[hwacker]

The Liberals will shove this down on us like everything else.

Welcome to Europe Lite, smoke a joint and watch your ass.

[Erinites]

I drink beer...
I have a full length mirror...
I can see my ass...
There are bigger issues at hand here...
(not my ass)
Often politicians like to camouflage the REAL issues @ hand by sending up a smoke screen eg: gay marriage...

WHERE TF is my Tax money?
Golf Balls?

[hwacker]

"Golf Balls?" or is it "Got Balls"

i hear they got lots and non at the same time.

[RoyalHighlander]

Ontario_Born Ontario_Born:

I can't help but wonder, if everyone is so supportive of gay marriage, then why is this in the "jokes and humor" section?

did you take the time to read that pic I posted in the first post that started this????? I dont think that ANYONE read it LMAO

[Erinites]

@#$%^&M POLITICIANS ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN CAR SALESMEN.

They will tell you everything they think you wanna hear,
And then something to to throw you off... just to keep it real...
politicians have backgrounds in
#1
Psychology
#2
Law....

It's like mixing prozac with JD...( with a side of demorol)


#$%^& LETHAL.

Never mind the politeness...
I have no faith In FUCKING polticians!

And I buy cars from people I know....

[Ontario_Born]

$1:

did you take the time to read that pic I posted in the first post that started this????? I dont think that ANYONE read it LMAO

no, i didn't see it. What was it called?

[EyeBrock]

Totally for this one. I went to a good friend's ceremony where he vowed his love to his partner. Why would anybody deny two people the right to marry, just because they are the same sex?

I think opponents to this just don't have any gay friends. If they did they would see that their is nothing to be afraid of.

Go for it guys and gurls!

[Nate_7]

Well, I know I'm probably going to get bashed for this...

I have no problem whatsoever with homosexual couples, nor the union between them, but I just don't think it should be called marriage. Marriage is described in the bible as a union between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage, besides love and all that junk, is procreation (to be able to have children). Gay couples can't do that (unless you consider adoption, but I don't in this case) The main thing that concerns me though is that governments are getting their noses WAY too far into this issue. The question about gay marriage should be solved by the specific religion, not by the country they're from.

I know people are probably going to be mad at me for this post, seeming how most people here disagree with me, but I have prided myself in always looking at both sides of every issue before coming to my conclusion, and that is my opinion.

Thanks

[Ontario_Born]

Nate_7 Nate_7:

Well, I know I'm probably going to get bashed for this...

I have no problem whatsoever with homosexual couples, nor the union between them, but I just don't think it should be called marriage. Marriage is described in the bible as a union between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage, besides love and all that junk, is procreation (to be able to have children). Gay couples can't do that (unless you consider adoption, but I don't in this case) The main thing that concerns me though is that governments are getting their noses WAY too far into this issue. The question about gay marriage should be solved by the specific religion, not by the country they're from.

I know people are probably going to be mad at me for this post, seeming how most people here disagree with me, but I have prided myself in always looking at both sides of every issue before coming to my conclusion, and that is my opinion.

Thanks

Let me start by saying that I am not mad at you. Everyone has a right to voice their opinion, and I also try to see both points of any given argument. But what you need to remember is that gay marriage is not a religious issue. Canada is a secular nation, and therefore the bible has no bearing on its laws. . It has already been decided (and rightfully so) that churches cannot be forced to marry gays, so why then should the government be forced to exclude them? I don’t mean to disrespect your beliefs, but we must remember that they are not everyone’s beliefs, and this is why the separation of church and state is so important. But I digress.

Gay marriages would be in the eyes of government, not god. A marriage license would be obtained, and a justice of the peace would perform the ceremony.

[DMP08]

RH, I did see your picture and laughed my ass off. Secondly, as Ontario_Born brought up, this shouldn't be a religious issue. Canada has seperated church and...errr, province. Except for some holidays beings stats, there are no laws that quote the bible, or any other religious source. That always seems to be the main argument "The bible says that....." What about atheists, and non christians, and Hinduism or buhdism? Equal rights. The other argument brought up is marrying animals, I don't even like to hear that argument bevause it is so frivolous and pointless. Where do you draw a connection between those 2?

[WarHawkster]

Ontario_Born Ontario_Born:

Nate_7 Nate_7:

Well, I know I'm probably going to get bashed for this...

I have no problem whatsoever with homosexual couples, nor the union between them, but I just don't think it should be called marriage. Marriage is described in the bible as a union between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage, besides love and all that junk, is procreation (to be able to have children). Gay couples can't do that (unless you consider adoption, but I don't in this case) The main thing that concerns me though is that governments are getting their noses WAY too far into this issue. The question about gay marriage should be solved by the specific religion, not by the country they're from.

I know people are probably going to be mad at me for this post, seeming how most people here disagree with me, but I have prided myself in always looking at both sides of every issue before coming to my conclusion, and that is my opinion.

Thanks

Let me start by saying that I am not mad at you. Everyone has a right to voice their opinion, and I also try to see both points of any given argument. But what you need to remember is that gay marriage is not a religious issue. Canada is a secular nation, and therefore the bible has no bearing on its laws. . It has already been decided (and rightfully so) that churches cannot be forced to marry gays, so why then should the government be forced to exclude them? I don’t mean to disrespect your beliefs, but we must remember that they are not everyone’s beliefs, and this is why the separation of church and state is so important. But I digress.

Gay marriages would be in the eyes of government, not god. A marriage license would be obtained, and a justice of the peace would perform the ceremony.

*ahem*

12 million Catholics in Canada...

[hwacker]

Canada has no equivalent to the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That’s why the separation of church and state is not so important because we don't have it.

Stop watching American TV

We have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but it's a pile of $hit when you have the "not withstanding clause" to fall back on.

[DMP08]

I do believe we do have a "not withstanding clause" in Canada. It is just never ever used. But heck, put the law before public vote. Do it democratically. So far on this poll here we have 88% in favour. I'm sure a federal vote would be a little closer but....

[Ontario_Born]

DMP08 DMP08:

The other argument brought up is marrying animals, I don't even like to hear that argument bevause it is so frivolous and pointless.

To me, that is the most enraging of all things said against Gay marriage. I’ve been called a freak, and fag, and a pedophile. I have been told I will go to hell, will get AIDS, deserve to get AIDS and should be hung from a tree. That’s just hate, and I can deal with that. But the idea that the next logical jump from homosexuality, is beastiality, just shows how some people see gays as less than human. That’s ignorance, and it drives me mad.

[WarHawkster]

DMP08 DMP08:

I do believe we do have a "not withstanding clause" in Canada. It is just never ever used. But heck, put the law before public vote. Do it democratically. So far on this poll here we have 88% in favour. I'm sure a federal vote would be a little closer but....

Actualy it has been used several times since 1982 by Provincial legislatures, like the Quebec language law issue.

I'd advise you to read up on the Ford v. Attorney General of Quebec case.