300,000 oppose gay marriage in biggest petition since election

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Because the government does not have a right to be between two people who love each other, simply put.

Marriage licenses only exist because of the actions of the eugenics movement a century ago. Therefore its entire reasoning for existence is based off flawed logic that believes society should have a say in who marries who for the greater good.

That is simply not in tune with western liberal thought.

ok
show your proof for them loving each other
here in england
many immigrants dissapear into london
many thai brides are bought by middle aged fat bastardo pedos
is that in tune with western thought
you have no idea how quick things will change

Marriage is a joke period. I don't see why anyone would be so stupid to get married.

Originally posted by davesmart
yeh thats right
nobodys business
except the lawyers when twinkle toes has had enough
stop pussy footing around
get to reality
why is it that most twinkle toes strut their stuff like mcjagger
i have gay friends and they would agree with me now
get of your horse your gay...so what stop the ooohhh im persecuted
utter crap

not 2 you op
these idiots

edit on 25-3-2012 by davesmart because: (no reason given)

So calling those who disagree idiots while spewing bigoted speech.... hmmm... who looks like the bigger idiot?

They're not demanding preferential treatment, only equal treatment. They want the same rights granted to them that are granted to heterosexual couples, nothing more, nothing less. Segregation in the form of civil unions is no different than segregation at the water fountain, bathroom, park, or bus. You can't grant only a portion of the populous a right and not expect those outside of that group to fight for what should've been granted in the first place. Bash them all you want, they're only fighting for what most of us already have, the right to marry who ever we love. You don't have to agree with the institution of marriage, you don't have to agree with their lifestyle or what they do behind closed doors, but you should respect them for fighting for equality.

Originally posted by babybunnies
Any reports on how many people would sign a petition supporting it?

I bet it would be in the millions !

no, 30,000 have so far.
But it's an accurate demographic.

Originally posted by libertytoall
Gay people shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Not because of the gay behavior but because being gay GOES AGAINST CREATION. When a man and a man or a woman and a woman can have sex and become pregnant then I'll believe it's natural for a gay couple to have kids..

edit on 25-3-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Same with single parents and infertile couples, how horrible is it for them to have kids! Disgusting!

Slightly off topic, how many of us besides me are for banning instant oatmeal because it's just plain weird?

Originally posted by outwired

Originally posted by davesmart
yeh thats right
nobodys business
except the lawyers when twinkle toes has had enough
stop pussy footing around
get to reality
why is it that most twinkle toes strut their stuff like mcjagger
i have gay friends and they would agree with me now
get of your horse your gay...so what stop the ooohhh im persecuted
utter crap

not 2 you op
these idiots

edit on 25-3-2012 by davesmart because: (no reason given)

So calling those who disagree idiots while spewing bigoted speech.... hmmm... who looks like the bigger idiot?

They're not demanding preferential treatment, only equal treatment. They want the same rights granted to them that are granted to heterosexual couples, nothing more, nothing less. Segregation in the form of civil unions is no different than segregation at the water fountain, bathroom, park, or bus. You can't grant only a portion of the populous a right and not expect those outside of that group to fight for what should've been granted in the first place. Bash them all you want, they're only fighting for what most of us already have, the right to marry who ever we love. You don't have to agree with the institution of marriage, you don't have to agree with their lifestyle or what they do behind closed doors, but you should respect them for fighting for equality.

not at all
im allowed say what i want along as it conforms to TnC
i dont think you fully understand what your saying
NOBODY BASHED ANY GAYS
if you read all the posts you will see
you are a warmonger
take some prozac and settle your nerves
calm down
dave

Wait, all marriage is documented legally by the state, independent of the religious group that performed the marriage in that group's traditional way - OR independent of whether or not a religious union was performed.

In other words:

THE "CHURCH" / THE STATE
Baptist Wedding > Civil documentation of marriage
Jewish Wedding > Civil documentation of marriage
Catholic Wedding > Civil documentation of marriage
Mormon Wedding > Civil documentation of marriage
Muslim Wedding > Civil documentation of marriage
Lutheran Wedding > Civil documentation of marriage
Hindu Wedding > Civil documentation of marriage
Sikh Wedding > Civil documentation of marriage
Buddhist Wedding > Civil documentation of marriage
Bahai Wedding > Civil documentation of marriage
NONE > Civil documentation of marriage

As far as I can tell, independent of what religious doctrine you are married under, the State will still "record" or "process" your marriage. You will still be married in a civil ceremony if no religious institution is chosen, will allow your marriage or you simply do not have a religion.

So........

WTF is wrong with everybody's understanding of this? What flipping care does anyone have if the STATE allows marriage between people of the same sex?

The Churches, Mosques, Synagogues and Temples can all decide what their religions would or would not like to do and it is not the STATE's job to tell the Catholic Church or Sunni Islam how to conduct their religions and frankly, I'm not sure why any homosexual catholic or muslim (or whatever religion) would remain in their faith if their faith has abandoned them and cast them aside. But that is neither here nor there. The State can grant the union.

FFS
all of you
your not reading the ops main point
and your all to blind to see it
i got wound up by some of you i admit that
but i refraind the best i could to calling you names
and if i did then i hold my hands up IM GUILTY
but a few of you are trolls and ive watched this site for a few years
some of you try to derail a thread with the hope of not getting noticed
well think again ive been watching you
this has exploded into something the op did not intend

thanks all that came out of their shell
il watch you even closer

It takes a small person to decide what's best for a complete stranger. What do you expect? The only people really against this are the overly religious, and these are the same religious people who refuse to listen to anything rational. Either that or they're closet gays, haha.

My opinions on the various arguments raised in this and other topics:

On the "will of the people" argument: the equal protection clause should always supercede the "will of the people." The "will of the people," in the absence of equal protections, amounts to little more than mob rule.

On the legal/constitutional argument: in the absence of a legal prohibition against gays marrying (which I know has happened in some instance, but which is an example of discriminatory law, and thereby unconstitutional, since it would target only one legal class, and which should therefore be overturned in my view, and has been in at least one instance,) the freedom to marry should be absolute. All rights not explicitly curtailed by law are reserved to the people, and no law can apply solely to one class of people in a discriminatory fashion, thus robbing them of their equal protection. It’s quite clear in my opinion.

On the moral/slippery slope argument: same-sex marriage is not tantamount to bestiality or pedophilia. The former is between two consenting adults. The latter two are between one adult and one animal or person incapable of consenting. They are not ethically equivalent in any way, shape, or form.

On the religious argument: your freedom of religion does not extend to or include the freedom to diminish others' equal protection under the constitution. Moreover, if we are talking about marriage in a religious context rather a legal one, it would be unconstitutional for a law to abridge the right of any religious institution to conduct same-sex marriages should they choose to do so. If religious institutions wish to bar same-sex unions, they can refuse to conduct them within their facilities or congregations. They cannot bar other religious institutions from doing so, however. Nor can any law, without violating the constitution.

Just my two cents. I respect everyone’s opinions whether I agree with them or not. Peace.

Originally posted by davesmart

all of you
your not reading the ops main point

Majority has no right to vote on rights of a minority.

Equality should not be put to a vote.

Why its being allowed to happen is just plain evil.

Originally posted by davesmart

not at all
im allowed say what i want along as it conforms to TnC
i dont think you fully understand what your saying
NOBODY BASHED ANY GAYS
if you read all the posts you will see
you are a warmonger
take some prozac and settle your nerves
calm down
dave

You called them 'twinkle toes', I'm pretty sure that's gay bashing.

How in the hell am I a warmonger?

I never suggested that you weren't allowed to speak your mind, but by doing so it doesn't limit me from speaking my mind either.

I'm calm.
I'm not the one typing in caps and tossing about names and half cocked retorts.

Originally posted by outwired

Originally posted by davesmart

not at all
im allowed say what i want along as it conforms to TnC
i dont think you fully understand what your saying
NOBODY BASHED ANY GAYS
if you read all the posts you will see
you are a warmonger
take some prozac and settle your nerves
calm down
dave

You called them 'twinkle toes', I'm pretty sure that's gay bashing.

How in the hell am I a warmonger?

I never suggested that you weren't allowed to speak your mind, but by doing so it doesn't limit me from speaking my mind either.

I'm calm.

I'm not the one typing in caps and tossing about names and half cocked retorts.

edit on 25-3-2012 by outwired because: to many quotes.

twinkle toes is from a nativity play
warmonger as in...i cant recall now because..im tired
but i will gather ammunition..sorry i mean info
and whack your bum...sorry thats gayish is it?
sarcasm was always my strong point, i mean my downfall
no sincere apologies for my drunken rant
for without me
you would have no one to vent to
so i charge you 50 quid for the lesson learnd

reply to post by Sphota


The word marriage has always indicated the union between a man and woman. Gay's are seeking to change the definition of a word. If gays are so secure with themselves why do they seek to change the definition of a word? Why should I accept any definition of a word other than what has always been accepted? Should not a new situation indeed be given a new word with a new definition? Two people of the same sex cannot be married, since the word marriage is defined by a union between two people of the opposite sex. There is no reason to change the definition of a word to fit the minority.

Marriage is the means to which two people are joined creating a family unit. The reason Gay's are so adamant about having the term applied to a same sex union is justification. The reason the majority of heterosexuals and the church are against this is because a same sex couple is not and cannot be the same.

Gay's say they are fighting for equal rights but this is not the case. They are fighting for Gay rights. Because it is impossible for two people of the same sex to procreate it is impossible for them to create a family within the confounds of marriage, by the very definition of the word. Both parents cannot biologically be the parent of one child. Because of this simple biological fact Gay's are not fighting for either a human right nor even equal rights.

It is because of this that I object to the term marriage applied to two people of the same sex. I have a right to preserve the traditional family and the definition of the word marriage. I believe that by observing civil unions that state has separated itself from the issue and has no right to change the meaning of the word marriage.

If Gay's truly believe that they have no other choice but to be gay than why do they need justification through a word? Why do they feel the need to change the definition of a word? After all the word marriage is just a word and its meaning is well defined. Since they are not seeking to get married by the definition of the word why would they not create a new word that pertains to what they are doing? They are not getting married, nor can they. The state has classified their union as a civil union, if this is not acceptable than create a word they you can be satisfied with but don't try and change the definition of a word to suit yourself.

Stop arguing that you are seeking equality because you are not. Personally I could care less what choices you make sexually. What you do is your business but I do not have to accept a change in the definition of a word to suit you. Nor do I understand why you feel the need to change the definition of the word.

Do you think that by changing the definition of a word that somehow your relationship becomes justified? If you are certain that your relationship is right than why do you need my approval through a word? It is perfectly acceptable for me to want my children to grow up knowing that a marriage is the union between a two people of the opposite sex that come together to create a family. I believe that you have the freedom to choose whatever lifestyle you wish. You should offer me the same respect by not attempting to change the definition of a word that I believe in. By seeking to change the definition of a word not only are you not seeking equal rights but you are infringing on my rights. Please respect my right to not allow you to change the definition of a word that does not need to be changed.

This thread got really hilarious in the past few pages

The majority deciding for the minority is a democracy, I guess.

In a somewhat, semi-serious tone, though:

The traditional family is kaput. Gone. Out the window. Divorce is through the roof, cheating is the norm, child abuse is rampant. The traditional family is dead. Let's stop fooling ourselves, k? Same sex couples should be allowed to call their unions a marriage, just like everyone else. Straight couples have zero high ground to stand on.

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but this is what a few people are referring to:

From Wikipedia: tyranny of the majority

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots.

That's exactly what this petition is. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm so tired of the 'one man, one woman' and 'sanctity of marriage' arguments. Why don't people jump up and down with rage when a Kardashian has a 24 hour marriage? And make no mistake, Kim Kardashian is only the poster child for ridiculous marriages; there are tens of thousands of others that we never hear of. Where's the sanctity in that??

The bottom line, for me, comes down to this - once you pick apart the purported reasons for not wanting to allow gay marriage, you're left with the uncomfortable conclusion that it's based on nothing more than fear and homophobia.

We, in Canada, are quickly approaching the 10th anniversary of the legalization of gay marriage and guess what? The sky didn't come crashing down, heterosexual couples didn't suddenly burst into flames and no church was forced to do anything they didn't want to. In short, after years of alarmist hang-wringing and religious fear mongering, nothing happened. Nothing changed. In no way was anybody's life affected. It was a HUGE non-event.

The entire thing reminds me a phenomenon we know well here in the conspiracy community. Somebody gives a date for the apocalypse and people proceed to run around in a state of panic as that day approaches. 'BE AFRAID! Repent! We're all gonna die on ---insert date---!!!'. Then the day comes and it goes and the asteroid didn't hit. The earthquake never happened. The sun didn't go dark.

And life went on...

Just ask a Canadian.

reply to post by sealing


What makes you think you are on the right side of humanity?
Gay marriage contradicts the whole point of marriage so its everyones business and its a public thing,not a private thing.

Originally posted by Viking9019
reply to post by sealing

 

What makes you think you are on the right side of humanity?
Gay marriage contradicts the whole point of marriage so its everyones business and its a public thing,not a private thing.

what about divorce , multiple marriages , adultery, ect , ect.

straight people do a well enough job of making marriage a joke that i dont understand how gay people will change any of that.

remember when people were so against interacial marriage?

Originally posted by sacgamer25

The word marriage has always indicated the union between a man and woman. Gay's are seeking to change the definition of a word. If gays are so secure with themselves why do they seek to change the definition of a word? Why should I accept any definition of a word other than what has always been accepted? Should not a new situation indeed be given a new word with a new definition? Two people of the same sex cannot be married, since the word marriage is defined by a union between two people of the opposite sex. There is no reason to change the definition of a word to fit the minority.

How many times do I have to post this link before somebody actually reads it?? The word marriage has NOT always indicated the union between a man and a woman. Heterosexuals do NOT own the word marriage.

www.randomhistory.com...

Marriage is the means to which two people are joined creating a family unit. The reason Gay's are so adamant about having the term applied to a same sex union is justification. The reason the majority of heterosexuals and the church are against this is because a same sex couple is not and cannot be the same.

Gay's say they are fighting for equal rights but this is not the case. They are fighting for Gay rights. Because it is impossible for two people of the same sex to procreate it is impossible for them to create a family within the confounds of marriage, by the very definition of the word. Both parents cannot biologically be the parent of one child. Because of this simple biological fact Gay's are not fighting for either a human right nor even equal rights.

No, gays are fighting for civil rights. There are many people who marry, who do not or cannot procreate. Procreation is NOT a prerequisite for marriage.

It is because of this that I object to the term marriage applied to two people of the same sex. I have a right to preserve the traditional family and the definition of the word marriage.

This whole argument about preserving traditional family is just a flimsy excuse. First of all, we don't live in "Leave it to Beaver" land, where Mom wears pearls and high heels while cooking dinner, and Dad smokes a pipe while reading the paper. We never really did. There are and have been many non-traditional families out there. Families with one parent, families with multi-cultural adopted kids, kids raised by grandparents, parents who are drug addicts/alcoholics, swingers, etc., etc.

Second of all, gays getting married doesn't affect your marriage in the least. If you want a "traditional" marriage, knock yourself out. Nothing's stopping you. You can have your house in the suburbs, 2.5 children, golden retriever, white picket fence, and station wagon in the garage. How does allowing gays to call their union a marriage take any of that away from you?

reply to post by ollncasino


I suppose you are one who believes hetrosexuality is a "norm" in nature?