Take religion out of it..

♏*PHOENIX*♏ - posted on 05/28/2011 ( 171 moms have responded )

4,455

6

379

Are YOU for or against same sex marriage?

are you against people being happy together??

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Krista - posted on 05/29/2011

12,562

16

842

They should be allowed all the rights of a married couple of they are the same sex but just call it a civil ceremony.

"Separate but equal", huh? That tends to not wash well when it comes to peoples' civil rights.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and defined by the church that way.

Ah, but you're making the same mistake a lot of religious people do. The institution of marriage PRE-DATES all present-day religions. So how come your church gets to define what it is?

So what is the big deal with calling it a civil union/ceremony with the same benefits as a regular marriage?

Because in many cases, it doesn't have the same benefits. When it comes to legal matters, verbiage is absolutely crucial. And if you have a legal precedent set by a couple in a marriage, that precedent may not be applicable to a couple in a civil union.

Why do same sex couples feel the need to take something religious and twist it until it isn't and for their own needs?

Because:

a) it wasn't religious to begin with. It was a societal/anthropological construct. Religious people just co-opted it. So who the hell are THEY to say who can and cannot get married? And in many cases, marriage still is not religious. My husband and I are both atheist. Are you going to sit there and have the gall to tell me that we're not really married?

b) This isn't about twisting anything. This is simply about equality.

To those who are opposed to gays getting married, let me ask you something: many, many gay couples are now married. Please explain to me how this has negatively impacted your own marriage. I have yet to hear anybody give me any sort of satisfactory answer to this question.

Krista - posted on 05/29/2011

12,562

16

842

I'm going to disagree with you on that one, Sara. I don't think that marriage SHOULD be solely a religious institution.



For starters, marriage did not originate with religion. So why do they have "dibs" on it, so to speak?



And secondly, there is a metric shitload of legal precedents, etc. all having to do with couples in a marriage. By allowing only the religious to have marriage, it creates a situation where the rest of us may not receive the same legal rights/protections.



Thirdly, allowing the religious to have marriage while we have civil unions creates that same "separate but equal" vibe I was talking about.



Fourthly, like it or not, the word "marriage" has centuries-old societal and romantic connotations. I know it's just semantics, but "civil union" is just not imbued with that same history and romance.



Personally, I think that the way to solve this problem is to do what we do up here in Canuckistan: all marriages are registered/legalized by the government, and it's all equal. If you get married by an Archbishop in a cathedral, you are no more or less married than two gay guys who got married in their garden. I think the only way to true equality is to BE truly equal.



Edited to add: Note: the churches up here are not forced by law to perform marriages for anybody of whom they disapprove, be they gay couples, divorced people, atheists, or what-have-you. So those institutions are not required by law to go against their own collective conscience.

JuLeah - posted on 05/30/2011

3,133

38

681

@ Laura ...... the bible speaks about men having sex with other men, yes. But it is referencing a pagan fertility ritual. As a new religion, they needed to distinguish themselves from the old.



They needed to have new rituals, and outlaw the old. Golden Calf, Idols, and fertility rituals were condemned.



They did have a rule, for men, about masturbation. They did believe spilling seed on the ground was equivalent to murder.



Nothing was said about women because they were not spilling seed, and relationships between them were not a problem for anyone.



I will copy and past part of a prior post:

The same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve (and how spouses are supposed to feel toward each other) is used in Ruth 1:14 to describe how Ruth felt about Naomi.



Her feelings are celebrated, not condemned.

And throughout history, Ruth's vow to Naomi has been used to illustrate the nature of the marriage covenant.



These words are often read at wedding ceremonies and used in sermons to illustrate the ideal love that spouses should have for one another. The fact that these words were originally spoken by one woman to another tells us a lot about how God feels about same-gender relationships.



In fact, so as to remove any doubt about how Ruth felt toward Naomi, the Scriptures go on to record the details of the vow that Ruth made to Naomi. Here are her words:



“Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)



We, in our stuck up society, have twisted the words in the bible to form new meaning. We created the hate, the shame, the abuse. We created a society that felt just beating, raping, and killing queers. We created a society that feels bulling a kid to the point they take their life is better then having another queer in the world. God didn't do that.



The bible was used to justify slavery, it was just to justify a man ‘owning’ his wife, it was used to justify why women were denied the vote, it was used to justify segregation, it was used to justify the law that forbid people with different skin color from legally marrying, it was used the fight the laws that make child abuse a crime….. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.



God didn’t want any of that and God doesn’t want this discrimination either.



I will add: Gay couples don’t have abortions :)

Minnie - posted on 06/01/2011

7,076

9

786

I find it hard to imagine a homosexual couple esp lesbians actually being happy



My sister and her girlfriend are very happy.



Maybe you go bonkers from your hormones, but not every woman does. Probably most don't.

JuLeah - posted on 05/29/2011

3,133

38

681

@Deanna ….. really??????



Have you read the bible? Marriage in the bible is what you want? You want to go back to that?????



Where is your head at woman?



Marriages were generally arranged by family or friends; they did not result from a gradually evolving, loving relationship that developed during a period of courtship.



A bride who had been presented as a virgin and who could not be proven to be one was stoned to death by the men of her village. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) There appears to have been no similar penalty for men who engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity.



Children of inter-faith marriages were considered illegitimate.



Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives.



Subsequent men in polygynous relationships:

Esau with 3 wives;

Jacob: 2;

Ashur: 2;

Gideon: many;

Elkanah: 2;

David: many;

Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth;

Rehaboam: 3;

Abijah: 14.

Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.



There are a few examples of other marriages found in the bible:



A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: As described in Genesis 16, Sarah and Abram were infertile. Sarah owned Hagar, a female slave who apparently had been purchased earlier in Egypt. Because Hagar was Sarah's property, she could dispose of her as she wished. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as a type of wife, so that Abram could have an heir. Presumably, the arrangement to marry and engage in sexual activity was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to what she probably felt were serial rapes by Abram. Hagar conceived and bore a son, Ishmael.



A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. These women held an even lower status than a wife. As implied in Genesis 21:10, a concubine could be dismissed when no longer wanted.



A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31:1-18 describes how the army of the ancient Israelites killed every adult Midianite male in battle. Moses then ordered the slaughter in cold blood of most of the captives, including all of the male children who numbered about 32,000. Only the lives of 32,000 women - all virgins -- were spared. Some of the latter were given to the priests as slaves. Most were taken by the Israeli soldiers as captives of war.



Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes how each captive woman would shave her head, pare her nails, be left alone to mourn the loss of her families, friends, and freedom. After a full month had passed, they would be required to submit to their owners sexually, as a wife.



A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male slaves as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. The arrangement would probably involve rape in most cases.



A male rapist and his victim: According to the New International Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. A man could then become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his father-in-law 50 shekels of silver.



Levirate Marriage: The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law." This involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She would be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live with him, and engage in sexual relations. If there were feelings of attraction and love between the woman and her new husband, this arrangement could be quite agreeable to both. Otherwise, the woman would have to endure what was essentiallyserial rapes with her former brother-in-law as perpetrator.



But, it was not all bad.

Some relationships were strong and solid:



The same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve (and how spouses are supposed to feel toward each other) is used in Ruth 1:14 to describe how Ruth felt about Naomi. Her feelings are celebrated, not condemned.

And throughout history, Ruth's vow to Naomi has been used to illustrate the nature of the marriage covenant.



These words are often read at wedding ceremonies and used in sermons to illustrate the ideal love that spouses should have for one another. The fact that these words were originally spoken by one woman to another tells us a lot about how God feels about same-gender relationships.



In fact, so as to remove any doubt about how Ruth felt toward Naomi, the Scriptures go on to record the details of the vow that Ruth made to Naomi. Here are her words:



“Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)

This conversation has been closed to further comments

171 Comments

View replies by

Stifler's - posted on 03/04/2012

15,141

154

597

Take the religion out of it... because not everyone is religious. Being gay is infringing on nobody's rights at all. 2 consenting adults should be allowed to get married if they want to. Bestiality is infringing on the rights of animals and incest is infringing on the rights of your future children unless you have been sterilized.

[deleted account]

"You read it with ignorance. I'm sorry, don't want to put you down but please don't put down the word of God."



One doesn't need to be terribly intuitiv to realize that the story of Noah's Ark is a tale of massive genocide where even innocent animals were slaughtered as were unborn babies. Now you can dress that up any way you like but to do so, you must recognize that you are making excuses for mass murder. Would you like more?

Johnny - posted on 03/03/2012

8,686

26

318

I'm not interested in a fight Dede, it is a debate. You are confusing the political and the personal. Please have a nice sleep.

Dede - posted on 03/03/2012

9

0

0

Ok cool, I just cannot 'fight' with someone before I go to bed! I really do wish u all the best and I enjoyed talking to u!

Johnny - posted on 03/03/2012

8,686

26

318

I appreciate the apology Dede, although it is not necessary. I am not personally offended as none of this applies to me, given that I am in a heterosexual monogamous marriage to a man I am not related to. But I do think your comparison is offensive in the general sense, and can think of a broad spectrum of the population, at least where I live, that would agree.



It is nice that you feel that your God loves me. It's cool that you can know that. I do not believe in any God, so it pretty much means nothing to me.

Dede - posted on 03/03/2012

9

0

0

Johnny, this is a reply directly to your comment, I hope the post comes out that way.



I'm sorry that I offended you, its absolute not what I'm trying to do. For the record I did not know that you would feel so strongly about my comment and take it as an insult.



I want to say that God loves you. You might think that I'm pushing whatever my beliefs are on you but I'm really not. I just felt compelled to say that before I leave for the night. And I promise, no more comparisons. Good night (night time in Malaysia)!

Johnny - posted on 03/03/2012

8,686

26

318

"Well, tbh, if you could completely remove the possibility of offspring from the equation and there was absolutely no question of abuse (which to me, rules out any parent/child relationships), then, despite my own squeamishness about it, the answer would be yes. "



I agree with this completely. And if you read my previous post more carefully, I pretty much said so. So no, it really doesn't have anything to do with my feelings on the matter as I had said, "I would keep my disapproval to myself."



You also do not need to explain to me that new findings dispel old truths all the time given that is pretty much what I said in my post *scratches head*.

Mary - posted on 03/03/2012

3,348

31

119

Well, tbh, if you could completely remove the possibility of offspring from the equation and there was absolutely no question of abuse (which to me, rules out any parent/child relationships), then, despite my own squeamishness about it, the answer would be yes.



However, since the vast majority of incestuous relationships are based on some type of abusive situation, I doubt there would be very many that would fit this criteria - two consenting adults who have arrived a this decision with any contributing history of abuse.

Dede - posted on 03/03/2012

9

0

0

Science is relative to the knowledge of the time. Do I really need to explain that new findings dispel old truths all the time? But yes, agreed that at this point in time it's considered fact that incest causes genetic defects. For that matter I'm not defending incest, I'm only making a point. So now you have answered my original question. "Everyone has the right to love whoever they want. EXCEPT if they are related, even if both parties are consenting adults and might decide not to have children because they know of the problems it may cause." Got it. Why? Because YOU believe it's wrong. Ok.

Johnny - posted on 03/03/2012

8,686

26

318

Science proved that homosexuality did not cause AIDS. However, it has shown that incestuous child bearing causes genetic problems. I tend to follow what the evidence shows me. If somehow it was demonstrated through large-scale study and evidence that incest caused no harm to its participants, to the society at large, and to the children born in those relationships, I would keep my disapproval to myself. Sort of like how endless studies have disproven the relationship between homosexuality and AIDS, social ills, and harm to children.



And when you compare apples to oranges, homosexuality to incest, you are going to cause offense. You are comparing loving adult relationships born out of choice to situations that usually involve exploitation, force and abuse. Sort of like how you'd probably be offended if I compared your belief in the bible to other people's belief in the need for virgin sacrifices.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

Big difference being that, it is a proven fact (scientifically) that incest causes defects in offspring. Genetics combined through same family members just do not mix well and cause terrible genetic pools in offspring. AIDS was never proven to "only" come from gay men.... It was only ever a belief.

Dede - posted on 03/03/2012

9

0

0

Just to clarify, I'm new to this site and the question I posed earlier was a direct reply to another person's post that "everyone should be allowed to love whoever they choose and everyone should be allowed to marry to celebrate that love". That's why I asked the question- to define who is "everyone". Or do you mean everyone except certain ppl. It's not a reply to Mary neidich's comment below which I haven't even read yet. I'm sorry, but on the phone you really cannot see if the post comes up as a 'reply'.

Come on guys. It's an open question, no need to be insulted or outraged. We are just sharing views, this is a debate, so if you can't handle it then log out. I don't disrespect gays in any way, neither do I disrespect people who have other sexual preferences, and if u read my comments again you will clearly see that.

Johnny, your comment that homosexuality should be accepted but certain other relationships are taboo goes full circle back to prejudice. 50 years ago homosexuality was taboo in many circles. People did not understand it. In the 80's people believed that homosexuality also caused sicknesses like AIDS, just like how you are saying now that incest causes genetic defects (as a basis for it being taboo). Maybe 50 years from now people will be fighting for the right to incestual marriage and wouldn't you be the one throwing the insults? And also, sorry but incest dates all the way back to ancient egypt and it was perfectly acceptable in that era. Please, relax! I'm not trying to start a fight. I only want to understand your reasoning. Thanks, too, for trying to understand mine.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 03/03/2012

3,377

8

66

This is something I could careless if people do. We ALL deserve and reserve the right to be happy. If the same sex makes you happy then Yes, you should be able to marry. What's the big deal? Same sex organs or not, who cares! My only issue is when someone of the same sex tries to hit on me!



Then, I am not happy and they have infringed on my happiness (in that moment) and have offended my being, simply because I am heterosexual, not because I think any less of them. Especially if they don't get the hint and keep bugging me... ;) But they are human beings and they need to feel loved and give love just the same as the next person, like you or I...



If they want to be with the same sex, I say go get em'!



BTW: I have gay friends, they are pretty sweet and cool people. They are men and they know more about a garden than I do!! Not saying all do but these guys, man, they are awesome!

Johnny - posted on 03/03/2012

8,686

26

318

And please don't further insult the members of this community and people who are not straight by bringing up bestiality now.

Johnny - posted on 03/03/2012

8,686

26

318

Incestual relationships are taboo, and have been across cultures and throughout time to a far greater extent than homosexuality, because they result in the creation of children that are often genetically incompatible with life or severely handicapped or deformed by genetic abnormalities. Incestuous relationships can cause enormous harm to the children they bear. Throughout generations, children of even more distant incestual relationships can have long term genetic problems. As well, parent child relationships have an inherent power dynamic that immediately indicates exploitation. Obviously, homosexual relationships suffer from neither of these harm causing issues.

Dede - posted on 03/03/2012

9

0

0

A valid opinion. But out of curiosity, what if those two people were not just man and man or woman and woman... Let's say.... They were brother and sister or father and daughter, or sister and Sister and father and son Should they be allowed to be married too because everyone should be allowed to love anyone else and no one should interfere? What's your take?

Mary - posted on 03/03/2012

3,348

31

119

Why take the religion out of it?



Well - the truth is, religion has absolutely NO place in state or federal laws. You are free to believe whatever you want, but your beliefs - and that of others - are completely irrelevant in determining what is legally right and just.



I have to take this opportunity to brag about my boy, Martin O'Malley. He is the governor of the state of Maryland (which just passed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage - yay!). O'Malley is a practicing Catholic. He attends weekly mass, and sent all 4 of his kids through Catholic School. He was also a staunch supporter of legalizing same-sex marriages in my state.



Cardinal Edwin O'Brien was simply aghast over this, and publicly and privately urged O'Malley to reconsider, and not support something that "...so deeply conflicts with your faith, not to mention the best interests of our society.”



O'Malley's response to him was both brilliant and correct - it remained respectful, but (to me) embodied what separation of church and state is and should always be:



"I have concluded that discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation in the context of civil marital rights is unjust,” O’Malley wrote to the archbishop. “I have also concluded that treating the children of families headed by same-sex couples with lesser protections under the law than the children of families headed by heterosexual parents, is also unjust....I do not presume, nor would I ever presume as governor, to question or infringe upon your freedom to define, to preach about and to administer the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church,” O’Malley wrote. “But on the public issue of granting equal civil marital rights to same-sex couples, you and I disagree. . . . I look forward to working with you on other issues of mutual agreement. And I respect your freedom to disagree with me as a citizen and as a religious leader without questioning your motives.”



Religion not only should, but imo, HAS to be taken out of this debate.

Dede - posted on 03/03/2012

9

0

0

Yes Johnny, you are absolutely right. What I have written is of course my interpretation of the Bible as the way I see it, and I'm certainly not some all knower of God, I'm learning more and getting closer to him everyday. Let someone else who interprets the bible differently or who refutes it altogether write their own comment, as so many have already done on this site. If they are christian and believe that the bible condones homosexuality, thats up to them and why should i argue? It would be ridiculous to expect everyone here to share my view, why would you think I expect that. I totally own everything I have said 100%. When I say it's not real love it wasn't meant as an insult but rather that i think it's not the perfect and whole love that God intended for us. If you don't agree, then it's ok. It's your life and soul

Johnny - posted on 03/03/2012

8,686

26

318

Dede, that is what is right and wrong for you. So by all means, do not deviate from what makes you comfortable and what you feel is morally correct. You should be making the choices that are right for you.



However, many people do not believe in your god or feel that the bible holds any sort of moral truth for them, so expecting them to follow it because it works for you would be rather like me expecting you to give up your beliefs and enter into a non-religious lesbian marriage. They feel just as troubled, hurt, violated and oppressed by having to live by your moral compass as you would if I was to force you to live by someone else's.



You are also interpreting the bible according to what you read in it. It is "the word according to Dede", not the word according to God. There are as many interpretations of what is in the bible as there are Christians, and many of them do not share in your choice to use it to condemn homosexual love. So please, own your choice to insult the love of gay people and do not try to hide behind the idea that you are some specially gifted knower of the word of God.

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

Eeeeeeeeep....why hate Toronto?? Maybe she didn't like our last Pride parade?? Like most of Canada Toronto Rocks...Canucks are awesome.

Mother - posted on 03/03/2012

1,627

79

28

People should be allowed to love whomever they want. PERIOD. People should be allowed a ceremony that celebrates that love and bonds them to that person..PERIOD. No one else should enter this equation....just the two parties that love one another.

Dede - posted on 03/03/2012

9

0

0

Please, go ahead and cite the necessary scripture because although it does mention it, in a historical context nowhere does it ever condone it. Look, you probably go on google picking out parts that you think support your argument without even understanding the scripture as a whole or in the context it was written in. You read it with ignorance. I'm sorry, don't want to put you down but please don't put down the word of God.

Anyway, that's off topic, so let's save it for another discussion. Cheers!

[deleted account]

According to your Bible, many things that are positively wrong are ok. Such as human sacrifice, genocide, slavery, honor killings and forced marriage/rape.



I'll pass, thank you.



(and yes, I can cite the necessary scripture if needed.)

Dede - posted on 03/03/2012

9

0

0

Why take religion out of it? My religion is the basis for my entire belief system. It is the blueprint for the way i strive (but sometimes fail) to live my life.. in fact, I believe loving God and showing others how to love God is my primary purpose in life! Therefore, since it is so central to me that it shapes my goals, attitude and entire view of the world, how can I take it out of the equation when it comes to separating what is right and wrong?



After reading so many comments, its clear that so many people are confused about whats right and wrong in this world anymore!



According to the Bible (and therefore my belief, and therefore my opinion) sexual immorality is a sin, and that includes homosexuality, beastiality, and yes even sleeping around even if you're single. So it IS wrong. But its a special kind of sin. Its a sin against yourself, rather than against others. I for one, have been there and my experience everytime is that when you go against the word of God it just brings pain and suffering into your life. So, whatever decision you make, whatever stance you take, no one can judge you except God, because your sin is not against anyone else. But everyone bears the consequences of their own actions.



Secondly, God loves all of us and all of us need God's love. Whether we acknowledge it or not. But God cannot stand sin so when we sin we cannot be close to God. We just dont feel right when we do. God loves gay people just like any other sinner.



Thirdly, God IS love. And if he hates sin, then any form of sin cant be real love. That means homosexual love (im sorry to say) is NOT real love.



Conclusion for those who dont get it - Gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction!!! But then again so are alot of other things.. this world is going crazy. So whatever, just continue to love other people and thats all any of us can do!

Trisha - posted on 06/28/2011

23

43

1

I agree with everybody, I am 1000% for gay/lesbian rights
I am Bi and I am damn proud of it...

[deleted account]

Ya, as a proud Canadian, I'm sort of offended that you don't like Toronto. I dunno. Seems silly to me, but I don't know the intent behind Laura's comment.



!

Mrs. - posted on 06/19/2011

1,767

6

30

"LadyJane clearly lives in Toronto...at Church and Wellesley ;)


http://www.churchwellesleyvillage.ca/eve...
"

That was, I think what LadyJane found insulting...am I wrong?

I'm still not sure why you find it so insulting? As well, I'm still curious, what happened in Toronto that was so bad that it made you insulted at the mention of perhaps being from there?

Not sure if I should be insulted for Toronto that you hate it...or if you have real reason to put it over the coals.

LadyJane - posted on 06/19/2011

162

7

1

Sorry but what happened is personal and not for the public. A joke is only a joke if both people find it funny. I didn't. Actually, I said I worked WITH them at a job I held. They lived in different areas from all across the state.



Regardless of how it was meant, I was/felt insulted.

Mrs. - posted on 06/19/2011

1,767

6

30

Wow, LadyJane, I'm pretty sure it was a good natured joke. Church/Wellesley is the centre of "boys town" in Toronto, it's kind of like saying, "She knows so many gay couples she must live on Fire Island." I don't think it is meant to be insulting.

You said where you worked/lived was almost all gay. There are only certain areas and professions where that happens. It was actually a logical guess.

Why you hate Toronto so much, not sure. I'm American, born and bred...yet I live in Toronto, at some point very near the gay village. I would not be offended if someone suggested I lived there.

May I ask, what do you hate about Toronto so much? I'm actually curious to know. I've lived here on and off for over a decade, and I love it. What happened to you in Toronto?

LadyJane - posted on 06/19/2011

162

7

1

I came and checked to see if there had been updates and what I found was NOT even funny. I am an American, born and raised in the USA. I CLEARLY!!!! DO NOT AND WILL NOT live in TORONTO!!!! Thank you very much. I found that highly offensive and not at all funny... I HATE TORONTO!

LadyJane - posted on 06/19/2011

162

7

1

I came and checked to see if there had been updates and what I found was NOT even funny. I am an American, born and raised in the USA. I CLEARLY!!!! DO NOT AND WILL NOT live in TORONTO!!!! Thank you very much. I found that highly offensive and not at all funny... I HATE TORONTO!

Angela - posted on 06/05/2011

2,216

33

36

@Dana, My son Marcus is 22 he has been my foster son since he was 13 years old.

[deleted account]

Angela, do you mind me asking how old your son is? I guess I'm just curious because you stated that he wants children "some day".

Charlie - posted on 06/05/2011

11,203

111

401

I would argue that Sydney has the best Gay pride ( Mardi gras ) In the world :P

I have been several times , loads of fun , music , colour and celebration !

Angela - posted on 06/05/2011

2,216

33

36

My son is gay and I am proud of him not because he is gay but because he is a wonderful person doing wonderful things with his life. I want for him what most parents want for their children. To someday fall in love and have some one who adores and cherishes him too. To see him get married and to give me adorable grandchildren. Of course if that is what he wants and according to him that is what he wants some day.

Isobel - posted on 06/04/2011

9,849

0

282

Toronto has the best pride parade! I never go to it though...the crowds are insane. I love seeing all the gay tourists on the subways all week. I heard that city hall is so crammed with gay weddings that week that no straight people can't get in :)

Krista - posted on 06/04/2011

12,562

16

842

Sigh...I wish I'd had a digital camera when I went to the Pride Parade in Toronto in '99. I could have posted some GREAT pictures here to go with this thread. :)

April - posted on 06/04/2011

3,420

16

263

personally, i don't think marriage should have anything to do with gender. when you take sex out of it, a marriage is still a marriage. it's hard to put this in words, but how does anyone know a gay or lesbian relationship is also a sexual relationship? i mean why does that have to matter? why can't two people pool their resources to make a better life for themselves no matter what type of pair they are? i hope this makes sense. i don't know if there is a law that says two unrelated people or two related people can combine their lives (income and whatever)? Like if two actual sisters (single) wanted to "marry" so that the one sister can provide health insurance to the other sister or something like that. Or a sister and her cousin or a brother and his best friend. Marriage shouldn't just be between a husband and a wife...it should be for anyone who wants a formal partnership. Like I said, I don't know if there is some kind of legal thing that allows that, but if there isn't, saying no to gay/lesbian marriage is also like discriminating against someone because of who they have sex with. That should be private and not relevant to the institution of marriage.

[deleted account]

Well, they're not EXACTLY the same. This one is telling people to "leave religion out of it" and the other one was started asking "why can't you leave religion out of it"......sort of a spin off from this one. :)

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms