NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: sayyouwould on June 27, 2003, 08:07:40 pm
-
I'm not a lesbian but reading this made me so happy. Canadians are so smart! People should get married no matter what sex they are.
read on my friends
RONTO (June 27) -- Toronto's wedding registry office will open this weekend for the first time in its history to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who want to take advantage of Canada's recently changed marriage laws.
The city has already issued 225 marriage licenses for same-sex couples and expects hundreds more to tie the knot this weekend. It has received about 15 inquiries a day from around the world since June 10, when an Ontario court set aside the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman as unconstitutional.
About a million people are expected to visit Toronto for Gay Pride this week, which finishes with a parade Sunday.
Brad Ross, a spokesman with the city of Toronto, said 25 of the 225 gay marriage licenses issued so far have gone to U.S. couples and some couples have applied from as far as Europe, China, Cayman Islands, Israel and the West Indies.
Ross said the city will also keep its marriage chapel open over the weekend. It is making two meeting rooms available for those who wish to marry there if the chapel is occupied.
Heterosexual couples are also welcome to get licenses or tie the knot over the weekend, he said.
"It's a very convenient time for people. Everybody is in the same place (for Gay Pride Week)," said Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, the majority of whose members are gay or lesbian.
He will perform six weddings this weekend and plans to marry his partner John on their 25th anniversary, in three years time.
A landmark ruling by an Ontario provincial court June 10 included homosexual unions into the definition of marriage.
The federal government signaled its acceptance of gay marriage a week later when it decided not to appeal the provincial court's decision.
"We are now full participants in Canadian society. Apartheid is gone," said Bruce Walker, a lawyer in Toronto who plans to marry his partner of 26 years in the next six months. "It has been a 26-year struggle."
South of the border, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week struck down a Texas law banning sodomy between same-sex couples, in effect ending all anti-sodomy laws in the 13 states where they still exist.
But gay marriages are not allowed in the United States. Vermont allows gay civil unions but not full marriage.
"I am amazed to live in such a beautiful country," Walker said of Canada. "It is beyond my wildest imagination that it happened so quickly."
-
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhtt
-
Was there any reason for your rude reply? I'm dying to know why you had to be so rude.
-
Thats cool and all...but im really religious and still beilive in full hetero-sexual marriages...but nuttin against them of course
-
I'm wondering why it's a political issue at all; it's actually a moral and spritual issue. Neither the United States nor Canadian governments have any real business dealing with it.
The problem is, politicians see it as an appeal, or non-appeal, to voters, so they go about trying to make a "responsible" decision on it, when it really should be a non-issue as far as politics are concerned.
Therefore, as far as my vote is concerned (if it really actually would matter), I would vote for the candidate not wasting a whole bunch of time on something so insignificant, rather than the one consuming him/herself with it.
Christopher
-
A case could be made for homosexual marriage to be a very political and judicial issue.
There will be a case where this issue will be dealt with by the USSC very soon--mark my words.
And I'll also go on record as saying the court will uphold the state's rights to deny gay/lesbian marriage. Think about it... where in the constitution does forbid any kind of law? Not the 9th amendment... that's all about privacy... when you try to make a relationship be "sponsored" by the government such as marriage, you make that very un-private. Plus, common sense would tell you if three judges voted to uphold sodomy laws, at least five will ban homosexual marriage.
As far as the morality of it goes, I don't think it should be allowed. Have we lost all sense of tradition in this country?
Oh yea, and Canada sucks. :wink: :razz:
-
South of the border, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week struck down a Texas law banning sodomy between same-sex couples, in effect ending all anti-sodomy laws in the 13 states where they still exist.
Plus, common sense would tell you if three judges voted to uphold sodomy laws, at least five will ban homosexual marriage.
According to Shelly's quote, the justices voted to ban the Texas law prohibiting sodomy. Therefore, real common sense dictates that at least five will vote to open the door to same-sex marriages.
Christopher
-
As far as the morality of it goes, I don't think it should be allowed. Have we lost all sense of tradition in this country?
I don't get what the big deal is...if gay people wan't to get married, let them. We have more things in this world to worry about than that. I mean come on...that's just discrimination to me not to allow gay marriages. I personally don't agree with gay marriages but if they wan't to get married, so be it. We have far worst things in this world to worry about.
-
South of the border, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week struck down a Texas law banning sodomy between same-sex couples, in effect ending all anti-sodomy laws in the 13 states where they still exist.
Plus, common sense would tell you if three judges voted to uphold sodomy laws, at least five will ban homosexual marriage.
According to Shelly's quote, the justices voted to ban the Texas law prohibiting sodomy. Therefore, real common sense dictates that at least five will vote to open the door to same-sex marriages.
Christopher
That's an asinine statement if I've ever seen one.
You literally are comparing apples and oranges. The legal right to have consensual adult sex between two members of the same gender is a VERY different issue than is the issue of government sanctioned homosexual marriage.
Read the Lawrence opinion, you'll find the court came very close to flat out saying they still held the state right to deny homosexual marriage.
Where is the federal issue here? This is a states rights issue, and from someone who has studied this very court, read books by most of the current justices, and who follows their rulings very closely, trust me on this one.
If three justices were willing to ban homosexual sex, don't you think at least two more will give the states the right to ban a government sanctioned marriage?
-
As far as the morality of it goes, I don't think it should be allowed. Have we lost all sense of tradition in this country?
I don't get what the big deal is...if gay people wan't to get married, let them. We have more things in this world to worry about than that. I mean come on...that's just discrimination to me not to allow gay marriages. I personally don't agree with gay marriages but if they wan't to get married, so be it. We have far worst things in this world to worry about.
Like I said, has this country lost every aspect of tradition we've ever had?
I have no problem with homosexuals nor do I have a problem with two homosexuals doing whatever it is they do. But this is one thing that I still feel should be held as a sacred bond between a man and a woman.
-
So they are allowed to go out and do whatever it is they do forever and ever, but they aren't allowed to get married? That really doesn't seem fair, and it doesn't exactly make sense either. Unless I just misinterpreted what you said.
-
As far as the morality of it goes, I don't think it should be allowed. Have we lost all sense of tradition in this country?
I don't get what the big deal is...if gay people wan't to get married, let them. We have more things in this world to worry about than that. I mean come on...that's just discrimination to me not to allow gay marriages. I personally don't agree with gay marriages but if they wan't to get married, so be it. We have far worst things in this world to worry about.
Like I said, has this country lost every aspect of tradition we've ever had?
I have no problem with homosexuals nor do I have a problem with two homosexuals doing whatever it is they do. But this is one thing that I still feel should be held as a sacred bond between a man and a woman.
you're wrong and people who think that it is a sacred bond between a man and woman are really stupid. ok so you meet this person who you think is great and you guys get really really close blah blah. After a year of dating and being that you are abstinent you ask this person to marry you after no sex. Well this person looks totally stange and says thats not possible. You say why? and this person who you love dearly says well you know because we are gay guys. Well you didn't know he was a guy because he was the female in the relationship. You just thought she was kinda tomboyish. What are you going to do? Let this person go just because they have a dick? You didn't look at the big picture and it's sad that a 14 year old understand more of love then you do.
sad.
-
Ok people. This is the crap I don't need.
Why must you people ALWAYS take a political/morality/whatever argument and come back with "you're stupid".
You have your view.
I have mine.
We disagree.
That makes none of us stupid.
Just different.
Grow up.
-
Oh yes, and to answer your question:
If I date a girl, and learn she has a dick, it's over. I do NOT suffer from homophobia... too many gays on this campus to. But, while I really don't give a damn what they do in private, I don't feel the state of Georgia should be forced to accept their marriage.
When it boils down to it, this is a states rights issue.
-
Ok people. This is the crap I don't need.
Why must you people ALWAYS take a political/morality/whatever argument and come back with "you're stupid".
You have your view.
I have mine.
We disagree.
That makes none of us stupid.
Just different.
Grow up.
ummm no that had nothing to do with politics. It had to do with you and thinking that you should only love someone of the oposite sex. And I'm perfectly mature in what I was saying. Maybe instead of stupid would you have prefered ingorant? that's a better word for what you are. And if you don't need this crap why did you post that? If there was a gay person on this board they would have started even more then what I am saying. So seriously you don't make any sense.
-
And with one last post, let me clarify.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
So (for those who can't understand or follow) this says that in this example, say Vermont (who is on the path of legalizing full marriage between homosexuals) lets two homosexuals marry. After they marry, the couple moves to Georgia. Georgia could NOT refuse to recognize the marriage--they are forced to recognize this couple as being legally married, even if the law in Georgia says no to homosexual marriage.
It's kind of like the driving law, isn't there a state in the union where the driving age is 15? Well he could drive down here to Georgia where the driving age is 17 and they couldn't give him a ticket for driving under age. Catch my drift?
-
ummm no that had nothing to do with politics. It had to do with you and thinking that you should only love someone of the oposite sex. And I'm perfectly mature in what I was saying. Maybe instead of stupid would you have prefered ingorant? that's a better word for what you are. And if you don't need this crap why did you post that? If there was a gay person on this board they would have started even more then what I am saying. So seriously you don't make any sense.
Yes, what I had to say was my belief and what I would argue in a constitutional debate.
AND WHERE THE HELL DID I SAY YOU SHOULD ONLY LOVE SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX? Do I agree with it? No. Do I really give a damn? No. As an old Garth Brooks song said "When we're all free love the ones we choose ... We shall be free." So love who you love. But that doesn't mean a state should be forced to recognize it.
And don't tell me you're being mature when all you can do is go around calling me either a) stupid or b) "ingorant". I'm far from "ingorant" little girl.
Why did I post that? Because we had a nice little mature debate going before you called me stupid. I was just stating that it was the STATES right to declare what their definition of marriage was.
And if there is a homosexual on this board, I'd say the same to them to their face. I'm not denying their right to love who they love or do whatever they wish to do in private. But what I AM denying is their belief that they have a right to force a state to legalize their marriage.
-
I corrected myself from stupid. I think ignorant is a much better word for what you are,old man.
Sorry again for my sarcasm...I just can't help it sometimes. Just it seems odd how alot of people over 20 have a problem with gays and lesbians. What I think should have been said "let them live their life. That isn't my life style but I'm open to the fact that they are in love." Rather than "I think it's a special thing between a male and a female." Seems homophobic to me. But whatever. You're right, your thoughts and if you chose to post them here whatever. Your choice to not be open minded and I can't change that.
-
ig-no-rant \'ig-nô-rænt\ adjective (14th century)
1. destitute of knowledge or education : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified
Now, I've been called many of things in my 19 year old life. But NEVER have I been called ignorant--especially on matters of judicial affairs.
Why can't you make a solid argument to support your claims? Why not come up with some semblence of an argument besides calling me a) stupid or b) "ingorant".
Funny how you can call me something, yet can't figure out how to spell it.
-
Funny how you feel pissa arguing with a 14 year old on a message board. Ohh I think you're cool!! Most def!
-
ohh and you knew that was a typo. Don't be such an asshole.
my bad you can't help it.
-
Sorry again for my sarcasm...I just can't help it sometimes. Just it seems odd how alot of people over 20 have a problem with gays and lesbians. What I think should have been said "let them live their life. That isn't my life style but I'm open to the fact that they are in love." Rather than "I think it's a special thing between a male and a female." Seems homophobic to me. But whatever. You're right, your thoughts and if you chose to post them here whatever. Your choice to not be open minded and I can't change that.
NOTE FOR THE PUBLIC: This was an edit.
A) I'm not over 20.
B) I agree. Let them live their lives. I'm open to the fact they are in love. What me and my girlfriend do behind closed doors is our business--same goes to homosexuals. But that does not mean they have a right to a state legalized marriage.
C) I'm by no means homophobic. Once again, walk around this campus and you'll realize that any homophobic person would quickly transfer.
D) I'm completely open minded to new arguments and new ideas. Hell--I went to a catholic church last week and I'm pentecostal. I've thought this out, did a small amount of research on it, and decided I don't think it should be legalized without the state's approval.
-
Funny how you feel pissa arguing with a 14 year old on a message board. Ohh I think you're cool!! Most def!
NOTE TO MODS: I accidently hit the report button. Sorry, didn't mean to.
I'm not cool. I'll be the first to admit that.
I love a good debate... you're just the only one right now to argue with. Just so happens you're 14.
-
haha now this thread is gonna get locked..haha
anyways...you're doing a good job arguing with me.....hope you're having fun.
-
That's cool Todd. I unreported it.
-Kev
-
Ok people. This is the crap I don't need.
Why must you people ALWAYS take a political/morality/whatever argument and come back with "you're stupid".
You have your view.
I have mine.
We disagree.
That makes none of us stupid.
Just different.
Grow up.
Todd, you're the only one making a big deal out of it. Although it's hard to know if that's your real opinion, or if you're just trying to piss off the world, as your signature states.
You see, no one can really tell if you truly have an opinion or if it's merely just another attempt to start an argument. You've lost a lot of credibility, therefore, no one really knows what you're actual opinions are.
Christopher
-
Todd, you're the only one making a big deal out of it. Although it's hard to know if that's your real opinion, or if you're just trying to piss off the world, as your signature states.
You see, no one can really tell if you truly have an opinion or if it's merely just another attempt to start an argument. You've lost a lot of credibility, therefore, no one really knows what you're actual opinions are.
Christopher
I think he has made is opinions quite clear. And maybe you should try to examine what he means by his sig. Pay attention! You missed something!
Why is it hard to know his real opinions? If he is playing devil's advocate, he has been doing it consistantly.
Ehhh.... why do I bother? Your post boils down to the same "you are dumb, and ignorant too" message echoed above by others. Try actually discussing his points. If you have to resort to ad homniem, then you don't have any buisness entering a discussion such as this.
-
ig-no-rant \'ig-nô-rænt\ adjective (14th century)
1. destitute of knowledge or education : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified
Now, I've been called many of things in my 19 year old life. But NEVER have I been called ignorant--especially on matters of judicial affairs.
Why can't you make a solid argument to support your claims? Why not come up with some semblence of an argument besides calling me a) stupid or b) "ingorant".
Funny how you can call me something, yet can't figure out how to spell it.
are you sure no one has called you stupid or ignorant behind your back? Seems funny if no one has before.
-
Todd, you're the only one making a big deal out of it. Although it's hard to know if that's your real opinion, or if you're just trying to piss off the world, as your signature states.
You see, no one can really tell if you truly have an opinion or if it's merely just another attempt to start an argument. You've lost a lot of credibility, therefore, no one really knows what you're actual opinions are.
Christopher
I think he has made is opinions quite clear. And maybe you should try to examine what he means by his sig. Pay attention! You missed something!
Why is it hard to know his real opinions? If he is playing devil's advocate, he has been doing it consistantly.
Ehhh.... why do I bother? Your post boils down to the same "you are dumb, and ignorant too" message echoed above by others. Try actually discussing his points. If you have to resort to ad homniem, then you don't have any buisness entering a discussion such as this.
you should consider minding your own buisness once again.
-
Todd, you're the only one making a big deal out of it. Although it's hard to know if that's your real opinion, or if you're just trying to piss off the world, as your signature states.
You see, no one can really tell if you truly have an opinion or if it's merely just another attempt to start an argument. You've lost a lot of credibility, therefore, no one really knows what you're actual opinions are.
Christopher
It's hard to know if that's my real opinion? So, you're thinking I actually believe that homosexuals SHOULD be able to marry... yet, I argue that they shouldn't... just for kicks?
Um. No.
I wear my opinions on my sleeve my friend... they're not that hard to figure out.
My signature was a reflection on the fact that I often times piss off a lot of people with the fact that I'm not afraid to tell them what they need to know.
-
Todd, you're the only one making a big deal out of it. Although it's hard to know if that's your real opinion, or if you're just trying to piss off the world, as your signature states.
You see, no one can really tell if you truly have an opinion or if it's merely just another attempt to start an argument. You've lost a lot of credibility, therefore, no one really knows what you're actual opinions are.
Christopher
I think he has made is opinions quite clear. And maybe you should try to examine what he means by his sig. Pay attention! You missed something!
Why is it hard to know his real opinions? If he is playing devil's advocate, he has been doing it consistantly.
Ehhh.... why do I bother? Your post boils down to the same "you are dumb, and ignorant too" message echoed above by others. Try actually discussing his points. If you have to resort to ad homniem, then you don't have any buisness entering a discussion such as this.
The clarity of the opinions are not in question. As for the sig, it's not rocket science. Between his sig and his comments, it's overly apparent what is going on.
The goal of my post was to address whether those were his real opinions. Will, your comment indicates that he's just playing devil's advocate, which would seem to suggest that they are not his true opinions.
I don't use terms such as "dumb" and "ignorant" in a mature discussion. This is not a case of ad homniem, as you put it, but rather a case of trying to find out if this is the way he really feels, or if he's simply just blowing smoke.
Finally, if you feel so strongly about the lack of logical communication in this thread, then may I suggest you are the one with no business entering the discussion.
Christopher
-
The goal of my post was to address whether those were his real opinions. Will, your comment indicates that he's just playing devil's advocate, which would seem to suggest that they are not his true opinions.
Yet again, your reading comprehension needs major work. I never made that claim. Quite the opposite. Reread my previous statement.
I don't use terms such as "dumb" and "ignorant" in a mature discussion. This is not a case of ad homniem, as you put it, but rather a case of trying to find out if this is the way he really feels, or if he's simply just blowing smoke.
You did not explicitly say that. But you echo the sentiment that has carried throughout the thread. He never said anything to make us doubt that what he presented in this thread are his actual opinions, nor has any previous comment he has made that I have read differed from his ideology presented in this thread.
So why do you say that his statements don't echo his true beliefs? Because no civilized person can hold his beliefs, of course. :wink:
And yes, I am making an assumption on this one. Flame me if you wish.
Finally, if you feel so strongly about the lack of logical communication in this thread, then may I suggest you are the one with no business entering the discussion.
Burned. :wink: