? They are beautiful stories and unless I am mistaken, they do not mention the words gay, lesbian or homosexual anywhere in them. 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Svend is now hard at work trying to ban anything printed that opposes the gay lifestyle. I see the bookburnings now in front of religious book stores. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Svend is a freak...and I do not support his book burnings any more than I support banning gay and lesbian literature (unless it violates hate crime laws or other criminal laws). 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For every one person dying of HIV in Canada, 50 die of cancer, yet gay groups are harassing politicians to put AIDs Research at the top of the Agenda. Monogamy would wipe it out but thats an option nobody wants to promote. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are so ignorant about this topic that you deserve to be whacked with a trout.  In case you haven't heard, there is an AIDS epidemic in the world. Millions and millions of people are infected...thousands are dying of it everyday (especially in Africa)...and no, MONOGAMY WILL NOT STOP AIDS!!! Condoms, clean needle exchanges, education, research, MONEY and engaged political leadership is the only thing that will stop AIDS. And for your information, infection of heterosexual women is now one of the fastest growing segments of the population. AIDS is a global problem that requires research dollars. If you believe that only gay people are infected with HIV and AIDS you are sorrowly mistaken...and you should pray to God that your children's school TEACHES THEM all about it. Here's another interesting tid-bit...the Catholic Church (thanks to the Pope) is aiding the spread of AIDS by obstructing important anti-AIDS initiatives at the UN. The Vatican would rather see thousands of people become infected with HIV everyday, than have them use a condom. I find that morally repgnant. 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...accepting gay marriage opens a pandoras box of other issues. (adoptions, cloning, censorship, sex education, freedom of Religion. etc.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the hell are you talking about? Gay and lesbian couples already have the right to adopt in most places in Canada. What does cloning or censorship have to do with gay marriage??? Sex education should include same-sex issues...so children do not have to feel like they are alone or different or not as good as anyone else. And freedom of religion is a protected measure under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and would have no impact on religious communities. "Marriage" is a secular, State-run "institution," sanctioning same-sex marriages would not oblige priests or other clerics to bless same-sex couples within the confines of their own faith. 

If you are going to post here, post facts and not hateful, ignorant fiction. Become informed.

And by the way...I am still waiting for a rational explanation of whyyou think "homosexuality is abnormal." 

Cheers.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

VertiGoGo,

You and a few others seem intent upon converting those of us who don't support same sex marriages, and seem to be the only ones getting upset at the fact that people like myself will not accept your lifestyle as normal. Get over it. You cannot sway my opinion and won't change my vote. You simply must accept the fact that not everyone will support your choice of lifestyle. End of discussion.

Let's stop before things become slanderous.

And ehMax; your rhetoric is becoming boring. Give it a rest. There are certain topics, as a forum moderator, you should be smart enough to avoid. You need to maintain a quiet middleground so as to hold the respect of all the members here.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You and a few others seem intent upon converting those of us who don't support same sex marriages, and seem to be the only ones getting upset at the fact that people like myself will not accept your lifestyle as normal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, actually I get upset because of "people like you" spreading lies and half-thruths, which is what the post previous to mine was full of. I am also not asking you to accept anything. What I was hoping for was reasoning behind your beliefs, so that I could understand the other side of the argument. Regretfully, you have failed or refused to do so. "Just because" is not a good explanation. 

If you do not wish to discuss this topic, don't read the thread. But don't suggest that the issue shouldn't be discussed at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You cannot sway my opinion and won't change my vote. You simply must accept the fact that not everyone will support your choice of lifestyle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 

As a I said, I wasn't trying to get your vote. Oh, and my being gay is not (and never has been) a "lifestyle."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> End of discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For you perhaps, but I hope others might be interested in continuing the discussion in a calm and reasonable fashion..."as it was in the begining." 

Cheers.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mississauga:
*
You and a few others seem intent upon converting those of us who don't support same sex marriages, and seem to be the only ones getting upset at the fact that people like myself will not accept your lifestyle as normal. Get over it. You cannot sway my opinion and won't change my vote. You simply must accept the fact that not everyone will support your choice of lifestyle. End of discussion. *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to convert anyone but I do insist on logical and sound arguments. While I appreciate your perspective, your arguments need to be flushed out and elaborated. 

For instance, the assumption that AIDS is a homosexual concern is misinformed and stems from slanderous lies that began in the 80s. It is also ethnocentric to forget that, for instance, thousands of Africans are dying from the disease. It afflicts everyone. Look on-line: one quote I read estimated nearly 25 million African were HIV positive. For instance click here. Oh and over 20 million people around the world have died from the disease.

The discussion is far from over. However, you're welcome to remove yourself. I'd prefer to hear more about your chain of thought and have you elaborate on your logic. I'll ask again: Isn't Canada a place of equal rights? Don't same-sex couples deserve the legal right to marry? It is irrelevant if you personally approve or not. This sort of equality should not be hindered by personal biases or feelings. Can't you separate your personal feelings from social/public concerns and equality? There are aspects of the law and public practice I don't approve of, but I can accept them on a social level. I agree there are some things we should stand up for. If this is one your strong issues, then let's discuss more.

I understand your frustration with hypocrisy but it's occurring on both sides so don't try and exempt yourself. 

Let this dialogue develop and emerge or you can leave and let your opinion fade from this thread. Don't give up.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*And ehMax; your rhetoric is becoming boring. Give it a rest. There are certain topics, as a forum moderator, you should be smart enough to avoid. You need to maintain a quiet middleground so as to hold the respect of all the members here.*










Mississauga, thanks for the good laugh. Be quiet and be a good little moderator.  Well, news for you my friend, you're a guest on my web site. I don't think you should try to dictate how involved I should get on my own site. 

Also, I'm not trying to win anyone's respect... especially those who make ignorant blanket statements like "Schools are already being forced to educate kids on how to practice homosexual sex" or that "Monogamy would wipe it [aids] out". Truly ignorant statements.... and I'm not bigoted toward Catholic Christians. I'm very tolerant and in fact interested in everyones belief and the reasoning behind their belief. What's boring is people who believe something... just because. Many times on ehMac I've read a very thoughtful explanation of a viewpoint that made sense and its changed my outlook, sometimes even totally changed my opinion or perspective. 

If someone where to come along and give me a thoughtful reason why homosexual marriages shouldn't be accepted, it might change my outlook. So far, all I've heard is "just because" type answers. Oh, and also because a same sex couple might want to adopt and unwanted child and then term them into a homosexual or something. 

I especially don't like when people make very vague references to homosexuality being wrong because the Bible says so or their faith says so. The fact is, the Bible doesn't say clearly that being in a committed same sex marriage is a sin. Anyone care to get into a biblical discussion with me on the subject? We can open a new thread... Have you actually read thoroughly what you believe or do you just believe because someone told you so or that you've read one chapter?

Other people do not believe in the validity of the Bible. If one openly accepts their freedom to believe, you must accept others same rights not to believe the same thing that you do. 

In that case, why not just worry about God's main law to love thy neighbour and let Him do the judging if he thinks its evil?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Re Ehmax and the Catholics - he knew it was in bad taste and made a point of apologizing about it. Many of these discussions are very hard for ehMax given his background and he IS maintaining a middle ground and a sense of humour despite your best efforts at being seriously ignorant in your posts.
You speak of "respect" yet you seem to miss the point of just how bigoted and hurtful your comments are despite that hurt being made very clear by others in this discussion.
Heated discussion can be undertaken without the kind of perjorative language you employ.
You don't answer direct questions about just how far you would take your "norm" argument which leads me to believe that you haven't examined your own attitude or you are just comfortable being a bigot.
Respect from others is earned not demanded. Contribute your insights with decorum and thoughtful, informed language or expect to be taken to task for not doing so.

CC thanks for your post. 

Mississauga if that's the end of the discussion for you then that would be a welcome relief as undisguised bigotry and ignorance is uncomfortable anywhere. YOU are exactly why Canada NEEDS the charter.
 

Vertigogo -"sic em". Ignorance deserves to be taken to task....thanks for taking the time to respond and your courage in doing so. It's been informative to read your posts, somewhat depressing to SEE right here what you too often face.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Many of these discussions are very hard for ehMax given his background*

Just curious which part of my background you mean? (I didn't know you knew anything about my background)


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Just curious which part of my background you mean? (I didn't know you knew anything about my background) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Let's hope he wasn't making "assumptions"















I've been sitting back and watching the reactions fly around. I'm tempted to re-read the last few pages and make notes. Either my memory (which isn't very good) is fooling me, or some parts of the arguments have really been twisted from their original intent to flame the lambasting of those with "controversial attitudes". I'm not defending or challenging anyone in these recent posts, but I seem to find that some of the laid forth comments are being somewhat chewed up and being spit out a different colour. This while raising the attitude of intollerance of someone's possibly misunderstood outlook (some clarification is warranted). My feeling is that if someone confirms an attitude or belief that is socially harmful, they must be shown the errors of their beliefs and encouraged to see the light. VertiGoGo has shown this type of approach, while maintaining respect for the other person's feelings and has the ability to carry on the dialogue. However, twisting words and lambasting someone you strongly disagree with only strenghtens that other persons resolve to maintain their stance and in the end, nothing is accomplished. "********" need to be educated, if you don't agree with them, not have the fingers of intollerance jammed in their face. As I said to a friend yesterday, "You catch flies with honey better than you can with vinegar". Perhaps ehMax could verify if the old proverb "Judge not, lest you be judged" would pertain. It's bedtime now...goodnight fellow ehMacians! Peace!


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Thank you for the detailed reply MacGuiver. I appreciate your calm answers. 

You're welcome MacDoc; I try my best to be honest and sincere.

Oh question: Is the trout a reference to Monty Python's Fish Slapping dance? I loved that! 

My mind is frazzled from too much work at present but perhaps I'll write more later. 

The government's role in public morality would be an interesting post. While cloning really has nothing to do with this thread, it would be an interesting new thread also. Did a Dutch woman give birth to a clone!?!? That's news to me MacG. Do you have a link or news source? I'm sincerely curious.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cynical Critic:
*Thank you for the detailed reply MacGuiver. I appreciate your calm answers. 
The government's role in public morality would be an interesting post. While cloning really has nothing to do with this thread, it would be an interesting new thread also. Did a Dutch woman give birth to a clone!?!? That's news to me MacG. Do you have a link or news source? I'm sincerely curious. *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HI

Matter of fact I do have a link http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/01/04/human.cloning/ 

Again I digress. Because the first person that apparently cloned a child was lesbian doesn't mean cloning is going to rise or fall based on the desire for a biological child in the homosexual community. Many others could have filled that void although I have read articals where some gay and lesbians have been very excited about the prospects of having children this way. There are other artificial methods of creating babies but that is another issue altogether I don't care to wade into.

And yes, VertiGoGo has contributed some great comments and has kept the personal attacks out of the subject dispite his closeness to this issue and his obvious frustration with me. He has offered substance in his rebuttals not the old your a *******, bigot, Catholic Priest etc. That was one of my observations in my first posting that if you disagree with homosexuality you are painted as the lowest form of life on the planet. Hats off to him! He is a great example of tollerance. 
Cheers


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I guess your right on that one but it really mystifies me why a gay couple would want to be a member of a faith that does not condone homosexuality? I see that in all religions. Its like a night club owner joining a Church that teach that smoking, drinking and dancing are sinful yet its his life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not all that mystifying. My Parish is an open and accepting place where all people are respected as people...and they have embraced homosexuality as "normal" and a "God given" part of people's identities. The minister at our church has even requested that the issue of blessing same-sex unions be addressed at the next synod (sp?). You see, religion is open to many interpretations...I choose to interpret it as God wanting us all to be good human beings who are fair and just and who will not oppress people for their differences. I believe that to be fundamental to all religion, regardless of the faith community. I was a member of parish council, I sing in the choir and have been a very active member of our parish (and well liked by the children, right up to the blue-haired old ladies). God love 'em!  

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Which goes back to this debate, I don't believe its normal human sexuality? If some parents are OK with it then tell their kids all about it. But I see it as a moral issue not a biology lesson. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, so you're not ok with it. Now, here' a question...what happens if your child turns out to be gay? You will have fed so much negativity into them that they will likely be terrified to speak to you about it. How would you feel if they committed suicide because they were filled with so much guilt because they felt they "let you down" by being gay or lesbian? Believe me, I know of what I speak. My father was a total red-neck, ex-US Marine...I heard a lot of anti-gay statements growing up. Imagine his shock when I revealed my being gay. He has changed now and absolutely adores my partner...but it was a long road. Just let the schools teach it...they are not promoting it...they are simply making kids aware that it is out there because if you do not think it is normal, you will be unlikely to address it in an unbiased fashion. Personally, if I didn't approve of homosexuality...I would rather have a gay or lesbian child than a dead child. 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Although I disagree with homosexuality, my son would get a tongue lashing if he teased or picking on a gay kid. They have feelings like anyone else and deserve to be treated with human dignity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you treat your son with dignity if he revealed to you that he is gay? It is the toughest and most perilous journey a child ever makes...talling parents they are gay. I hope that you would.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I haven't read them but the point of the book is to tell kids that two dad or two moms is perfectly fine. I can see where it would be reasuring to a child that happens to have gay parents but at the same time it tells my 5 year old that you can marry a man or a woman and its perfectly OK. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it would also be reassuring to children who have divorced parents...and then have two dads or two mothers. It doesn't tell you child that people of the same-gender can marry (because they cannot and that is why we started this merri-go-round). It tells your 5-year-old that there are different types of families out there and that they are all filled with love and deserve respect...including families with two mommies or two daddies. Personally, I don't see a lesson in respect and treating others with dignity as going against your earlier statement of "(gays and lesbians) have feelings like anyone else and deserve to be treated with human dignity." 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If I were to write an article in a newspaper explaining why I don't support homosexuality, that could be interpreted as promoting hate? No? So I go to jail for my beliefs... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it wouldn't. Not if you were making rational statements based on your beliefs. Where you would get into trouble is if you started to make "hateful" remarks or advocated violence against an identifiable group or encited others to be hateful towards that group (in this case, gays and lesbians). No one's freedom of speech has been taken away, however there are limits...like when a person's freedom of speech begins to interfere or threaten another's right to dignity and human rights.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I will concede, my numbers on HIV were really dated. I hit the world vision web site and was blown away by the numbers of people infected now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is why money needs to be put into it (and other diseases)...cripes, it's not like we can't afford it!!! Governments in the western democracies should be embarrassed by their lack of engagement on this issue...and it is not just Hollywood that has been screaming for action on this. You saw the numbers...MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people are infected and dying. People are being infected at an alarming rate...more so than any other disease on the planet (including cancer). Africa is in a dreadful state because of this disease and no one is doing a damned thing. However, if the United States or another western nation was facing similar numbers, you can bet your bottom dollar that gobs and gobs of money would be thrown at it. Since when do African lives worth less than our own? (and I am not saying anyone suggested that here)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Can I not disagree with you without being called hateful and ignorant? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You absolutely may, but I never said YOU are hateful. I said some of your comments were hateful. If that was not your intention, I apologize. 

Look, it all boils down to this: I want to marry my life partner. We love one another, are faithful to one another and are active members of a community of faith (and he is Muslim on top of everything). Cripes...we even have our china pattern chosen. My being in this relationship already has not affected anyone on this site...so, I really cannot see how if he and I got married it would affect you either.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> MacGuiver wrote:

That was one of my observations in my first posting that if you disagree with homosexuality you are painted as the lowest form of life on the planet. Hats off to him! He is a great example of tollerance. 
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>








Blush...gosh...thanks. Oh no, I am great example of "acceptance."  You should try it...it rocks...and it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

Why is it most men have a problem with a man being gay, but when it comes to women being gay, the best they can come up with is suppressing the urge to ask if they can watch, or even join in?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah MacGuiver - thank you. You've brought up some excellent points without the derogatory and sarcastic language.
There is no question that dealing with your kids when your own belief system is at odds with some of the things taught at school is a thorny problem.
Bringing some humour and wet fish into this kind of "difficult" discussion is VERY welcome.
You also show respect by "listening" and showing understanding for alternate viewpoints and acknowledging when you've been "over the top" or somewhat out of date. You still stick with your point but with some informed, thoughtful explanation behind it and that's geatly appreciated. Yes indeed you can disagree without being called "ignorant and hateful".
It was the poor choice of "extension of logic" in bringing pedophilia plus some now admitted "inaccuracies" into the discussion that prompted flames.

No flames for reasonable discourse, especially when humour is used to take off some of the edginess. Applause for taking the time to write that last post which was excellent.
The IBM 970 discussion is over in Town Hall - this IS the Kitchen and it indeed can get toasty at times.

Vertigogo if I believed in saints you should be nominated now and to hell with the waiting period...oops that didn't quite scan did it?









eHmax you were worried initially about provocative and controversial posts in the Kitchen. You've provided open discourse on many of the things you find puzzling or believe in seriously ( abortion ).
That's what I'm referring to...you've shown remarkable and growing composure plus a willingness to share. Sometimes it's tough to both participate and moderate. 
Over time you gain a picture of the individuals here - that's why it's a community. We generally know Macnutt, fondly, as the local *******, I've got an anti-religious streak, CubaMark represents our social conscious etc
I'm only expressing admiration, as I did above for MacGuiver, at damping down the "inflamatory rhetoric" and considering differing views as these discussions are really essential and can be very informative.

MacGuiver you showed some serious humanity in your post despite the flames aimed your way. Kudos, not for your beliefs, but for your current approach to explaining them.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VertiGoGo:
*







Blush...gosh...thanks. Oh no, I am great example of "acceptance."  You should try it...it rocks...and it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wiat a minute... HOLD THE PHONE!

Are you all trying to tell me that... VERTIGOGO IS GAY?!?!?!

OMG!!!!

I knew it! I knew it! I saw how his Unreal Tournament Avatar kept staring at MY Unreal Tournament Avatar's ass! And with that 'appreciative' smile! Of course I cant blame him, as my Unreal Avatar's ass has such a *NICE* polygon count. Gives a new meaning to the term "bump-mapping"...

But THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

I need him kicked out of further games! His avatar might molest my avatar! It might try and sway my team-mates to "play for the other side"! I don't want *MY* child to be "fragged by a ***".

Should I go on? I can be sarcastic like this all day.

The point is, the whole "gay' issue is so pointless to argue, I'm shocked it's gone on this long. Gay's are people too. No matter race, religion or OS platform. 

We have already beaten your views to death here. And pretty much all of them seem to focus around religous beliefs that gays are an affront to your respective gods or goddesses. And if your religion can't accept people being people, maybe you should ask your respective deity what his/her/its beef with gays are.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Blush...gosh...thanks. Oh no, I am great example of "acceptance."  You should try it...it rocks...and it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. [/QB][/QUOTE]

VertiGoGo
I said you showed tollerance, not acceptance. Thats not the same thing at all. You don't accept my view anymore than I accept yours but you have been tollerant. That is why this debat is going on. 

Which brings up another thought, if acceptance is the benchmark of being a loving person then I guess it would mean a parent would not love thier child if they didn't accept there child's choice to smoke and tried to steer them from something they saw as distructive. I don't accept the notion that a woman should be treated like a dog because of her religion even though she may have chosen that for herself. Are you saying I should accept that if I am a to be a loving person. Quite the opposite I would think.

I do feel just as fuzzy inside as you. Even though I have a different view of morality than you, I can still love you as much as anyone else. 

Have a great day


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Strongblade
"Why is it most men have a problem with a man being gay, "
Biology - chemistry - MOST men are heterosexual so of course it's hard to turn that off and be empathic.

"but when it comes to women being gay, the best they can come up with is suppressing the urge to ask if they can watch, or even join in?"
See above







- two women making love just tells the heterosexual male chemistry there are TWO possible mates who currently APPEAR sexually receptive. I'm quite sure the primitive brain is not very bright or very discriminating that way. It sort of says "the more the merrier"  

It's interesting how many men and women, when their sexuality is emerging in their youth, have some ****-erotic experiences.

There's a certain Baptist minister who would blush thinking about what he initiated with his first cousin when he was 12.








I'm glad kids are getting help in dealing with their emerging sexuality in a healthy manner. Good sex and affection, romantic and companion love are part of true wonders and joys of being human.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

">>You seem to think that gays and lesbians are incapable of faith. I am a devote Christian (Anglican to be precise) and while my faith may not condone homosexuality, my parish embraces diversity and welcomes gays and lesbians as full participants in its faith community. >>

I guess your right on that one but it really mystifies me why a gay couple would want to be a member of a faith that does not condone homosexuality? I see that in all religions. Its like a night club owner joining a Church that teach that smoking, drinking and dancing are sinful yet its his life. There are churches out there that do agree with your beliefs, I'm thinking of the United Church maybe? If my church started preaching that blacks should sit at the back of the bus or women shouldn't be allowed to vote I'd be out the door (OK EhMax). Tons of people do this on many different issues like Catholics for euthanasia and abortion. What is that? I couldn't sit in that church if my beliefs were the opposite! Your very presence there says you agree with that faith.

>>>No, schools are not "being forced" to teach kids "how to have homosexual sex." These are courses on human sexuality...it is only normal that schools would also discuss homosexual sex, as it is part of human sexuality (although perhaps not yours). >>>

Which goes back to this debate, I don't believe its normal human sexuality? If some parents are OK with it then tell their kids all about it. But I see it as a moral issue not a biology lesson. We apparently want to separate church and state but in my eyes, the state is becoming church and parent.

>>>And so they should. Gay and lesbian teens commit suicide more often because they are marginalized, treated disrespectfully by their peers (and by adults) and are made to feel that they are worthless.>>>

You're right again partially, I am sure a lot of kids get teased to the point of suicide because they are gay, overweight, skinny, ethnic etc. That is wrong and should not be tolerated! Although I disagree with homosexuality, my son would get a tongue lashing if he teased or picking on a gay kid. They have feelings like anyone else and deserve to be treated with human dignity. As always, two sides have two sets of numbers on the issue. This article makes some good arguments that the whole gay teen suicide stats were bogus to begin with but are used to push for gay education in schools. http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/labarbera.html 
I haven't viewed the stats but if this article is true, it makes you wonder.

>>>No, Vancouver did not "force" schools to incorporate gay literature into the classroom. The school board had its ban of the books overturned by the BC Supreme Court because it was discriminatory, unconstitutional and violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms..<<<

Yes it was the BC Supreme Court but it was in Vancouver I believe. My mistake. I haven't read them but the point of the book is to tell kids that two dad or two moms is perfectly fine. I can see where it would be reasuring to a child that happens to have gay parents but at the same time it tells my 5 year old that you can marry a man or a woman and its perfectly OK. Again I feel this is a moral issue taken on by the state and I don't want the state dictating the morals for my family. I hope I can teach my children to love everyone regardless of race, color, creed or sexuality. If I do that there is no need for a book about the two dads or the black dad & white mom, or the macusing parents etc. etc.

>>>Svend is a freak...and I do not support his book burnings any more than I support banning gay and lesbian literature (unless it violates hate crime laws or other criminal laws). >>>

Hey we agree on something but I don't think Svend is a freak. I don't agree with him or his agenda but I don't hate him. My concern is what is interpreted as hate. I don't agree with your homosexuality but I certainly don't hate you for it or wish you harm. If I were to write an article in a newspaper explaining why I don't support homosexuality, that could be interpreted as promoting hate? No? So I go to jail for my beliefs when I really never hated anybody, I just don't accept their sexuality and don't want it forced upon my children.

>>>You are so ignorant about this topic that you deserve to be whacked with a trout.  In case you haven't heard, there is an AIDS epidemic in the world. Millions and millions of people are infected...thousands are dying of it everyday (especially in Africa)...and no, MONOGAMY WILL NOT STOP AIDS!!! Condoms, clean needle exchanges, education, research, MONEY and engaged political leadership is the only thing that will stop AIDS. And for your information, infection of heterosexual women is now one of the fastest growing segments of the population. AIDS is a global problem that requires research dollars. If you believe that only gay people are infected with HIV and AIDS you are sorrowly mistaken...and you should pray to God that your children's school TEACHES THEM all about it. Here's another interesting tid-bit...the Catholic Church (thanks to the Pope) is aiding the spread of AIDS by obstructing important anti-AIDS initiatives at the UN. The Vatican would rather see thousands of people become infected with HIV everyday, than have them use a condom. I find that morally repgnant.<<<

Please, not a trout! Although I do like salmon!
How could I not have heard about the AIDS epidemic. Hollywood has been preaching this for years. And yes monogamy will not stop aids but it sure would put a huge dent in it since its mainly transmitted sexually but nobody wants to talk about it. With your bold letters I thought I suggested castration. Yes it is a serious problem and I know its not an exclusively homosexual disease. I see 2.7 million dying of malaria each year when we even have a vaccine and I don't see people wearing ribbons on their tuxedos on Grammy night to vaccinate the world and save 2.7 million people. Condoms can fail and even give a false sense of security, people with IV drug problems need medical intervention to stop. Despite free needle programs and condom mobiles rolling around the cities, people are still having unprotected sex and doing drugs with dirty needles. Education is the answer? I don't know. I grew up being hammered with the don't smoke campaigns all my life as did everyone else. I never smoked because my parents taught me to have a mind of my own and not follow the crowd so I never even tried it. As I pass the high-school today, DuMaurier is still going strong even though we all see the black lungs on the packages.
However I will concede, my numbers on HIV were really dated. I hit the world vision web site and was blown away by the numbers of people infected now. You were right, I graciously acknowledge my ignorance there. Go ahead and scream at the politicians!
As for the pope, If we all abstained from sex until marriage and were monogamous we wouldn't be in this mess. I guess he sees the answer in that but he is nieve to think people will embrace that. I would have to support the condoms too. Our world has become so sex driven now it would take a miracle to change it. Even Lipton soup eludes to a young guy jerking off on the end of his bed to sell a bowl of soup. And now back to Barney and Friends!

>>>Gay and lesbian couples already have the right to adopt in most places in Canada. What does cloning or censorship have to do with gay marriage??? Sex education should include same-sex issues...so children do not have to feel like they are alone or different or not as good as anyone else. And freedom of religion is a protected measure under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and would have no impact on religious communities. "Marriage" is a secular, State-run "institution," sanctioning same-sex marriages would not oblige priests or other clerics to bless same-sex couples within the confines of their own faith.<<<

You are right again. Gays can adopt in some provinces although I don't agree with it. Another stroke with the wet salmon. The cloning issue could arise from gay and lesbian couples wanting to have children of thier own since they can't conceive naturally like heterosexuals. Yes I know there are other artificial techniques available but we are really crossing the line with cloning. I guess cloning came to mind because the first "apparently" cloned baby was born to a dutch lesbian woman. I could see where gay couples could be greatly attracted to this but I concede that it could be anyone that would want this. Scratch the cloning issue, that was a bad example. Thats what happens when you rant too long. The censorship goes back to Svends bookshop bonfires. If you disagree with the gay marriage in print your up infront of Judge Judy facing time in the big-house.

>>>If you are going to post here, post facts and not hateful, ignorant fiction. Become informed.<<<

Another crushing blow with the salmon, I don't hate you already!! Can I not disagree with you without being called hateful and ignorant. I haven't deployed the flaming emoticon or the shame one either. And yes I have become more informed since your rebuttal. Thanks but you still haven't changed my vote.

Flame away. I am tired of this subject. Anybody want to talk about the IBM 970?

Cheersjavascript:%20x()


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I said you showed tollerance, not acceptance. Thats not the same thing at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it isn't. I was actually kidding...but I feel I go beyond "tolerating" your views. I accept them...I don't agree, but I accept them.

As for "choices," being gay is not a choice...anoymore than your being straight is a choice. We are both naturally the way we are...no preservatives or additives.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Some good or at least very funny points Strongblade! 

I'm not convinced that same-sex marriage should be stopped because of any of the issues raised against it here. Nevertheless, that doesn't diminish anyone's viewpoint on the matter. I'm glad we are a tolerant and accepting bunch.  

Another funny observation: Men generally seem to switch drastically between near homophobia and homoerotic behaviour. For instance, "jocks" in the men's locker room act awfully buddy-buddy and wrestle around with each other. This makes me think of ancient Greece







and WWF (or whatever the letters are now). And, on the other hand, these same guys will make disgusting comments about gay people or even be violent towards anyone they perceive as "*****." I'm not implying anyone here would do this; I'm just making an observation that I've seen numerous times in my life. I could come up with numerous other examples but jocks are just an obvious target.

Really I find this state of affairs sad because women can share emotional and physical intimacy in our society without any comment, but if two men did the same thing eye-brows would be raised and rumours would begin. Welcome to hypocrisy 101.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

There was a commercial... I think it was a beer commercial or something where to guys are sitting beside each other on the couch watching the game and their knees accidentally touch and they give each other the "don't touch me [email protected]" look. Then, their team scores and they're hugging, hip to hip jumping up and down together.  Funny. 

And CC, its WWE.







On a related note, the WWE did a segment in which they hyped segments about HLA (Hot Lesbian Action) hoping, I guess, to attract more viewers. Funny, cause it actually wasn 't a very popular segment. Not that I watch wrestling or anything.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

CC wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>* I'm not convinced that same-sex marriage should be stopped because of any of the issues raised against it here. Nevertheless, that doesn't diminish anyone's viewpoint on the matter. I'm glad we are a tolerant and accepting bunch. * <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank God it finished that way. I was reading so much twisted logic (and hypocricy) on BOTH sides of the issue that I feared we would be creating polarization rather than educational discussion. 
VertiGoGo, the offer is raised to three beers








Ehmax, your "I think all Catholics are pedophiles" line raises your penance to $50.00 donated to charity and 30 "Our Father"s while kneeling on a hard wooden floor.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> VertiGoGo, the offer is raised to three beers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does that include the one you already took away? If so...I have four beers (less one). How is THAT for "logic?"

Tee hee hee.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

VertiGoneGone wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Does that include the one you already took away? If so...I have four beers (less one). How is THAT for "logic?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
More false logic!  No, that's a NET of three beers. Any other calculation is an assumption of my interpretation and is not acceptable.  Oops, did I use that dreaded emoticon? I meant to use this one


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

I wonder if the dreaded emoticon -  - is breathing fire, behind fire or having its face burnt off.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macdoc:
*Strongblade
"Why is it most men have a problem with a man being gay, "
Biology - chemistry - MOST men are heterosexual so of course it's hard to turn that off and be empathic.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno. I have gay friends and it doesn't disturb me in the least. In truth, it just means less competition for the hottie up at the bar..









<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by macdoc:
*Strongblade
"but when it comes to women being gay, the best they can come up with is suppressing the urge to ask if they can watch, or even join in?"
See above







- two women making love just tells the heterosexual male chemistry there are TWO possible mates who currently APPEAR sexually receptive. I'm quite sure the primitive brain is not very bright or very discriminating that way. It sort of says "the more the merrier" *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but then again, that's TWO women you have to talk to after sex. There is a down side.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yeah, but then again, that's TWO women you have to talk to after sex. There is a down side. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO!!!    

I knew there must have been a perk to being gay...now I know what it is.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VertiGoGo:
*<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yeah, but then again, that's TWO women you have to talk to after sex. There is a down side. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO!!!    

I knew there must have been a perk to being gay...now I know what it is. 







*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


True enough. Actually, I haven't been totally honest here about my own sexuality. You see, I'm actually a lesbian, trapped in a man's body.


"I could never be a woman. I'd just stay at home and play with my breasts all day."
- Steve Martin, _L.A. Story_


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

You gays...er...guys...um...gals...are a hooters...I mean, hoot!!!


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cynical Critic:
*So I'm not the only one! Oh sister Strongblade it feels so good to be free in the chat room! I've been telling people this in person since the beginning of my crazy college days. Well actually it's university but I wanted the alliteration. Ahem.  *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, sister. you tell 'em.

It's great to be a man and yet still be in touch with your feminine side!

Of course, in touch only in the privacy of your own home. We don't want to freak out the straight people now...











I believe that we can now officially declare the decorum as being shattered. Which is okay, as I was planning on redecoruming later this year anyway...


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

So I'm not the only one! Oh sister Strongblade it feels so good to be free in the chat room! I've been telling people this in person since the beginning of my crazy college days. Well actually it's university but I wanted the alliteration. Ahem.


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

For the record...no gay people speak the way you are insinuating (except Jack on WIll & Grace).


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VertiGoGo:
*For the record...no gay people speak the way you are insinuating (except Jack on WIll & Grace).  







*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course not. Only Lesbians trapped in male bodies talk like that... besides, stop stereotyping me, you cad! It's cruel!


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Of course not. Only Lesbians trapped in male bodies talk like that... besides, stop stereotyping me, you cad! It's cruel! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good Lord, we have created a monster!!!


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

I also have the deadly Rubber Fish. Hee hee!


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Are you well-versed with the fish slapping dance Strongblade?


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cynical Critic:
*Are you well-versed with the fish slapping dance Strongblade? *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't dance with rubber fish. I use them with deadly accuracy. I am like a Rubber Fish Ninja!



PS: Methinks we have we totally derailed this thread?


----------

