UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Share

    spader
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 10071
    Registration date : 2009-07-09

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by spader on Tue May 10, 2011 3:36 pm

    wprager wrote:Spader, do you really want to bring views on abortion into this discussion as well? Yikes.

    You opened that door with the "marriage is for making babies" argument. I'm merely following that argument to its logical conclusion.

    Ev
    Franchise Player
    Franchise Player

    Number of posts : 20939
    Registration date : 2010-02-09

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by Ev on Tue May 10, 2011 3:43 pm

    I heard Reynolds also has a strong relationship with the blacks.

    spader
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 10071
    Registration date : 2009-07-09

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by spader on Tue May 10, 2011 3:47 pm

    Big Ev wrote:I heard Reynolds also has a strong relationship with the blacks.

    Ha. Trump is an idiot.
    avatar
    wprager
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Number of posts : 48173
    Age : 56
    Location : Kanata
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-08-05

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by wprager on Tue May 10, 2011 4:02 pm

    spader wrote:
    wprager wrote:Spader, do you really want to bring views on abortion into this discussion as well? Yikes.

    You opened that door with the "marriage is for making babies" argument. I'm merely following that argument to its logical conclusion.

    I actually did not say that. I was saying (not in so many words) that nature/life/whatever was about makingbabies (and more).


    _________________
    Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
    - Dicky Fox
    avatar
    The Silfer Server
    Veteran
    Veteran

    Number of posts : 2270
    Age : 34
    Location : Ottawa, ON
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-10-14

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by The Silfer Server on Tue May 10, 2011 4:24 pm

    Oglethorpe wrote:
    hemlock wrote:
    Oglethorpe wrote:
    hemlock wrote:
    Oglethorpe wrote:Below are the descriptions of marriage and civil unions in Canada. IMO what needs to be done is the removal of "Civil Marriage". Thus all legalities and rights would be gained under the Civil Union, whether you are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple. Marriage would then be "Religious Marriage" only thus protecting the sanctity of marriage.

    Marriage Governments are concerned only with civil marriage. Religious marriages, by themselves, have no legal effect. As a practical matter, the difference between religious and civil marriage is often invisible in Canada. In most provinces, civil authorities licence religious officials to simultaneously conduct the religious and civil marriage.
    Civil union is different from civil marriage. It is a registration system that recognizes the desire of two individuals to register their relationship in order to trigger legal consequences. There is currently no such system at the federal level in Canada, although four provinces have passed a form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation for provincial laws.

    Before you get all liberal minded on me and call me a Social conservative religous zealot, I should come clear. I do not belive in God, nor am I in any way a member of any religion, I only respect religious freedoms. I am 100% against discrimination of all types. I fully support same-sex couples and believe that any and all rights given to opposite-sex couples are given to same-sex couples.

    Most people tend to think that everyone who is for the traditional definition of marriage is anti-homosexual, that is just ignorant thinking. Some of us see the debate as a balance of all rights and freedoms.

    This leads me to ask, why you feel the need to make homosexual marriage distinctive from all opposite sex marriages by not classifying it the same? Clearly, for whatever reason, you don't feel that homosexual marriage should not be classified in the same manner. You've stated it's not religious, so what is it?

    Also, I'll agree with you on religious freedoms. As an atheist, I practice no form of religion (except for the church of Alfie Wink ), but I respect others right to do so. However, once any religious group tries to regulate or affect the way others live, that's when my agreement ends. Same sex marriage is most definitely one of those things.
    Let me clear one other thing up. I am in no way liberal, and in no way want to come across as liberal. The institution of marriage began to desolve once it was used by the government as a "Civil marriage". My beliefs remain, marriage is a religious union, whereas civil unions are the legal union. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state.

    Ok, so I think I understand your position. You are saying that homosexual marriage should not be classified as a "traditional" marriage because it's a religious union, and since homosexuality isn't allowed in most religions, it should be classified as something different, is that correct?

    To which I would say, what does that do for married couples (such as myself and my wife) who are not religious? Should we have to have a separate classification because we don't adhere to a specific religious doctrine? Perhaps, marriage regardless of the participants should be a strict civil union (by law) and religion should be left out entirely.
    Leave marriage to mean a religious union. My wife and I were not married in a religious ceremony, therefore if I could rewrite the laws we would be in a Civil Union as opposed to a Marriage since "Civil Marriage" would no longer exist in a legal sense, and all same-sex couples would be treated identically to us, thereby ensuring equal rights to them. I believe this accomplishes the equal rights goal faster and with less objection since it marginalizes any religious groups argument.

    But you know there are some religions that do condone same sex marriage. So if a same sex couple were to get 'married' under that religion, would you then consider it a marriage or not?
    avatar
    The Silfer Server
    Veteran
    Veteran

    Number of posts : 2270
    Age : 34
    Location : Ottawa, ON
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-10-14

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by The Silfer Server on Tue May 10, 2011 4:28 pm

    spader wrote:
    Oglethorpe wrote:Leave marriage to mean a religious union. My wife and I were not married in a religious ceremony, therefore if I could rewrite the laws we would be in a Civil Union as opposed to a Marriage since "Civil Marriage" would no longer exist in a legal sense, and all same-sex couples would be treated identically to us, thereby ensuring equal rights to them. I believe this accomplishes the equal rights goal faster and with less objection since it marginalizes any religious groups argument.

    Why? Why shouldn't you and your wife be considered married? Does it impact those marriages that do represent religious values? Does a happy marriage impact a religious union? If it does, then don't infidelity and divorce have similar impacts? Should we make those illegal as well?

    From reading your post it brings up another point it my mind. My brother and my sister-in-law refused to get married in a church, since they are both atheist, instead opting for a small ceremony in the court. Because they refuse to have anything to do with religion, are people saying they aren't 'married'??
    avatar
    TheAvatar
    Veteran
    Veteran

    Number of posts : 2728
    Age : 50
    Location : Colorado springs, colorado
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-08-05

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by TheAvatar on Tue May 10, 2011 4:39 pm

    Bass Destruction wrote:
    From reading your post it brings up another point it my mind. My brother and my sister-in-law refused to get married in a church, since they are both atheist, instead opting for a small ceremony in the court. Because they refuse to have anything to do with religion, are people saying they aren't 'married'??

    No, it just makes them sinners ... Smile Sarcasm
    avatar
    spader
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 10071
    Age : 37
    Location : Toronto
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2009-07-09

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by spader on Tue May 10, 2011 4:55 pm

    wprager wrote:
    spader wrote:
    wprager wrote:Spader, do you really want to bring views on abortion into this discussion as well? Yikes.

    You opened that door with the "marriage is for making babies" argument. I'm merely following that argument to its logical conclusion.

    I actually did not say that. I was saying (not in so many words) that nature/life/whatever was about makingbabies (and more).

    I just read it again. Ya, you're right. But when you bring that argument into this debate, it's difficult not to read the argument as I did above. The simple reason is that the argument is irrelevant in an overpopulated (with humans at least) world, particularly when considering contraceptives, the availability of elective sterilization surgery, and abortion. We no longer use sex strictly to populate the world and for that reason the argument that nature/life/whatever is about making babies isn't useful to a debate about gay marriage.

    Is that fair?
    avatar
    hemlock
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 5005
    Location : Alberta
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2009-06-20

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by hemlock on Tue May 10, 2011 5:14 pm

    Oh man, this thread is fun. Farter Fireworks
    avatar
    The Silfer Server
    Veteran
    Veteran

    Number of posts : 2270
    Age : 34
    Location : Ottawa, ON
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-10-14

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by The Silfer Server on Tue May 10, 2011 5:18 pm

    wprager wrote:First of all, stoning was never a traditional value, unless you want to talk about the Middle East (or do you want to bring the Salem witch hunts into this?)

    However, I'm actually more curious what you mean by "the natural progression". Progression to what, exactly? Clearly, from the emotions-aside, strictly-nature and life-finds-a-way point of view, homosexuality is an aberration; it does not promote the species. You can argue that it is a matter of choice, or that it is a matter of how they were created/made, but you cannot argue that it is not the way it was intended by nature. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- no matter what you want to call it, homosexuality does not "fit in" well.


    So for this reason homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married? Should heterosexual couples who don't expect to have children not be allowed to get married? Should a couple where one or both parents is not able to get married for whatever reason, not be allowed to get married? Why don't we go further to help promote the species and survival of the fittest, and not allow 'imperfect' babies to be born. Oh a baby will have a developmental challenge... Well that doesn't fall into natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever you want to call it, shouldn't allow it to be born?

    And you keep bringing up nature. Show me in nature, where marriage exists. Give me an example where two animals (other than humans) get together, falls in love, and one proposes to the other. Then they have a giant ceremony to celebrate their union under God. Where one of them says I do, then another one says I do. Bet you you can't! I bet you more species practice homosexuality than practice marriage. So which one is more natural again?

    wprager wrote:Sorry to have gone off on a tangent, a bit. Back to this progression . What if cousins want to marry? First cousins, is that OK? How about brothers and sisters, or parents and their children? Abhorrent, you say? Why? What makes homosexuality more acceptable than incest (provided everyone has reached the age of consent, of course)? There are no laws against marrying someone old enough to be your son or daughter, just not you son or daughter (or sibling or first cousin). The underlying reason for this (other than the ick factor) is that it's a bad thing to do from a genetic point of view. It may promote the species, but in a potentially dangerous way, whereas homosexuality simply does not promote the species. You can argue semantics, how one brings about the extinction of the species more quickly than the other but, really, what is the point?

    How is a homosexual couple getting married bad from a genetic point of view? They won't be able to procreate, so even if the homosexuality gene is inherited, you don't have to worry about them passing it on? And how come not allowing homosexuals to marry promotes the species, but allowing them to marry doesn't?

    wprager wrote:So I'll ask you again. Progression to what? Are you prepared to defend same-sex marriage while continuing to prohibit same-family marriage? Or how about inter-species? Or self-marriage (there was a movie on, the other night, where an unmarried woman in her 30s decided to marry herself; cute, but makes you think).

    What does any of that have to do with the price of onions in Japan? So because homosexuals will get the right to get married, so will everything else. You can't possibly be serious with that statement. Honestly.
    avatar
    The Silfer Server
    Veteran
    Veteran

    Number of posts : 2270
    Age : 34
    Location : Ottawa, ON
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-10-14

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by The Silfer Server on Tue May 10, 2011 5:20 pm

    TheAvatar wrote:
    Bass Destruction wrote:
    From reading your post it brings up another point it my mind. My brother and my sister-in-law refused to get married in a church, since they are both atheist, instead opting for a small ceremony in the court. Because they refuse to have anything to do with religion, are people saying they aren't 'married'??

    No, it just makes them sinners ... Smile Sarcasm

    hahaha... Fair enough.

    PS: we need a slow clap emoticon and an applause one.
    avatar
    spader
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 10071
    Age : 37
    Location : Toronto
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2009-07-09

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by spader on Tue May 10, 2011 5:28 pm

    wprager wrote:
    Tuk Tuk wrote:Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

    There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

    First of all, stoning was never a traditional value, unless you want to talk about the Middle East (or do you want to bring the Salem witch hunts into this?)

    However, I'm actually more curious what you mean by "the natural progression". Progression to what, exactly? Clearly, from the emotions-aside, strictly-nature and life-finds-a-way point of view, homosexuality is an aberration; it does not promote the species. You can argue that it is a matter of choice, or that it is a matter of how they were created/made, but you cannot argue that it is not the way it was intended by nature. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- no matter what you want to call it, homosexuality does not "fit in" well.

    Sorry to have gone off on a tangent, a bit. Back to this progression . What if cousins want to marry? First cousins, is that OK? How about brothers and sisters, or parents and their children? Abhorrent, you say? Why? What makes homosexuality more acceptable than incest (provided everyone has reached the age of consent, of course)? There are no laws against marrying someone old enough to be your son or daughter, just not you son or daughter (or sibling or first cousin). The underlying reason for this (other than the ick factor) is that it's a bad thing to do from a genetic point of view. It may promote the species, but in a potentially dangerous way, whereas homosexuality simply does not promote the species. You can argue semantics, how one brings about the extinction of the species more quickly than the other but, really, what is the point?

    So I'll ask you again. Progression to what? Are you prepared to defend same-sex marriage while continuing to prohibit same-family marriage? Or how about inter-species? Or self-marriage (there was a movie on, the other night, where an unmarried woman in her 30s decided to marry herself; cute, but makes you think).

    Or we can just return to talking about hockey.

    After reading this post again, I thought I'd comment on something else in here. Your example of incest isn't valid. If a brother and sister have a baby, the odds of the baby having major birth defects and other problems increase dramatically. The difference between this example and that of a homosexual couple is that one allows for promotion of the species in a dangerous way (that is, dangerous to the baby and its future offspring due to genetic defects), the other restricts promotion of the species (though it doesn't deny it, there's always sperm donation, in vitro fertilization, etc). Same family marriage is an analogical fallacy when used in this debate, just as are the "should we let pedophiles follow their sexual drives" argument (the counter is that a child cannot enter into a consensual sexual relationship, therefore pedophilia is insupportable) and the "should we let people marry their dogs and horses too? They can't have babies either" argument (which involves a similar counter about consent).

    So, to answer for Tuk Tuk (hope you don't mind, Tuk), no, there's no reason why defending gay marriage requires one to defend same-family, inter-species, or adult-child marriage.

    To answer your other question, the desired progression is to a population that respects and accepts differences such as homosexuality. From some of the responses I've seen in this thread, too many people are stuck in the "tolerance" mode.
    avatar
    Hoff-Machine
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 8461
    Age : 32
    Location : Orange County, CA
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2009-06-22

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by Hoff-Machine on Tue May 10, 2011 5:38 pm

    as long as this thread is unmoderated.....


    FUCK YOU UPTOWN SPORTS KEEP YOUR SHIT-ASS OPINIONS TO YOUR DUMB-ASS SELVES!!! WHAT KIND OF A FUCKING MORON POSTS THIS CRAP ON TWITTER?? OH I KNOW, AN ATTENTION SEEKING WHORE!!! HOW DO YOU PEOPLE NOT SEE THAT? WHY GET SUCKED INTO THIS DISCUSSION?? THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT IS THAT THE GUY'S A BITCH, AND ITS TRUE! WHY DON'T U PPL GO ARGUE WITH TRUE HOMERSEXUALS TO GET A PROPER ARGUMENT ON WHY THEY DESERVE THE RIGHT OF 'MARRIAGE'?


    LOUD NOISES!


    oh and I apologize for my foul language Smile
    avatar
    wprager
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Number of posts : 48173
    Age : 56
    Location : Kanata
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-08-05

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by wprager on Tue May 10, 2011 6:50 pm

    Bass Destruction wrote:
    But you know there are some religions that do condone same sex marriage. So if a same sex couple were to get 'married' under that religion, would you then consider it a marriage or not?

    Name one!


    _________________
    Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
    - Dicky Fox
    avatar
    wprager
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Number of posts : 48173
    Age : 56
    Location : Kanata
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2008-08-05

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by wprager on Tue May 10, 2011 6:51 pm

    TheAvatar wrote:
    Bass Destruction wrote:
    From reading your post it brings up another point it my mind. My brother and my sister-in-law refused to get married in a church, since they are both atheist, instead opting for a small ceremony in the court. Because they refuse to have anything to do with religion, are people saying they aren't 'married'??

    No, it just makes them sinners ... Smile Sarcasm

    Heathen!


    _________________
    Hey, I don't have all the answers. In life, to be honest, I've failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my wife. I love my life. And I wish you my kind of success.
    - Dicky Fox
    avatar
    spader
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 10071
    Age : 37
    Location : Toronto
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2009-07-09

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by spader on Tue May 10, 2011 7:07 pm

    wprager wrote:
    Bass Destruction wrote:
    But you know there are some religions that do condone same sex marriage. So if a same sex couple were to get 'married' under that religion, would you then consider it a marriage or not?

    Name one!

    Unitarians, for one. Some others are moving towards an acceptance of happy marriage, but haven't made changes yet, including Episcopalians and Lutherans. Also, there are plenty of non-Christian religions that accept happy marriage including those of some Aboriginal communities, Buddhists, Pagans, and Wiccans.
    avatar
    hemlock
    All-Star
    All-Star

    Number of posts : 5005
    Location : Alberta
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2009-06-20

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by hemlock on Tue May 10, 2011 7:10 pm

    wprager wrote:
    Bass Destruction wrote:
    But you know there are some religions that do condone same sex marriage. So if a same sex couple were to get 'married' under that religion, would you then consider it a marriage or not?

    Name one!

    Reform Judaism
    The United Church of Christ
    The Alliance of Baptists

    avatar
    Tuk Tuk
    Veteran
    Veteran

    Number of posts : 1413
    Age : 24
    Location : Sault ste Marie
    Favorite Team : Ottawa
    Registration date : 2009-06-25

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by Tuk Tuk on Tue May 10, 2011 8:51 pm

    The sooner religion dies out, the sooner this hatred and bigotry will. I don't know why some people believe their own religious beliefs should have power over the rights of others. I don't see why people are so threatened by the concept of homosexual marriage. How does two men or women marrying take any value away from your own marriage?

    Marriage is no longer a concept owned by the church, or any religion. Which means the views of those religions should have no influence on it.

    Sponsored content

    Re: UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:54 pm