easy.. i knew when i started this this thread that i would get hassled.. but that is ok.. no matter what you guys think it is my right to think that way.. i don't think your going to hell.. i just don't want it called a marriage.. because its not.. period.. that is all i meant.. as for the jew comment.. i didn't mean it i just wanted to get you guys all excited.. then you guys go out and stereotype me.. so where is the fairness in that?

Don't blame us now, if you know that we're gonna react, then don't be surprised if we do.

I did understand you weren't serious about the Jew thing though, don't worry. I'm not mistaking you for an antisemite or something. As for the rest: there's always time for a good theological discussion, no? :mrgreen:

[quote]as for you mr. big i am not an asshole and if we keep pissing people off in the world where does that leave my country?? alone.. I don't care if your gay but don't infringe on the values of the catholic church.. don't call it a marriage..and you live in ireland so it wouldn't bother you anyway..[/quote]

I dont know what ur talkin about u spastic...im not gay for a start and i don't have a problem with anyone who is..

Em ireland is a religious country and im a catholic like about 90% of the country, Following the catholic teachings in this day and age is bullshit and i couldnt give a toss about the church or the pope.. which is the attitude of most of the young people these days...

Your talkin shite mate...go off and preach somewhere else..

Canada now is going to have a nation wide referendum on gay marriage.. the PM thinks that this should be held up to parliament and not to the courts.. we will see.. i like this a lot better because if the whole country wants it then i think that is a more fair way to do it..

i still don't see what difference it makes to u if your not gay? Who cares what the bible says anyway... All Marraige is really is a piece of paper if you think about it..

The only people who have a problem with this is the older generation and the narrow minded.

Yeah, and you get the chance to rigg that referendum hey Runningman? Sending buses all over the country to double vote and things like that... :Naughty:

I don't like the idea of the courts changing the rules that our country was founded on.. If it is going to change i wnat the people to change it.. i am very surprised at an irish-catholic man telling me that all a marriage is a piece of paper.. just because our generation forgot our "roots"(such as yourself) doesn't mean it isn't there.. i don't want to preach on you because it is a waste of time and because i am not a preacher... i believe in what i believe in and i don't care if you think its right or not because your say doesn't really matter to me at all.. your just an irishman blowing off steam because your temper gets in the way of rational thinking.. don't ever call me a "preacher" or that i'm talking "shite mate".. you didn't agree with me and you labeled me as a preacher.. this is the world Mr. Big.. there are a lot more of people that think like me then you.. but you have to take into consideration people like Dave and Yao where they are good guys and want the right s as me.. but it isn't a right to get married.. it is a belief.. a belief of the catholic church.. which then got thrown into a category of Law.. so call it an arrangement make a new word but don't call it a marriage that is what we do.. a marriage - a union of two people with the hopes of making a family.. pro creation.. it is a fact that homosexuals can't reproduce.. that can't be a marrage then now can it?? It basically comes down to making life.. homosexuals can't..

Marriage is about reproducing? lmao.

m' kay.

I will marry my girlfriend, and we fucking hate kids. I sure as hell don't want to get married by some priest or in a church either. Marriage to me is about spending the rest of your life with the person you are madly in love with. Joining together to walk through life as one. I care fuck all what the church thinks. And if two men want to marry, or two women, go for it imo. Canada finally did something right. Honestly, the gay marriage thing in america and the republicans' treatment of gays is one of the biggest things i feel guilty about for voting republican.

im adopting a 10 year old and sending him to a boot camp in jersey thats run by ex- drill sergents from the marines. by the time he gets to my door, he'll only know other people as sir or madam. :twisted:

Runningman ur fuckin deluded...i couldnt care what you think actually..

Ur living in the past as its clear from what ur saying... Oh yeah and by the way im sure u think ireland is really religious... Well if your 50+ maybe it is.

for the new generation its far from it, im a Roman Catholic i havent being to mass in 3years along with most other young people i know..

No one gives a toss about religion any more here, It prob has alot to do with the fact that most of the priests are kiddie fiddlers and they have given the church a really bad name..

Who caress. :roll:

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

kiddie fiddlers, lol...out of control. :?

that, and i think people are just realizing what a complete load of crap that whole religion bag is.

i firmly believe there is a higher power at work in the universe, but organized religion can go screw itself with it's righteousness and the white man in the sky schtick with 10 rules and all that nonsense. :roll: x 10.

Religion is sooo 1950. :lol:

[quote=runningman]I don't like the idea of the courts changing the rules that our country was founded on.. If it is going to change i wnat the people to change it.. ...

there are a lot more of people that think like me then you.. but you have to take into consideration people like Dave and Yao where they are good guys and want the right s as me.. but it isn't a right to get married.. it is a belief.. a belief of the catholic church.. which then got thrown into a category of Law.[/quote]

Runningman, pardon my ignorance for not knowing this, but does Canada actually recognize specific religions or incorporate the church into governance?

Marriage may be just a "piece of paper," but it is also something that demarcates how and when you get certain benefits and rights -- that's the way it is in the US, I assume that Canada and most westernized countries follow the same general scheme. For example, married people can take advantage of one another's insurance and transfer property easily and married people have the right to certain benefits upon the death of a spouse, like the right to recover for wrongful death or get the spouse's property in the event there is no will. Married people also have a privilege of confidentiality as to certain information. It is a good place to draw the line as to who gets these benefits, because allowing [i]anyone[/i] to claim these rights and privileges without something like a marriage certificate that changes legal status would invite abuse of the system.

Unless gay people are allowed to marry, they cannot take advantage of the legal benefits that married people enjoy. I don't think that a "civil union" really does the trick, either, because as I've mentioned many times before and even earlier in this thread, "separate but equal" doesn't work.

[quote=runningman]I don't like the idea of the courts changing the rules that our country was founded on.. If it is going to change i wnat the people to change it..[/quote]

Actually matey what happened is that the courts ruled that the government [b]could [/b]legalise gay marriage [b]without [/b]violating the constitution. The made the ruling because the provinace of Alberta and some religious groups asked them to rule that marriage was a union between man and woman.

The courts were not changing any rules that your country was founded it, what it was doing was telling government that to legalise gay marriage the constitution would not have to be changed. And as for you wanting the people to change it, well the people elected the government and they are acting as your representatives. If you don't like them vote for someone else next time. Now stop whinging! :Tongue:

[quote=runningman] . . . but you have to take into consideration people like Dave and Yao where they are good guys and want the right s as me...[/quote]

This is where you have misunderstood me, i dont [b]want [/b]the same rights as you i [color=darkblue][b]demand [/b][/color]them.

[quote=runningman]but it isn't a right to get married.. [/quote]

Wrong again. It is a right. I'm assuming that Canada, unlike unfortunatley my own country, has civil marriage, you know i.e. not in a religious ceromany. If it does, marriage is then seen as a right and not as you would us to believe a belief!

[quote=runningman]a marriage - a union of two people with the hopes of making a family.. pro creation.. it is a fact that homosexuals can't reproduce.. that can't be a marrage then now can it?? It basically comes down to making life.. homosexuals can't..[/quote]

So what do you call the millions of couples, who are married, who, either by choice or circumstance, can't have children. Are they anyless married to you?

Ho hum, on a seperate but connected theme . . .

It amazes me that you can spend countless hours typing away at your keyboard moaning about millions and millions of people who actively define themselves as muslims who observe their faith and yet you seem so scared of the Vatican. Bizarre. You're scared of the one organisation which has actively covered up countless cases of the abuse of minors. Minors who came into being by you prescious institution of marriage. :evil:

I don;t care if i'm alone on this one because this is what i think.. as for the vatican. i am not affraid of them. but more like worried of the reprocutions (business) that this will bring.. as you know the Roman Church is a huge corporation.. a great one at that.. they have there workers work for free and and all donations go to the vatican or where they see fit.. what does this mean for canada? I am not sure but it isn't good.. nothng good is going to come of this..if it is voted to not be allowed in the country would you guys accept that and not talk about it for years and years?? this isn;t the first time this has been brought up.. you might demand them but i don't think you will get them.. if you do get them then i am TOTALLY AGAINST it..

[quote=runningman].. as you know the Roman Church is a huge corporation.. a great one at that.. [/quote]

Haha. It's a corrupt corporation covering it's "Executives" felonies and losing it's "stockholders" in large numbers as each day passes.

Great corporation. :roll:

jesus, i think its time for all of you to change your tampons.

mcdonald's anyone?

Are you recommending for Jesus to change our tampons? Or Jesus to change his own tampon? or what? Jesus.

:lol:

let faith be your guide, my son.

Is Jesus a girl? Jesus...didn't know that. :?: :wink:

now you guys are just being dis-respectful to my religion.. just because i said i don't agree with this topic.. for you gay people out there that are supposed to accept people for "who they are".. why am i getting burned at the stake by you guys that are sooooo opened minded.. for you to knock my religion is the utmost hipocracy that you guys stand for.. to knock on jesus or the fact there is or isn't a jesus is a closed minded person.. you can't get more closed minded then that.. not believing or telling yourself it isn't true so you can sleep at night is fine but don't call it a marriage..i accept you for who you are.. i'm not judging.. because i am not one to judge.. i will shake your hand.. i will party with you . i treat you as every one else.. but to have it called a marriage and go against the Catholic church is wrong..IMO..

:lol: @ runningman. man, where do you come up with this stuff?

I'm canadian.. :lol:

Just fuckin' with ya man, keep your pants on.

But why do you keep insisting that marriage is a religious term and should not be used for gay people? If marriage really existed before any Holy Book was written, it has nothing to do with religion itself but has just been incorporated by it. That would mean there's no exclusive right for any religion to use the term 'marriage'...

[quote=runningman]now you guys are just being dis-respectful to my religion.. just because i said i don't agree with this topic.. for you gay people out there that are supposed to accept people for "who they are".. why am i getting burned at the stake by you guys that are sooooo opened minded.. for you to knock my religion is the utmost hipocracy that you guys stand for.. to knock on jesus or the fact there is or isn't a jesus is a closed minded person.. you can't get more closed minded then that.. not believing or telling yourself it isn't true so you can sleep at night is fine but don't call it a marriage..i accept you for who you are.. i'm not judging.. because i am not one to judge.. i will shake your hand.. i will party with you . i treat you as every one else.. but to have it called a marriage and go against the Catholic church is wrong..IMO..[/quote]

actually, i was talking about a lot of the other people on here... you my friend, have kept your cool and i share your stance on the issue. when you play for the other team though, its easy to get offended on a topic such as this.

OUch Garrick, u against gay marriage, too?

How come the people that dont agree with runningmans stoneage views are instantly thought of as been gay...i said before i was 100% straight but i still think his views are bullshit along with most other people in this topic.

Maybe It really was adam and steve in the garden huh...im sure they were having a Fabulous time.....oooooooerrrrr :lol:

:CrackUp:

[quote=Yao]OUch Garrick, u against gay marriage, too?[/quote]

i am against gay marriage, yes. BUT having said that, i think the idea of having some sort of doctrine uniting gays together in something similar to marriage would be ok and is a good idea. being catholic, i have a strong stance on my beliefs or what marriage should be.

[quote=Mr.Big]Maybe It really was adam and steve in the garden huh...im sure they were having a Fabulous time.....oooooooerrrrr :lol:[/quote]

HAHAHAHA! lmao.

Now...hold it for a second....

Gays cannot marry in a Church, right? Simply because the church doesn't recognize homosexuality, and can decide what it allows and what not in it's doctrine.

But the kind of marriage gay people CAN have, is a legal one. It has nothing to do with church, the only thing is that both have the same name (marriage). So why bother about it when the term marriage is already in use in multiple meanings? Would heterosexual couples marrying legally but not in church also be prohibited from using the term 'marriage' to describe their bond?

It doesn't make sense at all to me...

one person's definition of marriage can be vastly different from another person's... i guess my views is marriage is a religious ritual. i was thinking about that too yao and i've come to the conclusion that i don't give a shit. let the gays have there way. when procreation suffers and humans die off, don't say i didn't warn everyone! :shock:

(i know that's kind of taking it to the extreme... i'm only kidding)

:CrackUp:

Easy bro...but yeah, the term marriage i is already not exclusive to religion anymore, so why bother? And, did you know scientists consider homosexuality a way to control populations from nature? Maybe we're already too many on this planet...

Sorry Dave, that's not a really nice thing to say eh? This would qualify gay people as modifications created by nature to control a population (humans). But I did see it somewhere on TV, long time ago...

Why can't I marry 3 women? Why can't I marry 3 women, and 3 men? We can all share one insurance policy, sounds great. I wonder if the costs of health care would steadily rise? Someone should do a study to find out if the costs would sky-rocket. I am willing to go out on a limb and say they would.

In regards to activist judges(yes I said activist) writing new law, if this were the golden rule, judges expressing their personal feelings through the court, our system of checks and balances would eventually be null and void. All I have to do when I want a law passed is to go to the ACLU and file a lawsuit with a judge that sees things the way I do, and everything would be just fine.

The road to despotism is paved with fairness.

Anarchy.

^^ For a guy with Ben Franklin as his avatar, you seem to have very little faith in the system of governance our forefathers have established. Kinda ironic...

[quote=toasty]^^ For a guy with Ben Franklin as his avatar, you seem to have very little faith in the system of governance our forefathers have established. Kinda ironic...[/quote]

:roll:

Very little faith? LOL.

The rise of judicial tyranny has been growing rapidly over the past 50 years. Note, it did not start with the beginning of our country. For the first 150+ years of the creation of the constitution and the laws that created the foundation of our country, judges had stayed in their proper roles in the separation of powers. Over the past 50 years, it(judicial tyranny) has been growing steadily and it will continue to grow if something isn't done about it.

^^OK, let's hear some examples. I know you think that the gay marriage decisions fall into this category, but what are some other examples of "judicial tyranny" from the past 50 years?

[quote=Yao]And, did you know scientists consider homosexuality a way to control populations from nature? Maybe we're already too many on this planet...

Sorry Dave, that's not a really nice thing to say eh? This would qualify gay people as modifications created by nature to control a population (humans). But I did see it somewhere on TV, long time ago...[/quote]

We're definetly too many on this planet while our collective governments do squat in ensuring that every man woman and child on this planet has three decent meals a day, a roof over their heads, suitable employment and education. . . .but i digress!

Maybe homosexuality is mother natures way of population control; haven't really thought of it that way. If it is. . . thank you mother nature :Gay: :Gay: :Gay: :Gay: :Gay: :Gay: :Gay: :Gay:

Toasty, are you serious? You know of nothing that radical judges have tried, or have accomplished in regards to imposing their beliefs on the masses? Didn't the Supreme Court impose and create law on abortion, and 'womens rights'? Affirmative Action?

And now for some humor:

[img]http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/llamas.jpg[/img]

[quote=cosmo]Toasty, are you serious? You know of nothing that radical judges have tried, or have accomplished in regards to imposing their beliefs on the masses? Didn't the Supreme Court impose and create law on abortion, and 'womens rights'? Affirmative Action? [/quote]

I'm just trying to get a handle on what you consider "judicial tyranny." Does any decision which which you disagree fall into that category, for example?

Further, assuming arguendo that judges do allow their personal feelings and beliefs to color their decisions, how is that different from allowing other branches of government to do the same? Bush absolutely lets his personal feelings and morals affect the way that he governs and the agenda that he pushes. Legislators on both sides of the aisle do the same. This should not be news to anyone. Why is that acceptable?

I suspect your response is that it is b/c they are elected. Judges are either elected/retained by the people, or they are appointed and confirmed by those who are elected by the people. They are, at a minimum, a byproduct of the democratic process, and the suggestion that there is just a random bunch of people picking off laws that they don't like at their whim is preposterous. If you don't like the judges, you need to look at the people you are electing that are appointing them.

Llamas humping :lol:

[quote]Judges are either elected/retained by the people, or they are appointed and confirmed by those who are elected by the people. Bush absolutely lets his personal feelings and morals affect the way that he governs and the agenda that he pushes. Legislators on both sides of the aisle do the same. This should not be news to anyone. Why is that acceptable?[/quote]

Bush and other politicians are elected by the people, of course. Judges are nominated by the sitting president, and are approved by a committee. Judges are supposed to uphold the law though, not create policy and write new law, such as the policies mentioned earlier.

Personally, I do not think it's right to have unelected judges legislating from the bench. That can have disasterous consequences.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands.. may justly be pronounced the very same definition of tyranny."

James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which [i]would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy...[/i] The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal... knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, it's members would become despots."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Jarvis 1820