News   May 08, 2024
'Equinox Bridge' Selected to Span Port Lands' Keating Channel
 863     0 
News   May 08, 2024
Government Funding Fuelling Toronto's FIFA World Cup Dreams
 1K     1 
News   May 08, 2024
Masterplanned Community Proposed at Hwy 7 and Martin Grove in Vaughan
 2.5K     3 

Same-Sex Marriage Passes Second Reading

scarberian:

I think he meant the term "buggery" aka anal sex. The forementioned term is usually referred to in a criminal context.

Another point to keep in mind - same-sex marriage doesn't really have anything to do with sexual acts; the sexual aspects of homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969.

GB
 
"I think he meant the term "buggery" aka anal sex. The forementioned term is usually referred to in a criminal context."

Yes, I know. Straight couples can perform buggery but not "same-sex buggery" as was quoted. I should have put a :)

"Another point to keep in mind - same-sex marriage doesn't really have anything to do with sexual acts; the sexual aspects of homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969."

Tell that to my grandmother...it takes a few generations for things like this to become accepted by everyone in society regardless of what the law says. Most people are not capable of separating their acceptance or disapproval of marriage from their acceptance or disapproval of the sexual acts.
 
A great quote from the freedominion site (of all places):

"So what you're saying is, there is no loss of rights for heterosexuals, but it is the very idea of homosexuals enjoying the same legal rights that are attatched to marriage that bothers you.

When women were granted suffrage, did men lose their rights? When people were allowed to engage in interracial marriages, did same-race couples lose thier rights? When Canada abondoned the head tax on the Chinese, did non-Chinese Canadians lose their rights? Did heterosexuals lose their rights back when sodomy was no longer considered a crime?

No, no, no, no. What DID happen was that there was a loss of hegemony. In each case, the white heterosexual male lost a piece of thier legal superiority over other kinds of people. Allowing same-sex couples to marry is simply another step in the same direction of equality.

What is wrong with allowing same-sex couples to marry? What it boils down to is the fact that it is a further erosion of that priviledge. Straight white males have already been stripped of their racial and gender priviledges, and now in the passage of C-38, are being stripped of their priviledge based on sexuality.

So it becomes not a question of the rights of heterosexuals, but of their status of superior priviledge over a minority. Ask yourself... if you are willing to deny people their rights in order to preserve a system that accords you superior priviledge because of the way you were born, do you really have a leg to stand on when it comes to morality?"

I don't think you want to know the response to that post...
 
Must have been nasty. Do you have a link to that thread? I went to try to see what responses were there, but couldn't figure out how to search or find different threads. Thx.
 
Well, maintaining priviledges and trying to prevent the expansion of human rights to others is a nasty, nasty business. If people are prepared to take such fascist positions morality obviously isn't a concern to them.
 
Let me know when the 4 horsemen are due to arrive. I'd like to get in some looting before then.
 
I am glad it got passed.

However I don't think the Catholic lady who very involved with my catholic church, is happy.

During this whole time she has had different signs in her front window, on my block.
One was a huge sign that said "GOD MADE ADAM AND EVE AND NOT ADAM AND STEVE"

And now she has a sign saying "DEFEND MARRIAGE"

But really most Catholics could care less. The Catholic church might do some stupid things once in a while. But it is still one of the best religions out there.

Even on the gay front they do admit that you are born that way and can't switch. They just would rather you not do any sexual acts.

Catholics are far from the evil people you guys might think they are.
 
Even on the gay front they do admit that you are born that way and can't switch. They just would rather you not do any sexual acts.
Click to expand...

So it's OK to be gay as long as you're celibate... that's doesn't make much sense.

But it is still one of the best religions out there.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're selling a used car.
 
Each time I see an ad for "The 40-Year-Old Virgin", I think of miketoronto, for some reason
 
Well let's see. The same sex marriage bill has passed and so far I have yet to see any evidence of "traditional" families spontaneously combusting, exploding or any outbreak of mass public polygamy.

So far so good.
 
bizorky:

Well let's see. The same sex marriage bill has passed and so far I have yet to see any evidence of "traditional" families spontaneously combusting, exploding or any outbreak of mass public polygamy.
Click to expand...

Actually, I thought they did - 5000 years ago.

GB
 
"Eric Droogh, who is director at the Veluwe National Park, said: "A national debate on wild sex parties in the countryside is essential... Outdoor sex is now commonly occurring in national parks and other public places. In some cases they just stopped beside the road in the picnic area or a meadow for the orgies."

Wow.

The mischievous part of me wants to take that article, change all the place names to Ontario locations, and post it to a conservative forum.
 
The horny part of me just wants to get on the first flight to Holland.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top