What do you think of this?

?? - posted on 12/02/2009

I'll get back on point... that was missed...

Quoting Jo:



Homosexual relationships ARE NOT harmful, do NOT cause undeniable hardship to ANYONE, and are completely natural.



Incestuous relationships ARE harmful, DO cause undeniable hardship to EVERYONE involved and is completely UNnatural.

Isobel - posted on 12/02/2009

well...if we like to generalize...humans like to rape each other... kill and maim each other...we like to build bombs that destroy entire civilizations, to build gas chambers that can kill thousands at a time...I'm not so entirely sure you can build a case on the fact that we are superior to animals (so long as we are working on generalities)

Isobel - posted on 12/02/2009

so...by LOGIC... infertile couples should not be allowed to marry...perhaps we should enforce some type of pre-marital fertility test (if that's the barometer)

10% of the population not multiplying surely does not stop the procreation of the human race (especially since they would not be pro-creating...with or without the benefit of marriage).

The hypocrisy you speak of is also evident in the fact that you expect an apology from somebody who dismisses YOUR value system...but you feel no need to apologize for dismissing theirs.

Charlie - posted on 12/02/2009

"While Freud thought that incest was common among nonhuman animals, we now know that this is not true. For most primate species, males leave their native troop when they reach sexual maturity, which seems to be a mechanism for avoiding excessive inbreeding. For chimpanzees, the females leave at maturity to join another troop. This means that chimp mothers will be in the same troop with their sons. And their sons often do attempt to mount their mothers and sisters, but when the males reach sexual maturity, their mothers and sisters generally push them away."

Once again , animals are against it , its natural to avoid incest .

its not at all the same as homosexuality and if by the same logic we can say that homosexuality is natural and enjoyed by many animals humans enjoy it on a deeper level .

Isobel - posted on 12/02/2009

One more thing...just cause I missed so much of this...I believe that EVERYBODY who wants to be LEGALLY married (gay or straight) should have to go the the justice of the peace. Anybody who wants to be married IN THE EYES OF GOD should get "married" (which would not be legally binding in any way) should go to a church.

That being said...if a church is willing to marry a gay couple, then they should be considered "married' in the eyes of their GOD.

If I got to legislate the country based on my faith...throwing away recyclables and compostables would be illegal...I guess I'll just go out and find millions of followers so that I can impose that will on everyone else. For now, just like people of every other faith, I can only URGE people to do the right thing.

Charlie - posted on 12/02/2009

I guess she means they cant physically produce one together as in two women cant make a baby , is that right Christa ?

what we are saying is that a gay couple can produce ( through a loving and nurturing environment ) a healthy child , not physically the act of creating one but i guess its nature V nurture .

A woman who is Barron and cannot produce a child or a man who has no swimmers still deserves a child and shouldn't be discriminated against because they are unable to produce , is that not the same thing as saying gay couples cant have kids so the shouldn't full stop ??

Isobel - posted on 12/02/2009

And as for the fact that any crack whore and her pimp can make babies being an argument for the sanctity of marriage...sorry, no dice.

Isobel - posted on 12/02/2009

First off...I wouldn't even call it satire...I think it's simply proof of faulty logic. Or should I say proof that laws are not governed by logic. Follow me for one moment. (and then Mary can jump in and save me cause logic is REALLY hard ;P)

IF policy A is harmful to the family AND therefore MUST be illegal...THEN
IF policy B is harmful to the family THEN policy B MUST also be illegal.

If one statement is untrue, then the other must be.

It truly is a matter of being consistent. We all know that this will not change the minds of people who refuse logic...but maybe for those who do (like judges)...who knows?

By the way... marriage between family members is not necessarily illegal
"The laws of each state strictly regulate the marriage between relatives (also known as consanguinity). According to the "rules of consanguinity," no state allows marriage to a child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, uncle, aunt, niece, or nephew. However, for all other familial relationships, the states vary widely and the particular laws of the state of marriage must be consulted."

Icky, and yes...unhealthy but not necessarily illegal.

Dana - posted on 12/02/2009

Why can't homosexuals produce healthy children?
Why do you have such hate for homosexuals? Isn't all sin the same? Do you hate everyone? Before you say you don't hate them, maybe you should look over everything you've said about them.

Dana - posted on 12/02/2009

Can I just say, there are scientific studies that can back up any cockamamie crap out there.

Charlie - posted on 12/02/2009

At the most basic level even animals know not to breed with their family ( well most animals , just like most humans ) but even animals have intercourse with the same sex.



I know we are more intelligent than other animals but we are just that , animals and if even a basic animal can tell the difference surely you can .

?? - posted on 12/02/2009

Being romantically involved with a family member is unhealthy, that's not arguable. It's unhealthy in every single way. Emotionally, psychologically, scientifically. The idea that you're even arguing that point makes me seriously concerned for your mental well being, to be completely honest.



The OPTIMAL enviroment for children to grow up in is an enviroment that breeds love and acceptance. Regardless of the parents - the reason that "so many kids who grow up with no dad end up being losers" is because the PARENT failed them. There are just as many kids that end up being losers that have no mom or no parents at all or both parents. Your argument is shallow and weak.



The argument that a hetero couple just has to do the deed; it's the same as artifical insemination. There are sperm donors everywhere. They can still have children the same as any other couple - they will still produce healthy children. They will still go through a pregnancy and give birth to a child and raise that child. They will still have to be healthy individuals in order to nurture that child. Just the same as any other couple. And that child deserves both of his/her parents to be happy, fulfilled and complete. A happy family is a happy family is a happy family.

?? - posted on 12/02/2009

Your morals don't get to dictate other people's morals, so it is made a human rights issue.

Dana - posted on 12/02/2009

Christa, no one is asking you to say it's okay, it's not up to you. People would just like the courts to abide by the constitution.

?? - posted on 12/02/2009

Besides, with this - no one is asking you to agree with gay marriage, they are just asking people to be consistent - actually no - they are asking people to THINK about being consistent.



If you're gonna use the EXCUSE that homosexuals getting married ruins the sancitity of marriage and that is why you are against it, fight against it, support whatever laws out there that make sure it is not allowd - then you should be consistent all around the board - you should also be supporting the banning of divorce, supporting laws that hold people accountable for ruining the sancitity of marriage by being adulters, divorce, annulment of marriages, etc.



If you're going to hold the 'opinion' that Gay Marriage Erodes The Sanctity Of Marriage then you should be thinking about everything else that does the same.





Note: You as in the general sense of the word, not you as in an individual here. Unless of course, you are a person who uses that excuse / has that opinion.

ME - posted on 12/02/2009

Thanks Jo...that was CLEARLY the point I was making...

Amie - posted on 12/02/2009

Why is it a big deal? Gay Marriage has been legal in Canada for years now. It's not solely for tax benefits. It is for those who wish to spend their lives together and celebrate it like all heterosexual couples are allowed too. In the eyes of the law gay's are not equal which DOES make it a civil rights issue.

I have yet to meet a single gay person either who are asking Christians for their rights. They are asking the government where there should be separation of church and state BUT since it goes to a vote people's belief systems come into play. When in all honesty they really shouldn't. It's like the marriage commissioner in my province who got in trouble for denying to marry two gay men based on his religious beliefs. If you can not impartially serve the public when you are in a public office do not do that job. It is that simple. People can be open minded and see it from all sides if they want too. A lot choose not too though and fall back on their religion.

Sara - posted on 12/02/2009

I'm still interested to know if you think "civil unions" are acceptable for gay couples...is it the marriage thing that is the main issue for people that feel like you do, Christa? I'm honestly just curious.

I have to conceed that you are correct about everyone having the same rights as it stands now. But, to me, those rights on based on a heterosexual norm that I believe is out of touch with the reality of the society we live in. I would think that people would want people to make a commitment to one another no matter what their sexual orientation, and in the framework of that commitment have the same advantages, legal and economic, as heterosexual couples. If civil rights are the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality then how is this not a civil rights issue? Those who oppose gay marriage rights do so on the basis of “tradition" or "personal belief," neither of which has any place in the laws of a truly free society.

Dana - posted on 12/01/2009

I think it's brilliant and hilarious! :)

Jenny - posted on 12/01/2009

I have a big problem with recognizing church marriage as legal documents should only be issued by the goverment. Perhaps we should void all religious marraiges then? Would that be a more accurate form of satire than banning divorce?

Sara - posted on 12/01/2009

I don't think he's using the divorce rate as a argument for gay marriage. For me, it envokes the question of how, exactly, does gay marriage destroy the sanctity of marriage in the first place? I mean, if marriage is a religious institution, then the government shouldn't recognize marriage at all, only civil unions. In the wider sense of "marriage", a lot of people think of any couple who are legally joined as "married", so are we really just in a fight about semantics? My husband and I weren't married in a church, and we had a civil ceremony, so are we "married"? Are you ok with gay couples having the right to civil unions or does that destroy the sanctity of "marriage" as well?

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "but you do find gays who are proud of their behavior and want others to tell them that it is ok"? Do you mean proud of their behavior in the sense that they embrace being gay or proud that they are "deviant" or what?

Perhaps the fundamental difference between the two sides isn't that we don't understand what the other is saying, but just that we disagree on what being gay actually means. Many Christians see it as a sinful lifestyle choice, people like me see it as a person being who they are and true to themselves.

Amie - posted on 12/01/2009

As Sara said, it's satire. It's there to make people actually think about their arguments. If people are so outraged that the sanctity of marriage is going to be withered away by allowing gay people to marry, it stands to reason that divorce should get the same scrutiny. After all, marriage is supposed to be forever, so why is there divorce? Why would any person who believes in the sanctity of marriage even consider divorce or think that it's ok to be on the books? It makes no sense to me. Abusive relationships, well you should have gotten to know your spouse better before you married him/her. Happens because of stressors? Go to a counselor. The entire point is that people get divorced for stupid reasons, people get married for stupid reasons. The sanctity of marriage is long gone by any Christians standards, unless they are talking about solely their own marriage. Even then I've known Christians to marry too fast, divorce to easily and do it all for the wrong reasons.

If the religious right would maybe screw their heads on the right way and lead by example maybe then I'd put more stock in what they have to say on marriage. The biggest hurdle I see happening is that many take their own experiences and definitions within their marriages and apply it to everyone. It doesn't work that way. If it did I would have been married when I was 18 and in a crappy relationship all because "it's the right thing to do". And yes I heard many a Christian say that to me.

Sara - posted on 12/01/2009

It's satire. It's not supposed to be taken seriously. They are using the same arguments that people used to support a ban on gay marriage to support a ban on divorce to show how ridiculous that line of reasoning is. Of course, no one really thinks that banning divorce is the answer to defending the sanctity of marriage, just as banning gay marriage as a way to defend the sanctity of marriage is just as ridiculous. I think it makes people think, which I'm sure was the intention.