As clear cut as it gets:
God instituted / ordained marriage in Genesis 1 and 2 as one man and one woman - the two were to become one flesh (sexual relationship) to produce offspring leading to the development of civilization.

Once again you are not defending your point and backing up your statements but simply attacking and calling names - no one really takes that type of argument seriously.

For me it's something I can't accept, and I can't imagine living in society that allows this.
As I said - I won't accept same sex marriages, because they come bundled with such situations I can't accept.

ps. try to think the opposite - what if gays were still not tolarated in Canada, and TV speaker would tweet that he supports gays, and TV network felt they don't want him to be the public face of their network. Would it still sound fair to you? It's exactly the same situation, only it's opposite.

I say both situations are similar, in both cases I'm with TV speaker. Other way I'd be a hypocrite.

I have a theory.

Some of you are talking about the legal agreement thing with the moneys and whatnots to the widow and all that. The rest of you are talking about the "club members only" service that their religion is offering. Everyone's using the same word.

I see this becoming a religious debate. I'll just leave this here. Listen to what she has to say at 0:20, and that's enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IHdaJOZe7E

Gotta go put my son to bed - PM if you really want to continue - but all I was after was for folks not to low rate others for having a differing opinion / point of view. Paradoks did nothing to be low rated for.

...So the guy saying gay people should be banned from marrying is calling others intolerant? Really?!

That's a common tactic in the US, unfortunately. The arguments tend to be appeals to tradition or slippery slopes, and they'll frequently pretend to be oppressed by the fact that they're being overruled.

I remember when Ref-71 passed around here that all of a sudden the people pushing for a no vote were really scared that they might be discriminated against, and pushed to keep the signatures and donors secret. To prevent people from boycotting businesses owned by donors.

I've been attacking ideas and beliefs. That you take offence to these attacks really isn't my problem. Besides, I really have no interest in convincing you of my position. You've demonstrated that you're not really capable of a rational position as your belief stems from religion. If you honestly believe that the Bible is the word of God then there's nothing we can discuss. It's as if we don't even speak the same language.

Apologies if this was posted in this thread already, can't remember if I saw it here or on Reddit, but it was very amusing indeed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJPm52rmKYI

You're a nut and the world is an infinitely poorer place as a result of you. Well done.
You seem like a lost cause so I only hope that you won't raise your child to be like you.

If people disapprove of gay marriage for religious reasons that's their right, but you can't pass laws based on religious beliefs. Whether or not gay marriage is a religious abomination has absolutely no importance from a legal standpoint.

Things are made illegal because they cause some sort of harm, be it physical harm or financial harm or otherwise. Obviously this doesn't always work as intended, but the point stands that you can't outlaw things just because you don't like them. Gay marriage harms nobody. Oh sure, some people will say it "destroys the family unit" but you will find that most families do not, in fact, burst spontaneously into flames whenever a gay couple moves into the neighborhood.

If anyone has a non-religious, non-personal argument as to why gay marriage should not be allowed I'd love to hear it. If not, then it's pretty clear what should be done.

But... You're persecuting good Christians who're only fighting for Traditional family Values (without which everything you hold dear will be destroyed and urinated on by gay people)!

Pff. Typical, the Canadian comes out with the sensible and well reasoned argument.

You cannucks are all the same. Y'know, except for the few lunatic hooligans in Vancouver :).

It's all a front, you know. By day we're friendly and timid but at night we get all fucked up on hockey and flapjacks and wander into the woods to hunt wolves naked with our bare teeth and the shower in their blood.

Putting the Theological Argument aside:

Even tho the Institution of Marriage can not be removed from its cultural and religious roots - lets focus on the Legal / Political aspects of this debate.

1. Marriage is not whatever the law says it is. Marriage predates any law and is the fundamental institution of any civilization. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman for the purpose of reproduction and protecting and nurturing the next generation so that civilization can progress.

2. Marriage is not just another way of recognizing people that love one another. If love and commitment were all that was necessary to define marriage then why deny marriage from a child and an adult who love each other or a man and his six wives who love each other.

3. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. They are just not allowed to marry each other. Just as Brothers and Sisters or polygamists.

4. Laws prohibiting same sex marriage are not unconstitutional or discriminatory. The anti-miscegenation laws that were intended to keep races apart were irrelevant to the fundamental purpose of marriage, bringing the two sexes together for the fundamental purpose of procreation. On the other hand same sex marriage proponents want to change the definition of marriage. Furthermore, skin color is a matter of birth and is an unchangeable characteristic, however sexual behavior is a matter of choice. If we are to start granting special rights based on behavioral choices then we can expect to see smokers, gamblers, drug users, and pedophiles claiming special rights to protect them from some unlawful discrimination.

5. There is no valid scientific research verifying that homosexuality is an innate characteristic. Homosexuals choose their behavior.

6. 29 states have enacted constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and another 13 states have statutory bans. The majority do not agree that Homosexual marriage is right for this nation. Constitutional amendments were passed by a vote of the people not enacted into law by politicians.

Homosexuals choose their behaviour but they do not choose their orientation any more than heterosexuals do. While I could choose to get involved in homosexual activities, I can't choose to be homosexual. I'm attracted to women and I have no choice about the matter.

As to your other arguments, I'm not too interested in repudiating them as they're pretty standard religious anti-homosexuality fare.


"The majority do not agree that Homosexual marriage is right for this nation."

Chances are they won't until it's made law that homosexuals can marry and then they'll realise they were worried over nothing. Once upon a time, a lot of people felt that racial segregation was a swell idea...