same sex marriage petition .
David Dalton
Feel free to pass it on.
---------------------------------------------------------
Check this petition out and sign it!
I have just read and signed the online petition:
"Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Canada"
hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
service, at:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/samesex/
Help make same sex marriages legal across Canada.
---------------------------------------------
David
Name
just as soon as I finish helping defeat the feminazis war on men---one enemy
at a time is enough
Mike
"David Dalton" <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:brb5aa$292$5...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
Stan Schmenge
"Name" <ml8...@yahoo.com (nospam)> wrote in message
news:VLbCb.11325$aF2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> ummm-yeh--i'll get right on that
>
> just as soon as I finish helping defeat the feminazis war on men---one
enemy
> at a time is enough
>
> Mike
My vision of "The Truth" is Mr. "Anti-Feminazi" getting a kick in the head
from that "extreme right-wing clown" bitch called Ann Coulter!
Either that, or I'll bury him up to his head and get Toronto's Carole Pope
and Alberta's Lesbian hot-shot K. D. Lang to dance on his pretty little
head!
Lee Hanlon, CD
Kindly keep your disgusting perversion to yourself please!
"David Dalton" <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:brb5aa$292$5...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
"The Right One"
At one time, Black people had to sit at the back of the bus.
At one time, Aboriginals were beaten for speaking in their own tongue.
At one time, Japanese-Canadians were raped of their freedom and property.
Gay Pride is not a race it's a perversion
--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
A fish rots from the head down.
-Preston Manning
"Lee Hanlon, CD" <lha...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:9EdCb.666359$6C4.589927@pd7tw1no...
David Dalton
Leviticus would you deny it to them now? We do not
need a Margaret Atwood Handmaid's Tale sort of world.
There is some interesting discussion in the similar
thread on talk.religion.misc and I will follow that
thread but not the one on here or a separate one
on can.motss after this post (and a quick check of
the can.motss one too).
David
Ron
Where will it end? Marriage is a man and a woman supposedly joined
for the rest of their lives.
Gay people have lived together for centuries. Why do they now have
to pretend they are in a marriage?
.
Carter Lee
> David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message news:<brb5aa$292$5...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>...
>
>>Here's a note I got from a friend (and then I signed it).
>>Feel free to pass it on.
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Check this petition out and sign it!
>>
>>I have just read and signed the online petition:
>>
>> "Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Canada"
>>
>>hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
>>service, at:
>>
>> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/samesex/
>>
>>Help make same sex marriages legal across Canada.
>
> Where will it end? Marriage is a man and a woman supposedly joined
> for the rest of their lives.
> Gay people have lived together for centuries. Why do they now have
> to pretend they are in a marriage?
Because it gives them a financial advantage. That's what it's
about, money.
Carter
Damson Rhee
How about so they can enjoy the same rights as everyone else does? In
Canada, at least in some provinces, you don't have to be actually
married to get some of the rights of a married couple? They can just
live together for a certain period of time and they can be required to
provide the same support as a married person. They enjoy a lot of rights.
If two people who happen to be gay can commit to each other and actually
want to marry, why shouldn't they be able to?
Nobody is aksing the Chruch to marry them. They're just asking to
marry, commit themselves to each other and enjoy some of the rights that
go with it. A gay couple can live together for decades. If one of them
gets ill, the will have NOTHING to say about how they are treated, can't
sign anything for consent to do anything, can't even have a say in
funeral plans. A family that the person has been estranged from for any
length of time could. That's why.
D
>
>
>
> ..
Carter Lee
>
>
> Ron wrote:
>> Gay people have lived together for centuries. Why do they now have
>> to pretend they are in a marriage?
>
>
> How about so they can enjoy the same rights as everyone else does? In
> Canada, at least in some provinces, you don't have to be actually
> married to get some of the rights of a married couple? They can just
> live together for a certain period of time and they can be required to
> provide the same support as a married person. They enjoy a lot of rights.
> If two people who happen to be gay can commit to each other and actually
> want to marry, why shouldn't they be able to?
> Nobody is aksing the Chruch to marry them. They're just asking to
> marry, commit themselves to each other and enjoy some of the rights that
> go with it. A gay couple can live together for decades. If one of them
> gets ill, the will have NOTHING to say about how they are treated, can't
> sign anything for consent to do anything, can't even have a say in
> funeral plans. A family that the person has been estranged from for any
> length of time could. That's why.
Interesting, your post is all about rights. Nowhere do you
mention responsibilities. You know, like the responsibilities of
bearing and raising children.
Actually same sex marriage, which is an oxymoron, is about money,
pure and simple.
Carter
Carter
Damson Rhee
Maybe that's because I know so many, many, many couples who are married
and have opted to NOT have children. You seem to think that people
actually do get married to go forth and multiply. In which case, I'd
say you need a reality check. Half the couples I know don't have
children and they're men and women.
OTOH, some of the most committed to each other couples I know are gay.
> Actually same sex marriage, which is an oxymoron, is about money, pure
> and simple.
Says you, which doesn't say much at all.
D
>
> Carter
>
> Carter
>
dnmgiordano
children and one on the way, and no its not a same sex marriage. We got
married because we love each other, not for the financial "benefits".
Aren't some of you forgetting about happiness? Isn't that the reason to get
married, no matter who you are or who you love?
Bullock
"David Dalton" <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:brb5aa$292$5...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
Carter Lee
That's a choice which a married couple can and may make. It is
not a choice which a gay couple can make. See the difference.
You seem to think that people
> actually do get married to go forth and multiply. In which case, I'd
> say you need a reality check.
Neat, I need a reality check based on what you think I seem to
think. The reality is I don't think that.
Half the couples I know don't have
> children and they're men and women.
> OTOH, some of the most committed to each other couples I know are gay.
This is not about commitment alone, it's about marriage.
>
>> Actually same sex marriage, which is an oxymoron, is about money, pure
>> and simple.
>
>
> Says you, which doesn't say much at all.
Actually it says a great deal, otherwise you could have presented
a more convincing argument than "Says you..."
Carter
Damson Rhee
Bullock wrote:
Maybe not for you, but maybe it's what others want. Who died and made
you Pope?
D
Damson Rhee
Carter Lee wrote:
You check out the birth rate these days? Going a little down, isn't it?
In fact, it's at a record low and the prediction is that in 20 years,
deaths will outnumber births in this country. So, yeah, you need a
reality check, not because I say so, but because I did my homeowork
first. And when you do check it, don't forget that some of those births
are to gay couples and/or single people.
These are the links, so you don't have to work your little fingers too
hard.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo04b.htm
http://fact.on.ca/news/news0207/np020704.htm
>
> Half the couples I know don't have
>
>> children and they're men and women.
>> OTOH, some of the most committed to each other couples I know are gay.
>
>
> This is not about commitment alone, it's about marriage.
Okay, I'll bite. Why the hell do couples get married? If it's not
committment alone, then what? Children? But the birth rate is a a
record low, sindle parent figures are also on the RISE, so.....?
>
>>
>>> Actually same sex marriage, which is an oxymoron, is about money,
>>> pure and simple.
>>
>>
>>
>> Says you, which doesn't say much at all.
>
>
> Actually it says a great deal, otherwise you could have presented a more
> convincing argument than "Says you..."
How's the above for argument?
D
>
> Carter
>
Thinker
Will the next petition be asking if a person can marry their
family pet?
Kurt Knoll
"Thinker" <fre...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:KJJCb.519$7%6.31...@newshog.newsread.com...
Nothing will turn out right when the Religious Fanatics set the Agenda.
Kurt Knoll.
=
Carter Lee
>> You seem to think that people
>>
>>> actually do get married to go forth and multiply. In which case, I'd
>>> say you need a reality check.
>>
>>
>>
>> Neat, I need a reality check based on what you think I seem to think.
>> The reality is I don't think that.
>
>
> You check out the birth rate these days? Going a little down, isn't it?
> In fact, it's at a record low and the prediction is that in 20 years,
> deaths will outnumber births in this country. So, yeah, you need a
> reality check, not because I say so, but because I did my homeowork
> first.
Didn't read the last sentence of my reply, did you?
And when you do check it, don't forget that some of those births
> are to gay couples and/or single people.
I waiting with baited breath to find out how a child could be
born to two gay men.
>> This is not about commitment alone, it's about marriage.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. Why the hell do couples get married? If it's not
> committment alone,
You don't have to be married to be committed. Gays have been
doing it for centuries, why, all of a sudden, is it necessary to
be married? Money is the reason, pure and simple.
then what? Children? But the birth rate is a a
> record low, sindle parent figures are also on the RISE, so.....?
Your point?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Actually same sex marriage, which is an oxymoron, is about money,
>>>> pure and simple.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Says you, which doesn't say much at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually it says a great deal, otherwise you could have presented a
>> more convincing argument than "Says you..."
>
>
> How's the above for argument?
Not good enough.
Carter
Carter Lee
> Nothing will turn out right when the Religious Fanatics set the Agenda.
Actually the issue of same sex marriage, or any other marriage,
in today's society has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Governments have removed that requirement. Clergymen are no
longer required to legally marry people, although they can, and
there is no requirement to involve any church in the marriage of
any two people. All a church does in a marriage is bless the
union if the people getting married want that. Marriage today is
a legal contract and it translates to money. Gays and lesbians
are simply trying to cash in on that.
Unions between gays or lesbians ought to be legally recognized
but not called marriages.
Carter
Lee Hanlon, CD
"Damson Rhee" <Damso...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:DxtCb.15965$aF2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Gays should not be allowed to have the same rights as heterosexual couples!
Gays should not be allowed to have special rights!
Until the Liberal Government of the 60's changed the law (without the
consent of the majority) homosexuality was a serious criminal offense.
Lee Hanlon, CD
Same sex marriage is perversion and the destruction of a nation (i.e. Rome,
Sodom and Gomorra).....
"dnmgiordano" <dnmgi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nbwCb.686216$9l5.458075@pd7tw2no...
Lee Hanlon, CD
"Damson Rhee" <Damso...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:IaJCb.19035$aF2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Lee Hanlon, CD
"Kurt Knoll" <kkn...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:10713458...@critter.monarch.net...
Nothing will turn out right when God is left out of the equation!
Lee Hanlon, CD
"Carter Lee" <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:AYKCb.10958$IF6.5...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
I disagree! Same sex unions should not be recognized period!!!
Carter Lee
just don't think it should be recognized as a marriage in the
same way as a heterosexual union is recognized.
BTW Mr. Hanlon I note the CD after your name, with what CF
organization did you serve. I was an 811 for 35 years.
Carter, CD2, CWO (Ret'd)
Jason Moore
>
>
>
> You don't have to be married to be committed. Gays have been
> doing it for centuries, why, all of a sudden, is it necessary to
> be married? Money is the reason, pure and simple.
>
I suppose gays get married for the same reasons hetero's do: for the
money, honey.
That's right, I go to bed every night thanking my wife and hoping she
will die before me so I can collect her CPP death benefit and
survivors benefit. Of course I hope this will happen only after we
have collected our CPP pension for several years (we will also apply
to split the CPP so we can save taxes).
See, us hetero's are just as greedy as those homo's ....
Anyways, the flaw in you "logic" about gay marriage being about money
is that gay couples already have access to whatever fanciful financial
"benefits" you think they would get from marriage by virture of
holding common law status which has been in effect since 2001 (or 1998
if they retroactively elected in their tax returns).
Gays do not need to go any further to get the alleged benefits of
marriage because they essentially already have them.
I also note that you neglect to mention the financial *costs* of
common law relationships/marriage. Such as:
1) Two individual incomes are now combined and counted as family
income which will have an effect on GST tax credits, child tax
benefits (if applicable of course), PST tax credits (in BC at least),
medical service premium payments (in BC), etc.... This could cost a
gay couple thousands of dollars per year.
2) Principal residence exemption: Hetero's have had to claim only one
home per couple since the end of 1981. In 2001 our tax system finally
recognizes the stupidity of having a sex based system. Since gay
couples are considered common law (under the applicable rules) they no
longer have the benefit of saving tens of thousands or more in taxes
over a lifetime by virture of their relationship with someone of the
same gender.
3) Gay couples now suffer under the attribution rules (since they are
now related persons), superficial loss rules, and joint liability.
Hmmm, just like any other "couple." Wow, how's that for equal
"responsibilities."
Sure, gays will reap benefits such as spousal RRSP's and spousal
trusts but it is far too convenient (and disingenuous if not
dishonest) to look at the "benefits" while neglecting to mention the
costs.
Kurt Knoll
You are either a Hallelujah Fanatic or a Hallelujah Gangster Your God
is not their God. Why don't you worship some Snakes or some other Idols
no one will stop you. Canada a is a Multy Ethnic and Multy Religious
Country to Each his own but non should have a Monopoly over others.
Kurt Knoll.
=
Kurt Knoll
So should be your Fucked up Religion.
Kurt Knoll.
=
Kurt Knoll
There you have it Guys we have a man and woman Marriage and a Woman and
Man Marriage. Adding another type of Marrige makes no difference to me.
Kurt Knoll.
=
zolota
If same-sex marriages are to get equal legal status then we should not stop
there. Polygamy is de-facto legal in Canada, -witness the mormon colony in
BC. I think we should take a page from Islam and look at where they allow a
husband to have four wives. But we should also be modern and allow same sex,
so I propose that we allow several adults to marry in one "unit". Here in
Vancouver there are 8 defined sexes, so I propose that a marriage could
include eight adults, or one of each.
We have the regular breeders, male and female, that's two.
The French say that the clergy are a third sex, that's three.
We have the cutie Lesbians and the Bull Dykes, thats five.
We have the effeminate gays and the super macho gays, that's seven.
Finally we have fruit flys that hang around gays but have no sex at all,
that's eight.
Z
Carter Lee
> You are either a Hallelujah Fanatic or a Hallelujah Gangster Your God
> is not their God. Why don't you worship some Snakes or some other Idols
> no one will stop you. Canada a is a Multy Ethnic and Multy Religious
> Country to Each his own but non should have a Monopoly over others.
Multy??
Carter
Damson Rhee
Carter Lee wrote:
> Damson Rhee wrote:
>
>
>>> You seem to think that people
>>>
>>>> actually do get married to go forth and multiply. In which case,
>>>> I'd say you need a reality check.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Neat, I need a reality check based on what you think I seem to
>>> think. The reality is I don't think that.
>>
>>
>>
>> You check out the birth rate these days? Going a little down, isn't
>> it? In fact, it's at a record low and the prediction is that in 20
>> years, deaths will outnumber births in this country. So, yeah, you
>> need a reality check, not because I say so, but because I did my
>> homeowork first.
>
>
> Didn't read the last sentence of my reply, did you?
>
> And when you do check it, don't forget that some of those births
>
>> are to gay couples and/or single people.
>
>
> I waiting with baited breath to find out how a child could be born to
> two gay men.
>
Hey, Sparky, I said gay couples. Women have been known to be called gay
too. That's the first thing. Second, are surrogate mothers news to you?
>
>>> This is not about commitment alone, it's about marriage.
>>
>>
>> Okay, I'll bite. Why the hell do couples get married? If it's not
>> committment alone,
>
>
> You don't have to be married to be committed. Gays have been doing it
> for centuries, why, all of a sudden, is it necessary to be married?
> Money is the reason, pure and simple.
>
> then what? Children? But the birth rate is a a
>
>> record low, sindle parent figures are also on the RISE, so.....?
>
>
> Your point?
The point is, that marriage is quickly not becoming just for men and
women to have children. In fact, some of the parents of today aren't
even opting for being in any relationship. So, why shouldn't gay
couples marry? Other than, of course, your pontification that it's wrong?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Actually same sex marriage, which is an oxymoron, is about money,
>>>>> pure and simple.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Says you, which doesn't say much at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually it says a great deal, otherwise you could have presented a
>>> more convincing argument than "Says you..."
>>
>>
>>
>> How's the above for argument?
>
>
> Not good enough.
Intolerance isn't ever going to be convinced by anything, and nothing
anyone can ever say would convince you. Narrow minds seem to be unable
to grasp new notions.
D
>
> Carter
>
Damson Rhee
Carter Lee wrote:
> Kurt Knoll wrote:
>
>
>> Nothing will turn out right when the Religious Fanatics set the Agenda.
>
>
> Actually the issue of same sex marriage, or any other marriage, in
> today's society has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Then what's the problem, other than your own biases?
Governments
> have removed that requirement. Clergymen are no longer required to
> legally marry people, although they can, and there is no requirement to
> involve any church in the marriage of any two people. All a church does
> in a marriage is bless the union if the people getting married want
> that. Marriage today is a legal contract and it translates to money.
> Gays and lesbians are simply trying to cash in on that.
And, one more time. straight people don't HAVE to get married to cash in
on things as it is. What decade ARE you living in. Gay people tend to
want to have the same rights as straight people. Which of course will
once more bring you to accuse of all comments being about rights.
Better rights than the money you harp on. This is what can happen
without these legal rights. You can have a couple together for 20
years. They have each other and their circle of friends. They have a
family intolerant of their lifestyle, when one of them becomes ill, even
dies. The family can then come in, say wht and how that their family
member is treated. They can shut the "othr half" out, ban them from the
sick bed, any say in how the person is treated, even ban them from a
funeral, let alone making any arrangements. A will can help avoid some
of this, but then again, gay people can be just as lax as straight ones
when it comes to surrogate matters.
lly recognized but not
> called marriages.
If they're entittled to something like that, and it's a civil issue,
what's wrong with saying married?
D
>
> Carter
>
Sheldon Liberman
David Dalton wrote:
> Here's a note I got from a friend (and then I signed it).
> Feel free to pass it on.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Check this petition out and sign it!
>
> I have just read and signed the online petition:
>
> "Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Canada"
>
> hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
> service, at:
>
> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/samesex/
>
> Help make same sex marriages legal across Canada.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> David
>
Same sex marriage is another unfortunate consequence of liberal-driven
moral degeneration.
a sole practitioner
>Carter Lee wrote:
>> Damson Rhee wrote:
>>>> You seem to think that people
>>>>> actually do get married to go forth and multiply. In which case,
>>>>> I'd say you need a reality check.
>>>> Neat, I need a reality check based on what you think I seem to
>>>> think. The reality is I don't think that.
>>> You check out the birth rate these days? Going a little down, isn't
>>> it? In fact, it's at a record low and the prediction is that in 20
>>> years, deaths will outnumber births in this country. So, yeah, you
>>> need a reality check, not because I say so, but because I did my
>>> homeowork first.
>> Didn't read the last sentence of my reply, did you?
>> And when you do check it, don't forget that some of those births
>>> are to gay couples and/or single people.
>> I waiting with baited breath to find out how a child could be born to
>> two gay men.
>Hey, Sparky, I said gay couples. Women have been known to be called gay
>too. That's the first thing. Second, are surrogate mothers news to you?
It should be as simple as this:
Male or female homosexual couple cannot physically create a child by themselves, then they should not be able to adopt
children or be surrogates.
Carter Lee
>
>
> Carter Lee wrote:
>> I waiting with baited breath to find out how a child could be born to
>> two gay men.
>>
>
> Hey, Sparky, I said gay couples.
I know what you said.
Women have been known to be called gay
> too.
No shit? How about telling us how a child could be conceived by
two gay women.
That's the first thing. Second, are surrogate mothers news to
you?
Not a bit and I agree with their use, when it is necessary for
straight people. To use a surrogate to provide a gay couple with
a child is demeaning to the whole idea of childbirth. I suppose
the next thing you would advocate is buying and selling babies
just for the convenience of our queer population.
>>> record low, sindle parent figures are also on the RISE, so.....?
>> Your point?
>
>
> The point is, that marriage is quickly not becoming just for men and
> women to have children. In fact, some of the parents of today aren't
> even opting for being in any relationship. So, why shouldn't gay
> couples marry? Other than, of course, your pontification that it's wrong?
If that is your point in saying "..record low, single parents are
also on the rise.." I think you are confused.
> Intolerance isn't ever going to be convinced by anything, and nothing
> anyone can ever say would convince you. Narrow minds seem to be unable
> to grasp new notions.
Oh pleeeeeease! I grasp new notions apparently much better that
you. I grasp the notion that the number of single parents in
society has bugger (no pun intended) all to do with gay marriage.
Carter
Carter Lee
> Carter Lee <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>>length of time could. That's why.
>>
>>Interesting, your post is all about rights. Nowhere do you
>>mention responsibilities. You know, like the responsibilities of
>>bearing and raising children.
>
>
> Just curious.. but who decided there is this "responsibility" of
> married couples?
There was no decision necessary, it is a fact of life.
>
>
>>Actually same sex marriage, which is an oxymoron, is about money,
>>pure and simple.
>
>
> I think we can say the same about some heterosexual marriages....
Quite possibly but you can say it about all same sex marriages.
Carter
Next
Lee Hanlon, CD wrote:
> It's not right because God says it's not right!
Whose God? Are you now defining how and who society as a whole should
worship?
- Next
Next
>
> It should be as simple as this:
>
> Male or female homosexual couple cannot physically create a child by themselves, then they should not be able to adopt
> children or be surrogates.
>
I see. So, following your reasoning, a heterosexual couple who cannot
"physically create a child by themselves" because of infertility or some
other medical reason should also not be able to adopt.
You may want to rethink your argument.
- Next
Next
Carter Lee wrote:
>
> BTW Mr. Hanlon I note the CD after your name, with what CF organization
> did you serve. I was an 811 for 35 years.
>
I thought he was a cross-dresser.
:-)
- Next
Carter Lee
> a sole practitioner wrote:
>
>>
>> It should be as simple as this:
>>
>> Male or female homosexual couple cannot physically create a child by
>> themselves, then they should not be able to adopt
>> children or be surrogates.
>>
>
> I see. So, following your reasoning, a heterosexual couple who cannot
> "physically create a child by themselves" because of infertility or some
> other medical reason should also not be able to adopt.
No that wouldn't be following his reasoning at all. You see what
is important is the 'reason' a particular couple could not have
children.
>
> You may want to rethink your argument.
I think it is you who might want to rethink your argument.
Carter
Damson Rhee
I don't recall saying they could.
then they should not be able to adopt
> children or be surrogates.
Oh dear, you going to pay to make sure that only the people who meet
that kind of criteria have children, straight, natural conception ones,
so to speak. No surrogates, no artifical insemination, no nothing?
Then the birthrate would be even lower than it is and you'd be depriving
an awful lot of decent people, gay and straight, children. I'm guessing
you have no idea what it's like to want children and not be able to have
them?
D
>
>
Damson Rhee
Carter Lee wrote:
> Damson Rhee wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Carter Lee wrote:
>
>
>>> I waiting with baited breath to find out how a child could be born to
>>> two gay men.
>>>
>>
>> Hey, Sparky, I said gay couples.
>
>
> I know what you said.
>
> Women have been known to be called gay
>
>> too.
>
>
> No shit? How about telling us how a child could be conceived by two gay
> women.
>
> That's the first thing. Second, are surrogate mothers news to you?
Hey genuis, I never said they could. I said that children were being
born to gay couples, I did NOT say how. As in, gay couples, by whatever
the hell means they chose, be it artifical insemination, or surrage
mothers, were having children, as in being a FAMILY, dumb ass.
>
> Not a bit and I agree with their use, when it is necessary for straight
> people. To use a surrogate to provide a gay couple with a child is
> demeaning to the whole idea of childbirth. I suppose the next thing you
> would advocate is buying and selling babies just for the convenience of
> our queer population.
>
>
>>>> record low, sindle parent figures are also on the RISE, so.....?
>
>
>>> Your point?
>>
>>
>>
>> The point is, that marriage is quickly not becoming just for men and
>> women to have children. In fact, some of the parents of today aren't
>> even opting for being in any relationship. So, why shouldn't gay
>> couples marry? Other than, of course, your pontification that it's
>> wrong?
>
>
> If that is your point in saying "..record low, single parents are also
> on the rise.." I think you are confused.
ACtually I'm not, if you read the links, you'd see that the birth rate
is declining, but single parent families are on the rise,
non'traditional families.
>
>> Intolerance isn't ever going to be convinced by anything, and nothing
>> anyone can ever say would convince you. Narrow minds seem to be
>> unable to grasp new notions.
>
>
> Oh pleeeeeease! I grasp new notions apparently much better that you. I
> grasp the notion that the number of single parents in society has bugger
> (no pun intended) all to do with gay marriage.
I grap them quite well thank you. I brought single parents into the
discussion because I was talking about reasons for marrying, the
declinging birth rate and chidlren being born to parents who are not
married. The fact that you have tried to discuss this, and decided you
don't follow is your prolem, not mine, ass.
From previous posts:
">> Maybe that's because I know so many, many, many couples who are
married and have opted to NOT have children.
>
>
>
> That's a choice which a married couple can and may make. It is not a
choice which a gay couple can make. See the difference.
>
> You seem to think that people
>
>> actually do get married to go forth and multiply. In which case,
I'd say you need a reality check.
>
>
>
> Neat, I need a reality check based on what you think I seem to think.
The reality is I don't think that.
You check out the birth rate these days? Going a little down, isn't it?
In fact, it's at a record low and the prediction is that in 20 years,
deaths will outnumber births in this country. So, yeah, you need a
reality check, not because I say so, but because I did my homeowork
first. And when you do check it, don't forget that some of those births
are to gay couples and/or single people.
These are the links, so you don't have to work your little fingers too hard.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo04b.htm
http://fact.on.ca/news/news0207/np020704.htm
>
> Half the couples I know don't have
>
>> children and they're men and women.
>> OTOH, some of the most committed to each other couples I know are gay.
>
>
>
> This is not about commitment alone, it's about marriage.
Okay, I'll bite. Why the hell do couples get married? If it's not
committment alone, then what? Children? But the birth rate is a a
record low, sindle parent figures are also on the RISE, so.....?
>
>>
>>> Actually same sex marriage, which is an oxymoron, is about money,
pure and simple."
>>
>
> Carter
>
Damson Rhee
Lee Hanlon, CD wrote:
> Same sex marriage is perversion and the destruction of a nation (i.e. Rome,
> Sodom and Gomorra).....
So how ocmes it's the American's who are always beinc characterizes as
the Romans of today, and heading for the same kind of fall?
D
Jason Moore
>
>
> Marriage today is a legal contract and it translates to money. Gays and lesbians are simply trying to cash in on that.
>
> but not called marriages.
>
> Carter
I find this to be at odds with your belief that marriage is a legal
contract that "translates to money." As I have already stated in a
post above, gay couples now are considered common law under our income
tax act. This is legally recognizing their relationship while not
calling it a marriage!
As such, they already have access to all the benefits, and costs, of
being in a relationship that is treated the same as being married. In
this light, your argument of gays wanting marriage for monetary
reasons, when considered under the income tax act and with respect to
government pension plans such as CPP and OAS, does not withstand any
scrutiny.
Jason Moore
>
> Sure, gays will reap benefits such as spousal RRSP's and spousal
> trusts but it is far too convenient (and disingenuous if not
> dishonest) to look at the "benefits" while neglecting to mention the
> costs.
Just to clarify: Since gay couples have common law status they already
have access to the benefits mentioned above. My initial statement
makes it appear that they would only reap these benefits if they were
to be allowed to marry.
It should be noted that under the income tax act if you are common law
you are considered married as the law is applied equally to both types
of relationships. This is also the case, to the best of my knowledge,
with government pension plans such as CPP and OAS.
Since gay couples have been recognized as common law since 2001 (or
1998 if they elected in their tax returns) they already have access to
the monetary benefits of marriage. As such, contra Carter, it is
disingenuous to claim that they want marriage to claim monetary
benefits since they already have these benefits in the first place.
Jason Moore
> It's not right because God says it's not right!
>
>
"It was subtle of God to learn Greek when he wished to become an
author -- and not to learn it better." -- F. Nietzsche
Scott Broadbent
This is what can happen without these legal rights. You can have a
couple together for 20 years. They have each other and their circle of
friends. They have a family intolerant of their lifestyle, when one of
them becomes ill, even dies. The family can then come in, say wht and
how that their family member is treated. They can shut the "othr half"
out, ban them from the sick bed, any say in how the person is treated,
even ban them from a funeral, let alone making any arrangements. A will
can help avoid some of this, but then again, gay people can be just as
lax as straight ones when it comes to surrogate matters.
>>
To be correct, what you would need is a Power of Attorney. In this
document you select one or more people who would act on your behalf to
make any decisions you would normally make in the event that you became
mentally incompentant, were incapacitated, or died. Technically a Will
doesn't have any power until after you are dead, and it may be a few
days (or weeks) before a Will is consulted, that any funeral
arrangements included in a Will might simply be unknown after other
arrangements were made.
--
Scott
zolota
"galia" <ga...@netrover.com> wrote in message
news:ge5Db.127375$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "Next" <nextp...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:3FDCDEFC...@yahoo.ca...
thoughts!
>
What is corrupt about cross-dressing? Wmen do it all the time.
Z
Next
Think again. He mentioned nothing about the "reasons" why a couple would
want a child, only that a gay couple could not, by themselves, create a
child, therefore, in his mind, they should not be able to adopt or use
surrogate parents. He completely ignores the fact that many heterosexual
couples also cannot create a child.
But, looking at YOUR statement regarding the "reasons", what would be
the reason for a gay couple to adopt, use a surrogate, etc? Perhaps it
could be because they are a caring and loving couple who desire the joy
of raising a child, which are exactly the same reasons why most
infertile heterosexual couples adopt.
- Next
Carter Lee
> Since gay couples have been recognized as common law since 2001 (or
> 1998 if they elected in their tax returns) they already have access to
> the monetary benefits of marriage. As such, contra Carter, it is
> disingenuous to claim that they want marriage to claim monetary
> benefits since they already have these benefits in the first place.
Why then do gay couples want to get married?
Carter
Carter Lee
> Think again. He mentioned nothing about the "reasons" why a couple would
> want a child,
..nor did I.
only that a gay couple could not, by themselves, create a
> child, therefore, in his mind, they should not be able to adopt or use
> surrogate parents.
He probably believes that because he believes, as do I, that
children should not be raised in the atmosphere of homosexuality.
Children should be taught to regard homosexuality for what it
is, an aberration.
He completely ignores the fact that many heterosexual
> couples also cannot create a child.
No I don't think he does ignore that. Hetrosexual couples who,
fo whatever reason, cannot conceive certainly have other
options. Because of the atmosphere in which a child would be
raised I don't think homosexual couples should be afforded those
options.
>
> But, looking at YOUR statement regarding the "reasons", what would be
> the reason for a gay couple to adopt, use a surrogate, etc? Perhaps it
> could be because they are a caring and loving couple who desire the joy
> of raising a child, which are exactly the same reasons why most
> infertile heterosexual couples adopt.
Gay couples may desire that but that desire does not change the
fact that the child would be raised in an atmosphere which I
believe is unfit for raising children.
Carter
Carter Lee
> As such, they already have access to all the benefits, and costs, of
> being in a relationship that is treated the same as being married. In
> this light, your argument of gays wanting marriage for monetary
> reasons, when considered under the income tax act and with respect to
> government pension plans such as CPP and OAS, does not withstand any
> scrutiny.
Why, then, do gays want to marry? It would seem that, according
to you, they don't need to.
Carter
Bruce Hopkins
dnmgiordano
sex marriages, but since they are not going to, Stop Arguing.
Sign the petition, or don't. The only people who care what anybody thinks
are the people who agree with them. This goes for everybody, whether you
agree or disagree.
Carter Lee
You mean so that they can legally 'make love'?
Carter
Next
>>>
>>> Why then do gay couples want to get married?
>>>
>>> Carter
>>>
>>
>> For love. Sorry if that is not logical.
>
>
> You mean so that they can legally 'make love'?
>
> Carter
>
No jerk. For love, period. Can't you get that through your thick skull?
Or are you that close minded?
- Next
Next
Which YOU believe. But you can't really speak for society as a whole,
can you?
- Next
Carter Lee
>
>>>>
>>>> Why then do gay couples want to get married?
>>>>
>>>> Carter
>>>>
>>>
>>> For love. Sorry if that is not logical.
>>
>>
>>
>> You mean so that they can legally 'make love'?
>>
>> Carter
>>
>
> No jerk.
I didn't read further than this. Those two words tell me more
than I need to know about you,
Bye
Carter
Carter Lee
>
>
> Carter Lee wrote:
>> Gay couples may desire that but that desire does not change the fact
>> that the child would be raised in an atmosphere which I believe is
>> unfit for raising children.
>>
>> Carter
>>
>
> Which YOU believe.
Correct, that's what I said. There is no need to shout.
But you can't really speak for society as a whole,
> can you?
Of course not, can you?
You know it's interesting that you could put forward no better
argument than that. It tells me one of two things, either I am
right or you don't know what you are talking about. Pick one, I
don't care which.
Carter
Next
For the same reasons heterosexuals want to marry...love, companionship,
and unity.
Speaking in purely monetary terms, heterosexual couples also do not need
to marry.
Common law spouses have the same rights and obligations as married
spouses to care for children. This includes rights to custody of
children and obligations to financially support children.
As in a marriage, common law spouses may also have rights to financial
support. The court will look at whether one spouse needs to be
financially supported and whether the other spouse has the ability to pay.
Common law spouses also have a right to each other's Canada Pension Plan
credits.
You seem to continually harp on the monetary reasons for hemosexual
couples marrying, and at the same time you omit the real reasons, namely
(yes, once again) love, companionship, and unity. You seemingly cannot
fathom that homosexuals would desire the same opportunity to express the
love for his or her partner in the celebration of marriage. Do you also
believe that blacks should be treated as second class citizens? Do you
believe that women should be be paid less for equal work? Do you
believe that people of different religions than yours should not be able
to worship?
- Next
Next
Argument to what? You have no argument. All you have is your own
close-minded opinion, and all you have been doing is repeating the same
old tripe.
Time to open your eyes.
- Next
Next
Carter Lee wrote:
>>
>> No jerk.
>
>
> I didn't read further than this. Those two words tell me more than I
> need to know about you,
>
> Bye
>
> Carter
>
On the contrary, I think you did read further, and simply have no response.
- Next
SPAM]jeff@domynoes.net Jeff Johnston
> Next wrote:
>
>
> > Think again. He mentioned nothing about the "reasons" why a couple would
> > want a child,
>
> ..nor did I.
>
> only that a gay couple could not, by themselves, create a
> > child, therefore, in his mind, they should not be able to adopt or use
> > surrogate parents.
>
> He probably believes that because he believes, as do I, that
> children should not be raised in the atmosphere of homosexuality.
> Children should be taught to regard homosexuality for what it
> is, an aberration.
>
Many things are an aberration... are you saying that all aberrations should
be elliminated?
> He completely ignores the fact that many heterosexual
> > couples also cannot create a child.
>
> No I don't think he does ignore that. Hetrosexual couples who,
> fo whatever reason, cannot conceive certainly have other
> options. Because of the atmosphere in which a child would be
> raised I don't think homosexual couples should be afforded those
> options.
Why not?
> >
> > But, looking at YOUR statement regarding the "reasons", what would be
> > the reason for a gay couple to adopt, use a surrogate, etc? Perhaps it
> > could be because they are a caring and loving couple who desire the joy
> > of raising a child, which are exactly the same reasons why most
> > infertile heterosexual couples adopt.
>
> Gay couples may desire that but that desire does not change the
> fact that the child would be raised in an atmosphere which I
> believe is unfit for raising children.
>
> Carter
>
So we should all follow what YOU believe? I think not.
SPAM]jeff@domynoes.net Jeff Johnston
other and want to express that love in a binding ceremony and exchange vows
of thier intent.
"Carter Lee" <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:nKjDb.12462$IF6.5...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Next
Jeff Johnston wrote:
> For the same reason anyone wants to get married, because they love each
> other and want to express that love in a binding ceremony and exchange vows
> of thier intent.
>
Oh sure! Confuse him with the facts.
:-)
- Next
SPAM]jeff@domynoes.net Jeff Johnston
Exactly there is no legal or monetary reason for it, dispite what the
homophobic right would have you believe. It is about love and the wish for
equality.
Carter Lee
>
>
> Carter Lee wrote:
>
>> Jason Moore wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As such, they already have access to all the benefits, and costs, of
>>> being in a relationship that is treated the same as being married. In
>>> this light, your argument of gays wanting marriage for monetary
>>> reasons, when considered under the income tax act and with respect to
>>> government pension plans such as CPP and OAS, does not withstand any
>>> scrutiny.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why, then, do gays want to marry? It would seem that, according to
>> you, they don't need to.
>>
>> Carter
>>
>
> For the same reasons heterosexuals want to marry...love, companionship,
> and unity.
You don't need to get married to have those things.
>
> Speaking in purely monetary terms, heterosexual couples also do not need
> to marry.
I agree.
>
> Common law spouses have the same rights and obligations as married
> spouses to care for children. This includes rights to custody of
> children and obligations to financially support children.
>
> As in a marriage, common law spouses may also have rights to financial
> support. The court will look at whether one spouse needs to be
> financially supported and whether the other spouse has the ability to pay.
>
> Common law spouses also have a right to each other's Canada Pension Plan
> credits.
Yes, so what?
>
> You seem to continually harp on the monetary reasons for hemosexual
> couples marrying, and at the same time you omit the real reasons, namely
> (yes, once again) love, companionship, and unity.
Once again you don't need to get married for those things.
You seemingly cannot
> fathom that homosexuals would desire the same opportunity to express the
> love for his or her partner in the celebration of marriage.
Yes I can fathom that, I just don't agree with it.
Do you also
> believe that blacks should be treated as second class citizens?
What, exactly, has that got to do with same sex marriage?
Do you
> believe that women should be be paid less for equal work?
What, exactly, has that got to do with same sex marriage?
Do you
> believe that people of different religions than yours should not be able
> to worship?
What, exactly, has that got to do with same sex marriage.
As in a previous post you seem to be unable to put forth any
solid reasonable argument for your apparent position. Instead
you resort to irrelevant points and questions like those above.
There is nothing in anything you have posted so far to indicate
that you know and understand just what marriage is. It seems
that you, like so many others in our modern shallow society,
think that marriage is just a union between two people. I can
assure you that the institution of marriage is far more than
that. I am not here to educate you but I will point out that
when people enter into a marriage they accept that it is an
institution having to do with the traditional values of society
such as family values and the raising of children. Homosexual
relationships are aberrations and not part of our society's
traditional values and certainly not part of any family values.
Because of that children should not be raised by those who chose
to live in a homosexual relationship. If society allows
homosexuals to marry it would be de facto agreeing with their
right to raise children, I disagree with that.
Carter
Carter Lee
I rest my case, you are out of reasoned argument and now getting
very close to ad hominem.
>
> Time to open your eyes.
My eyes are wide open and in the case of homosexuals and marriage
I don't like what I see.
Carter
Next
Carter Lee wrote:
> Next wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Carter Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Jason Moore wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As such, they already have access to all the benefits, and costs, of
>>>> being in a relationship that is treated the same as being married. In
>>>> this light, your argument of gays wanting marriage for monetary
>>>> reasons, when considered under the income tax act and with respect to
>>>> government pension plans such as CPP and OAS, does not withstand any
>>>> scrutiny.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why, then, do gays want to marry? It would seem that, according to
>>> you, they don't need to.
>>>
>>> Carter
>>>
>>
>> For the same reasons heterosexuals want to marry...love,
>> companionship, and unity.
>
>
> You don't need to get married to have those things.
Are you married? If so, why?
>
>>
>> Speaking in purely monetary terms, heterosexual couples also do not
>> need to marry.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>>
>> Common law spouses have the same rights and obligations as married
>> spouses to care for children. This includes rights to custody of
>> children and obligations to financially support children.
>>
>> As in a marriage, common law spouses may also have rights to financial
>> support. The court will look at whether one spouse needs to be
>> financially supported and whether the other spouse has the ability to
>> pay.
>>
>> Common law spouses also have a right to each other's Canada Pension
>> Plan credits.
>
>
> Yes, so what?
>
>>
>> You seem to continually harp on the monetary reasons for hemosexual
>> couples marrying, and at the same time you omit the real reasons,
>> namely (yes, once again) love, companionship, and unity.
>
>
> Once again you don't need to get married for those things.
>
> You seemingly cannot
>
>> fathom that homosexuals would desire the same opportunity to express
>> the love for his or her partner in the celebration of marriage.
>
>
> Yes I can fathom that, I just don't agree with it.
Why?
That's your right, but you cannot simply say that gays should not get
married without pointing out any facts to back up your argument. So far,
you have given none.
>
> Do you also
>
>> believe that blacks should be treated as second class citizens?
>
>
> What, exactly, has that got to do with same sex marriage?
I see you don't want to answer that. You're lack of an appropriate
response answers my question.
>
> Do you
>
>> believe that women should be be paid less for equal work?
>
>
> What, exactly, has that got to do with same sex marriage?
You're repeating yourself, so I will too.
I see you don't want to answer that. You're lack of an appropriate
response answers my question.
>
> Do you
>
>> believe that people of different religions than yours should not be
>> able to worship?
>
>
> What, exactly, has that got to do with same sex marriage.
And again.
I see you don't want to answer that. You're lack of an appropriate
response answers my question.
>
> As in a previous post you seem to be unable to put forth any solid
> reasonable argument for your apparent position. Instead you resort to
> irrelevant points and questions like those above.
Irrelevant responses? I hardly think so. I have stated facts. You on the
other hand, have provided no facts, thus making your argument (or lack
of argument) pointless.
>
> There is nothing in anything you have posted so far to indicate that you
> know and understand just what marriage is.
Well, seeing as I am married, yes I do understand what it means, and
yes, I have explained it, although you, as usual, have skipped over any
comments that you do not agree with, I married my lovely wife because I
loved her, and I wanted to celebrate that love by being wedded to her. I
also wanted her her as a constant companion, as she did me (hence her
answer of yes, I will marry you). I enjoy her company, her laughter, her
support, her wisdom, her intelligence. I enjoy our lovemaking. I enjoy
the cute way she winks at me. I enjoy the smell of her perfume. I enjoy
the conversations we have about books we have read and movies we have
seen. I enjoy cooking with her and sharing a bottle of wine. I enjoy
raising our children. I enjoy her acceptance of those who live an
lifestyle opposite to what you seem to see as wrong. I enjoy the way she
welcomes everyone into our home, regardless of sex, religion, or sexual
preference.
In other words, I (and she) enjoy all the same things that a same sex
couple want to enjoy.
Yes, I do understand what marriage is. You apparently do not.
It seems that you, like so
> many others in our modern shallow society, think that marriage is just a
> union between two people. I can assure you that the institution of
> marriage is far more than that. I am not here to educate you but I will
> point out that when people enter into a marriage they accept that it is
> an institution having to do with the traditional values of society such
> as family values and the raising of children.
So you are saying that all marriages must result in the production of
children?
Homosexual relationships
> are aberrations and not part of our society's traditional values and
> certainly not part of any family values.
According to you.
Because of that children should
> not be raised by those who chose to live in a homosexual relationship.
> If society allows homosexuals to marry it would be de facto agreeing
> with their right to raise children, I disagree with that.
Provide facts. Then you might possibly have an argument, Thus far, all
you have provided is your own close-minded views without any facts.
>
> Carter
>
- Next
Next
What do you see? Why don't you like it. At least explain yourself.
>
> Carter
>
- Next
Carter Lee
> For the same reason anyone wants to get married, because they love each
> other and want to express that love in a binding ceremony and exchange vows
> of thier intent.
That's laudable. The problem is that the traditional and
conventional institution of marriage in our society does not
include homosexual relationships among the values it espouses.
Gays are going to have to develop their own binding ceremony in
which to exchange vows of their intent.
Carter
Carter Lee
You sonny apparently wouldn't recognize a fact it it hit you
between the eyes.
Carter
Carter Lee
I have done so, should we add reading comprehension to your list
of limitations?
BTW, I did you the courtesy of answering your question regarding
whether or not I speak for society as a whole. Now do me the
courtesy of answering mine.
Carter
Carter Lee
> Many things are an aberration... are you saying that all aberrations should
> be elliminated?
No. Read my post it is self explanatory, it says exactly what I
wanted it to say, nothing more, nothing less.
>
>
>> He completely ignores the fact that many heterosexual
>>
>>>couples also cannot create a child.
>>
>>No I don't think he does ignore that. Hetrosexual couples who,
>>fo whatever reason, cannot conceive certainly have other
>>options. Because of the atmosphere in which a child would be
>>raised I don't think homosexual couples should be afforded those
>>options.
>
>
> Why not?
Because homosexuality is an aberration.
>
>
>>>But, looking at YOUR statement regarding the "reasons", what would be
>>>the reason for a gay couple to adopt, use a surrogate, etc? Perhaps it
>>>could be because they are a caring and loving couple who desire the joy
>>>of raising a child, which are exactly the same reasons why most
>>>infertile heterosexual couples adopt.
>>
>>Gay couples may desire that but that desire does not change the
>>fact that the child would be raised in an atmosphere which I
>>believe is unfit for raising children.
>>
>>Carter
>>
>
>
> So we should all follow what YOU believe? I think not.
Another person who is out of reasoned argument.
I guess I must be right,
Carter
>
>
Next
Carter Lee wrote:
>> What do you see? Why don't you like it. At least explain yourself.
>
>
> I have done so, should we add reading comprehension to your list of
> limitations?
>
> BTW, I did you the courtesy of answering your question regarding whether
> or not I speak for society as a whole. Now do me the courtesy of
> answering mine.
>
> Carter
>
Of course I cannot answer for society. That's a given (apparently you
cannot recognize a rhetorical statement). In the same way, I cannot
impose my beliefs on society (as you wish to).
And no sir, you have not explained yourself. You have only stated what
you believe along with ridiculous statements of which you have no facts
to back up. You have also provided no satisfactory argument to back up
your beliefs or statements.
- Next
Next
>
>
> Another person who is out of reasoned argument.
>
> I guess I must be right,
>
> Carter
>
whatsoever, no facts, yet you think you are right?
Pathetic.
-Next
Carter Lee
> Are you married? If so, why?
Because I understand and believe in the institution of marriage.
>>> Common law spouses have the same rights and obligations as married
>>> spouses to care for children. This includes rights to custody of
>>> children and obligations to financially support children.
>>>
>>> As in a marriage, common law spouses may also have rights to
>>> financial support. The court will look at whether one spouse needs to
>>> be financially supported and whether the other spouse has the ability
>>> to pay.
>>>
>>> Common law spouses also have a right to each other's Canada Pension
>>> Plan credits.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, so what?
Not going to answer that?
>>
>>>
>>> You seem to continually harp on the monetary reasons for hemosexual
>>> couples marrying, and at the same time you omit the real reasons,
>>> namely (yes, once again) love, companionship, and unity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once again you don't need to get married for those things.
>>
>> You seemingly cannot
>>
>>> fathom that homosexuals would desire the same opportunity to express
>>> the love for his or her partner in the celebration of marriage.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes I can fathom that, I just don't agree with it.
>
>
> Why?
I have told you.
>> Do you also
>>
>>> believe that blacks should be treated as second class citizens?
>>
>>
>>
>> What, exactly, has that got to do with same sex marriage?
>
>
> I see you don't want to answer that. You're lack of an appropriate
> response answers my question.
In the context of this discussion there is no appropriate response.
>> As in a previous post you seem to be unable to put forth any solid
>> reasonable argument for your apparent position. Instead you resort to
>> irrelevant points and questions like those above.
>
>
> Irrelevant responses? I hardly think so. I have stated facts.
No you have asked irrelevant questions.
You on the
> other hand, have provided no facts, thus making your argument (or lack
> of argument) pointless.
I guess you can't read.
>
>>
>> There is nothing in anything you have posted so far to indicate that
>> you know and understand just what marriage is.
>
>
> Well, seeing as I am married, yes I do understand what it means, and
> yes, I have explained it, although you, as usual, have skipped over any
> comments that you do not agree with,
Being married is not evidence that you understand what a marriage is.
I married my lovely wife because I
> loved her, and I wanted to celebrate that love by being wedded to her. I
> also wanted her her as a constant companion, as she did me (hence her
> answer of yes, I will marry you). I enjoy her company, her laughter, her
> support, her wisdom, her intelligence. I enjoy our lovemaking. I enjoy
> the cute way she winks at me. I enjoy the smell of her perfume. I enjoy
> the conversations we have about books we have read and movies we have
> seen. I enjoy cooking with her and sharing a bottle of wine. I enjoy
> raising our children. I enjoy her acceptance of those who live an
> lifestyle opposite to what you seem to see as wrong. I enjoy the way she
> welcomes everyone into our home, regardless of sex, religion, or sexual
> preference.
That's very nice. In you explanation you used the pronoun "I"
thirteen times mostly explaining what you enjoy. There is
nothing there that tells us that you understand the institution
of marriage, except from a personal enjoyment point of view.
>
> In other words, I (and she) enjoy all the same things that a same sex
> couple want to enjoy.
That makes you compatible but does nothing to indicate your
understanding of what a marriage is. You would be no less
compatible in a common law relationship.
>
> Yes, I do understand what marriage is.
Maybe you do but you have yet to show it. Do you understand why
our society recognizes two types of marital relationships,
marriage and common law?
You apparently do not.
I really don't think, based on what you have posted so far, that
you would know what I understand.
>
> It seems that you, like so
>
>> many others in our modern shallow society, think that marriage is just
>> a union between two people. I can assure you that the institution of
>> marriage is far more than that. I am not here to educate you but I
>> will point out that when people enter into a marriage they accept that
>> it is an institution having to do with the traditional values of
>> society such as family values and the raising of children.
>
>
> So you are saying that all marriages must result in the production of
> children?
No. Look up, that statement says exactly what I meant it to say,
no more and no less.
>
> Homosexual relationships
>
>> are aberrations and not part of our society's traditional values and
>> certainly not part of any family values.
>
>
> According to you.
Yes, it was I who just said it and I didn't attribute it to
anyone else so it must be according to me. Can you produce any
more cogent reply to it than, 'According to you'.
>
> Because of that children should
>
>> not be raised by those who chose to live in a homosexual
>> relationship. If society allows homosexuals to marry it would be de
>> facto agreeing with their right to raise children, I disagree with that.
>
>
> Provide facts. Then you might possibly have an argument,
What kind of facts would you like? That raising a child in a
homosexual environment is likely to result in the child becoming
a homosexual? That because homosexuality is an aberration that
would be causing the child to develop an aberration? That
causing a child to do that is akin to contributing to delinquency?
Thus far, all
> you have provided is your own close-minded views without any facts.
That my views are close minded is of course your personal opinion.
Now, I have no intention of turning this into any more of a
usenet slug fest than it already is. You have my opinion, you
can agree or disagree to your heart's content but I will leave
you with this advice, get some education concerning the
institution of marriage, it's very apparent that you really don't
understand it other than from a personal enjoyment standpoint.
Bye.
Carter
Next
Carter Lee wrote:
> Next wrote:
>
>
>> Are you married? If so, why?
>
>
> Because I understand and believe in the institution of marriage.
You haven't said if you are married or not, only what you believe to be
right.
>
>>>> Common law spouses have the same rights and obligations as married
>>>> spouses to care for children. This includes rights to custody of
>>>> children and obligations to financially support children.
>>>>
>>>> As in a marriage, common law spouses may also have rights to
>>>> financial support. The court will look at whether one spouse needs
>>>> to be financially supported and whether the other spouse has the
>>>> ability to pay.
>>>>
>>>> Common law spouses also have a right to each other's Canada Pension
>>>> Plan credits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, so what?
>>
>
> Not going to answer that?
No need to. I have stated facts. You have stated none.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You seem to continually harp on the monetary reasons for hemosexual
>>>> couples marrying, and at the same time you omit the real reasons,
>>>> namely (yes, once again) love, companionship, and unity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Once again you don't need to get married for those things.
>>>
>>> You seemingly cannot
>>>
>>>> fathom that homosexuals would desire the same opportunity to express
>>>> the love for his or her partner in the celebration of marriage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes I can fathom that, I just don't agree with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
>
> I have told you.
>> Do you also
>>>
>>>> believe that blacks should be treated as second class citizens?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What, exactly, has that got to do with same sex marriage?
>>
>>
>>
>> I see you don't want to answer that. You're lack of an appropriate
>> response answers my question.
>
>
> In the context of this discussion there is no appropriate response.
So, you have no answer. Figures.
>
>>> As in a previous post you seem to be unable to put forth any solid
>>> reasonable argument for your apparent position. Instead you resort
>>> to irrelevant points and questions like those above.
>>
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant responses? I hardly think so. I have stated facts.
>
>
> No you have asked irrelevant questions.
No. I have stated facts which you have obviously decided to ignore. You
on the other hand, have provided no facts whatsoever.
>
> You on the
>
>> other hand, have provided no facts, thus making your argument (or lack
>> of argument) pointless.
>
>
> I guess you can't read.
Educate me. Reiterate your facts. Cut and paste if you like.
>
>>
>>>
>>> There is nothing in anything you have posted so far to indicate that
>>> you know and understand just what marriage is.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, seeing as I am married, yes I do understand what it means, and
>> yes, I have explained it, although you, as usual, have skipped over
>> any comments that you do not agree with,
>
>
> Being married is not evidence that you understand what a marriage is.
>
> I married my lovely wife because I
>
>> loved her, and I wanted to celebrate that love by being wedded to her.
>> I also wanted her her as a constant companion, as she did me (hence
>> her answer of yes, I will marry you). I enjoy her company, her
>> laughter, her support, her wisdom, her intelligence. I enjoy our
>> lovemaking. I enjoy the cute way she winks at me. I enjoy the smell of
>> her perfume. I enjoy the conversations we have about books we have
>> read and movies we have seen. I enjoy cooking with her and sharing a
>> bottle of wine. I enjoy raising our children. I enjoy her acceptance
>> of those who live an lifestyle opposite to what you seem to see as
>> wrong. I enjoy the way she welcomes everyone into our home, regardless
>> of sex, religion, or sexual preference.
>
>
> That's very nice. In you explanation you used the pronoun "I" thirteen
> times mostly explaining what you enjoy. There is nothing there that
> tells us that you understand the institution of marriage, except from a
> personal enjoyment point of view.
Of course I am speaking from "my point of view". My wife would obviously
speak differently, but the fact remains that we have been happily
married for 17 years, so yes, we have an inkling about what marriage is
all about. You on the other hand, have given no indication that you know
anything about it. In fact, you have not even stated whether or not you
are married.
>
>>
>> In other words, I (and she) enjoy all the same things that a same sex
>> couple want to enjoy.
>
>
> That makes you compatible but does nothing to indicate your
> understanding of what a marriage is. You would be no less compatible in
> a common law relationship.
Scroll up for more understanding.
>
>>
>> Yes, I do understand what marriage is.
>
>
> Maybe you do but you have yet to show it. Do you understand why our
> society recognizes two types of marital relationships, marriage and
> common law?
Yes I do. If you bothered to read my posts, you would see that I have
discussed both.
>
> You apparently do not.
>
> I really don't think, based on what you have posted so far, that you
> would know what I understand.
Mainly because so far you have stated no true argument.
>
>>
>> It seems that you, like so
>>
>>> many others in our modern shallow society, think that marriage is
>>> just a union between two people. I can assure you that the
>>> institution of marriage is far more than that. I am not here to
>>> educate you but I will point out that when people enter into a
>>> marriage they accept that it is an institution having to do with the
>>> traditional values of society such as family values and the raising
>>> of children.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you are saying that all marriages must result in the production of
>> children?
>
>
> No. Look up, that statement says exactly what I meant it to say, no
> more and no less.
And I quote "when people enter into a
marriage they accept that it is an institution having to do with the
traditional values of society such as family values and the raising
of children. "
Backpeddling are we?
>
>>
>> Homosexual relationships
>>
>>> are aberrations and not part of our society's traditional values and
>>> certainly not part of any family values.
>>
>>
>>
>> According to you.
>
>
> Yes, it was I who just said it and I didn't attribute it to anyone else
> so it must be according to me. Can you produce any more cogent reply to
> it than, 'According to you'.
> \
You are getting repetitive. So you have any actual facts at all?
>>
>> Because of that children should
>>
>>> not be raised by those who chose to live in a homosexual
>>> relationship. If society allows homosexuals to marry it would be de
>>> facto agreeing with their right to raise children, I disagree with that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Provide facts. Then you might possibly have an argument,
>
>
> What kind of facts would you like? That raising a child in a homosexual
> environment is likely to result in the child becoming a homosexual?
> That because homosexuality is an aberration that would be causing the
> child to develop an aberration? That causing a child to do that is akin
> to contributing to delinquency?
Please provide your sources.
>
> Thus far, all
>
>> you have provided is your own close-minded views without any facts.
>
>
> That my views are close minded is of course your personal opinion.
>
> Now, I have no intention of turning this into any more of a usenet slug
> fest than it already is. You have my opinion, you can agree or disagree
> to your heart's content but I will leave you with this advice, get some
> education concerning the institution of marriage, it's very apparent
> that you really don't understand it other than from a personal enjoyment
> standpoint.
>
> Bye.
This is the second time you've said "bye". Just can't resist, can you?
:-)
>
> Carter
>
Stinker
liberal homosexual party of canada ' in the next election.
Stinker
""The Right One"" <te...@alberta.usa> wrote in message
news:AMfCb.667290$6C4.429192@pd7tw1no...
| At one time, Jewish people were forced into camps.
| At one time, Black people had to sit at the back of the bus.
| At one time, Aboriginals were beaten for speaking in their own tongue.
| At one time, Japanese-Canadians were raped of their freedom and property.
|
| Gay Pride is not a race it's a perversion
|
| --
| Terry Pearson
| http://www.rightpoint.org
| A fish rots from the head down.
| -Preston Manning
| "Lee Hanlon, CD" <lha...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
| news:9EdCb.666359$6C4.589927@pd7tw1no...
| >
| > Kindly keep your disgusting perversion to yourself please!
Stinker
"Ron" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:436a5d81.03121...@posting.google.com...
| David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:<brb5aa$292$5...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>...
| > Here's a note I got from a friend (and then I signed it).
| > Feel free to pass it on.
| >
| > ---------------------------------------------------------
| >
| > Check this petition out and sign it!
| >
| > I have just read and signed the online petition:
| >
| > "Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Canada"
| >
| > hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
| > service, at:
| >
| > http://www.PetitionOnline.com/samesex/
| >
| > Help make same sex marriages legal across Canada.
| >
| > ---------------------------------------------
| >
| > David
|
|
|
|
| for the rest of their lives.
| Gay people have lived together for centuries. Why do they now have
| to pretend they are in a marriage?
|
|
|
| .
So that they can kornhole your kids in the future.
Stinker
| Ron wrote:
| > David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:<brb5aa$292$5...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>...
| >
| >>Here's a note I got from a friend (and then I signed it).
| >>Feel free to pass it on.
| >>
| >>---------------------------------------------------------
| >>
| >>Check this petition out and sign it!
| >>
| >>I have just read and signed the online petition:
| >>
| >> "Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Canada"
| >>
| >>hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
| >>service, at:
| >>
| >> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/samesex/
| >>
| >>Help make same sex marriages legal across Canada.
|
| >
| > for the rest of their lives.
| > Gay people have lived together for centuries. Why do they now have
| > to pretend they are in a marriage?
|
| about, money.
|
| Carter
|
no, silly, they pretend it's about money...it's about kornholing your kids.
Stinker
"Damson Rhee" <Damso...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:DxtCb.15965$aF2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
|
|
| Ron wrote:
| > David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:<brb5aa$292$5...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>...
| >
| >>Here's a note I got from a friend (and then I signed it).
| >>Feel free to pass it on.
| >>
| >>---------------------------------------------------------
| >>
| >>Check this petition out and sign it!
| >>
| >>I have just read and signed the online petition:
| >>
| >> "Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Canada"
| >>
| >>hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
| >>service, at:
| >>
| >> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/samesex/
| >>
| >>Help make same sex marriages legal across Canada.
| >>
| >>
| >>David
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > Where will it end? Marriage is a man and a woman supposedly joined
| > for the rest of their lives.
| > Gay people have lived together for centuries. Why do they now have
| > to pretend they are in a marriage?
|
| Canada, at least in some provinces, you don't have to be actually
| married to get some of the rights of a married couple? They can just
| live together for a certain period of time and they can be required to
| provide the same support as a married person. They enjoy a lot of rights.
| If two people who happen to be gay can commit to each other and actually
| want to marry, why shouldn't they be able to?
| Nobody is aksing the Chruch to marry them. They're just asking to
| marry, commit themselves to each other and enjoy some of the rights that
| go with it. A gay couple can live together for decades. If one of them
| gets ill, the will have NOTHING to say about how they are treated, can't
| sign anything for consent to do anything, can't even have a say in
| funeral plans. A family that the person has been estranged from for any
| length of time could. That's why.
| D
| >
| >
| >
| > ..
| well they could have some kind of civil union...what they want is to be on
the same terms socially as married couples..
then when ever they teach your kids about marriage etc...they'll have to
teach them about same sex marriage...eventually they'll be allowed to
kornhole kids...and they'll say...well the kids was willing..
That's why!!!
Stinker
|
| "Kurt Knoll" <kkn...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
| news:10713458...@critter.monarch.net...
| >
| > "Thinker" <fre...@usa.com> wrote in message
| > news:KJJCb.519$7%6.31...@newshog.newsread.com...
| > >
| > > "David Dalton" <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
| > > news:brb5aa$292$5...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca...
| > > > Here's a note I got from a friend (and then I signed it).
| > > > Feel free to pass it on.
| > > >
| > > > ---------------------------------------------------------
| > > >
| > > > Check this petition out and sign it!
| > > >
| > > > I have just read and signed the online petition:
| > > >
| > > > "Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Canada"
| > > >
| > > > hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
| > > > service, at:
| > > >
| > > > http://www.PetitionOnline.com/samesex/
| > > >
| > > > Help make same sex marriages legal across Canada.
| > > >
| > > > ---------------------------------------------
| > > >
| > > > David
| > > >
| > >
| > >
| > > family pet?
| > >
| > >
| >
| > Nothing will turn out right when the Religious Fanatics set the Agenda.
| >
| > Kurt Knoll.
| > =
| >
|
| Nothing will turn out right when God is left out of the equation!
|
|
Nothing will turn out right when the Kornhole Fanatics get their boys.
Next
Stinker wrote:
> |
> |
> Nothing will turn out right when the Kornhole Fanatics get their boys.
>
>
Do you have anything to say that is actually intelligent?
- Next
Carter Lee
>
>
> Carter Lee wrote:
>> Now, I have no intention of turning this into any more of a usenet
>> slug fest than it already is. You have my opinion, you can agree or
>> disagree to your heart's content but I will leave you with this
>> advice, get some education concerning the institution of marriage,
>> it's very apparent that you really don't understand it other than from
>> a personal enjoyment standpoint.
>>
>> Bye.
>
>
> This is the second time you've said "bye". Just can't resist, can you?
Well now sonny you might be right about that. I can't resist
trying to pound some sense into the heads of smart assess who
think they know it all. You appear to be one of them. From your
comments it is apparent that you are not swayed by opinions born
of knowledge and experience, you want facts. Notwithstanding
that, as I said previously, you probably wouldn't recognize a
fact if it hit you between the eyes, and, before I finally leave
you in your uninformed misery I thought it only fair that I
provide you with a few facts. Happy reading.
Carter
Society has a vested interest in prohibiting behavior that
endangers the health or safety of the community. Because of this,
homosexual liaisons have historically been forbidden by law.
Homosexuals contend that their relationships are the equivalent
of marriage between a man and woman. They demand that society
dignify and approve of their partnerships by giving them legal
status as 'marriages.' They further argue that homosexuals should
be allowed to become foster parents or adopt children.
The best scientific evidence suggests that putting society's
stamp of approval on homosexual partnerships would harm society
in general and homosexuals in particular, the very individuals
some contend would be helped.
A large body of scientific evidence suggests that homosexual
marriage is a defective counterfeit of traditional marriage and
that it poses a clear and present danger to the health of the
community:
Traditional marriage improves the health of its participants, has
the lowest rate of domestic violence, prolongs life, and is the
best context in which to raise children.
Homosexual coupling undermines its participants' health, has the
highest rate of domestic violence, shortens life, and is a poor
environment in which to raise children.
The Facts About Homosexual Marriage
Fact #1: Homosexual marriages are short lived.
When one examines homosexual behavior patterns, it becomes clear
that the plea for legal homosexual marriage is less about
marriage than the push for legitimacy. Most gays and lesbians are
not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by
preference.
In a study (1) of 2,000 U.S. and European gays in the 1960s,
researchers found that "living by oneself is probably the chief
residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom
to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether
it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual
subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile
enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate
or not."
A 1970 study in San Francisco (2) found that approximately 61% of
gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone.
In 1977, the Spada Report (3) noted that only 8% of the gays in
its sample claimed to have a monogamous relationship with a
live-in lover.
The same year (4) over 5,000 gays and lesbians were asked: "Do
you consider or have you considered yourself 'married' to another
[homosexual]?" Only 40% of lesbians and 25% of gays said "yes."
The authors noted that with "gay male couples, it is hard to even
suggest that there are norms of behavior. [One] might expect to
find a clear pattern of 'categories' emerging from the answers to
the questions about lovers, boy friends, and relationships. In
fact, no such pattern emerged."
In the early 1980s, a large non-random sample (5) of almost 8,000
heterosexual and homosexual couples responded to advertisements
in alternative newspapers. The average number of years together
was 9.8 for the married, 1.7, for cohabiting heterosexuals, 3.5
for the gay couples, and 2.2 for the lesbian couples.
Variety Over Monogamy
Although gay activists often argue that legalizing homosexual
marriage would help make such relationships more permanent, the
reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners,
not the monogamy of traditional marriage.
In 1987, only 23% of gays in London (6) reported sexual
exclusivity "in the month before interview."
In 1990, only 12% of gays in Toronto, Canada (7) said that they
were in monogamous relationships.
In 1991, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, Australian gays (8)
were monitored to see whether they had changed their sexual
habits. There was essentially no change in 5 years: 23% reported
a monogamous relationship, 35% a non-monogamous relationship, and
29% only "casual sex." The authors reported that "there were
almost as many men moving into monogamy as out of it, and out of
casual-only partnerships as into them."
In 1993, a study (9) of 428 gays in San Francisco found that only
14% reported just a single sexual partner in the previous year.
The vast majority had multiple sex partners.
In 1994, the largest national gay magazine'° reported that only
17% of its sample of 2,500 gays claimed to live together in a
monogamous relationship.
Even gays who do have long-term partners do not play by the
typical 'rules.' Only 69% of Dutch gays" with a marriage-type
'partner' actually lived together. The average number of "outside
partners" per year of 'marriage' was 7.1 and increased from 2.5
in the first year of the relationship to 11 in the 6th year.
Why are homosexual marriages shorter and less committed than
traditional marriages?
At any given time, less than a third of gays and approximately
half of lesbians are living with a lover. Because the
relationships are so short, the average homosexual can anticipate
many, many 'divorces.'
At any instant, about 10% of gays live together in monogamous
relationships. Their monogamy seldom lasts beyond a year. Perhaps
half of lesbians live together in monogamous relationships. These
typically dissolve in one to three years.
These same patterns appear in the scientific literature over the
last 50 years, both long before and during the AIDS epidemic.
This consistency suggests a reality associated with the practice
of homosexuality, one unlikely to be affected by changes in
marriage laws.
The Danish Experience
In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since
1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten
married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce
or death. (12)
The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is
beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be
widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women!
Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt
to be a widow than a woman who married a man.
Fact #2: Studies show homosexual marriage is hazardous to one's
health.
Across the world, numerous researchers have reported that
'committed' or 'coupled' homosexuals are more apt to engage in
highly risky and biologically unsanitary sexual practices than
are 'single' gays. As a consequence of this activity, they
increase their chances of getting AIDS and other sexually
transmitted or blood-borne diseases.
In 1983, near the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, gays in San
Francisco (13) who claimed to be in "monogamous relationships"
were compared to those who were not. Without exception, those in
monogamous relationships more frequently reported that they had
engaged in biologically unhealthful activity during the past
year. As examples, 4.5% of the monogamous v. 2.2% of the
unpartnered had engaged in drinking urine, and 33.3% v. 19.6%
claimed to practice oral-anal sex.
In a sample of London gays (6) in 1987, those infected with HIV
were more apt to have regular partners than those not so
infected. In 1989, Italian researchers (14) investigated 127 gays
attending an AIDS clinic. Twelve percent of those without steady
partners v. 28% of those with steady partners were HIV+. The
investigators remarked that "to our surprise, male prostitutes
did not seem to be at increased risk, whereas homosexuals who
reported a steady partner (i.e., the same man for the previous
six months) carried the highest relative risk."
During 1991-92, 677 gays in England (15) were asked about
"unprotected anal sex." Those who had 'regular' partners reported
sex lives which were "about three times as likely to involve
unprotected anal sex than partnerships described as
'casual/one-night stands."' Sex with a regular partner "was far
more important than awareness of HIV status in facilitating
high-risk behaviour."
A 1993 British sexual diary study (16) of 385 gays reported that
men in "monogamous" relationships practiced more anal intercourse
and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. It
concluded that "gay men in a Closed relationship... exhibit...
the highest risk of HIV transmission."
In 1992, a sample (17) of 2,593 gays from Tucson, AZ and
Portland, OR reinforced the consistent finding that "gay men in
primary relationships are significantly more likely than single
men to have engaged in unprotected anal intercourse."
Similarly, a 1993 sample (18) of gays from Barcelona, Spain
practiced riskier sex with their regular partners than with
casual pick ups.
Even a 1994 study (19) of over 600 lesbians demonstrated that
"the connection between monogamy and unprotected sex,... was very
consistent across interviews. Protected sex was generally equated
with casual encounters; unprotected sex was generally equated
with trusting relationships. Not using latex barriers was seen as
a step in the process of relational commitment. Choosing to have
unprotected sex indicated deepening trust and intimacy as the
relationship grew."
Why is homosexual marriage a health hazard?
While married people pledge and generally live up to their vows
of sexual faithfulness, participants in both gay and lesbian
"marriages" offer each other something quite different. They see
shared biological intimacy and sexual risk-taking as the hallmark
of trust and commitment. Being exposed in this way to the bodily
discharges of their partner increases the risk of disease,
especially so if that partner was 'married' to someone else
before or engaged in sex with others outside the relationship.
The evidence is strong that both gays and lesbians are more apt
to take biological risks when having sex with a partner than when
having casual sex. The evidence is also strong that gays
disproportionately contract more disease, especially AIDS and the
various forms of hepatitis, from sex with "partners" than they do
from sex with strangers. There is also some evidence (20) that
gays with partners are more apt to die of both AIDS and non-AIDS
conditions than those without partners.
Like gays, 'married' lesbians are more apt to engage in
biological intimacy and risk-taking. However, there is
insufficient evidence to conclude whether disease or death rates
are higher for partnered or unpartnered lesbians.
Fact #3: Homosexual marriage has the highest rate of domestic
violence.
Domestic violence is a public health concern. Among
heterosexuals, not only is it an obvious marker of a troubled
marriage, but media attention and tax dollars to aid 'battered
women' have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not
reported is the empirical evidence suggesting that homosexual
couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do
heterosexual couples, especially among lesbians.
In 1996, (21) Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence
unit of the Los Angeles Gay Lesbian Center, said that "domestic
violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and
lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance
abuse... in terms of sheer numbers and lethality."
The average rate of domestic violence in traditional marriage,
established by a nationwide federal government survey (22) of
6,779 married couples in 1988, is apparently less than 5% per
year. During their most recent year of marriage, 2.0% of husbands
and 3.2% of wives said that they were hit, shoved or had things
thrown at them. Unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals report (23)
higher rates of violence, a rate of about 20% to 25% per year.
When the same standard is applied to gay and lesbian
relationships, the following evidence emerges:
In 1987, (24) 48% of 43 lesbian, and 39% of 39 gay Georgia
couples reported domestic violence.
In 1988,(25) 70 lesbian and gay students participated in a study
of conflict resolution in gay and lesbian relationships. Adjusted
upward for reporting by only one partner in the couple (i.e.,
"only one side of the story"), an estimated 29% of gay and 56% of
lesbian couples experienced violence in the past year.
In 1989, (26) 284 lesbians were interviewed who were involved "in
a committed, cohabitating lesbian relationship" during the last 6
months. Adjusted for reporting by just one partner, an estimated
43% of the relationships were violent in the past year.
In 1990, (27) nearly half of 90 lesbian couples in Los Angeles
reported domestic violence yearly. 21% of these women said that
they were mothers. Interestingly, of those mothers who had
children living with them, 11 lived in "violent" and 11 in
"nonviolent" relationships. Thus, unlike traditional marriage
where parents will often forego fighting to shield the children
from hostility, there was no evidence from this investigation
that the presence of youngsters reduced the rate of domestic
violence.
Overall, the evidence is fairly compelling that homosexual
domestic violence exceeds heterosexual domestic violence. The
limited scientific literature suggests that physical domestic
violence occurs every year among less than 5% of traditionally
married couples, 20% to 25% of cohabiting heterosexuals, and
approximately half of lesbian couples. The evidence is less
certain for gays, but their rate appears to fall somewhere
between that for unmarried, cohabiting heterosexuals and lesbians.
Fact #4: Homosexual domestic violence is a logger problem than
gay bashing.
Gay activists and the media are quick to assert that
discriminatory attitudes by 'straight' society lead directly to
violence against homosexuals (i.e., 'gay bashing'). In fact,
evidence suggests that homosexual domestic violence substantially
exceeds, in frequency and lethality, any and all forms of 'gay
bashing.' That is, the violence that homosexuals do to one
another is much more significant than the violence that others do
to homosexuals.
In 1995, a homosexual domestic violence consortium conducted a
study (28) in six cities Chicago, Columbus, Minneapolis, New
York, San Diego, and San Francisco where reports of
anti-homosexual harassment or same sex domestic violence were
tabulated.
The harassment incidents ranged from name calling (e.g.,
'faggot,' 'queer') to actual physical harm or property damage.
Homosexual domestic violence, on the other hand, referred only to
incidents in which actual physical harm occurred or was seriously
threatened (i.e., met the legal standard for domestic violence).
The results? Nationwide, (29) as well as in these cities, around
half of anti-homosexual harassment reports in 1995 involved only
slurs or insults, thus not rising to the level of actual or
threatened physical violence.
In San Francisco, there were 347 calls about same-sex domestic
violence and 324 calls about anti-homosexual harassment. In three
of the five other cities there were also more calls reporting
same-sex domestic violence than anti-homosexual harassment. The
same ratio was reported for the study as a whole.
Given that half of the harassment reports did not rise to the
level of violence, while domestic violence meant exactly that, if
the data gathered by this consortium of homosexuals corresponds
to the underlying reality, the physical threat to homosexuals
from same-sex domestic violence is more than twice as great as
the physical threat they experience from 'the outside.'
Rather than being a 'shelter against the storms of life,' as
traditional marriage is sometimes characterized, being
homosexually partnered actually increases the physical dangers
associated with homosexuality.
Fact #5: Homosexuals make poor parents.
Fewer than 20 empirical studies have been done on homosexual
parents. These studies have been small, biased, and generally
fail to address many of the traditional concerns regarding
homosexual parenting. However, the limited evidence they have
generated supports what common sense would expect.
The largest study, (30) and the only one based on a random
sample, estimated that less than half of a percent of Americans
have had a homosexual parent. Those who did were more likely to:
report having had sex with a parent,
experience homosexuality as their first sexual encounter,
be sexually molested,
become homosexual or bisexual, and
report dissatisfaction with their childhood.
The various studies, (31) added together, suggest that the
children of homosexuals are at least 3 times more apt to become
homosexual than children raised by the traditionally married.
Further, there is reasonable evidence, both in the empirical
literature and in dozens of court cases dealing with the issue,
(32) that children of homosexuals are more apt to be sexually
exposed to the homosexual lifestyle and/or molested.
Finally, substantial evidence (31) suggests that children of
homosexuals are more apt to doubt their own sexuality, be
embarrassed by their homosexual parent(s), and be teased and
taunted by their peers.
What Can We Conclude?
Homosexual marriage is a bad idea, While traditional marriage
delivers benefits to its participants as well as to society, gay
marriage harms everyone it touches especially homosexuals
themselves. Not only does it place homosexuals at increased risk
for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, but it also
subjects them to an increased threat of domestic violence and
early death.
Homosexual marriage is nothing like traditional marriage.
Homosexual unions are not built around lifetime commitments, nor
are they good environments to raise children.
Those who support legalizing homosexual marriage include the same
compassionate people who championed the right of singles to
become parents. We know the results of that campaign: a third of
the nation's children do not have a father. We also know that
children without fathers much more often do poorly in school, get
in trouble with the law, and become dysfunctional parents themselves.
It would be foolish to tamper with something as vital to personal
and social health as traditional marriage in order the placate
the same troubled souls that pushed for our current cultural mess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1. Weinberg, M.S. Williams, C.J. Male homosexuals: their problems
adaptations. NY: Penguin, 1975.
2. Bell, A. P. Weinberg, M.S. Homosexualaies NY:Simon Schusver, 1978.
3. Spada, J. The Spada repon. NY:Sigmet, 1979
4. Jay, K. Young, A. The gay report. NY:Summit, 1979.
5. Blumstein, P. Schwartz, P. American couples NY:Morrow, 1983.
6. Hunt, A. J., et al. Genitourinary Medicine, 1990, 66, 423427.
7. Orr, K., Morrison, K. Doing it in the 90s. Univ. Toronto Laval
Universities, 1993.
8. Kippax, S., et al. AIDS, 1993, 7, 257-263.
9. Osmond, D. H., et al. Amer I Public Health, 1994, 84, 1933-1937.
10. Lever, J. Advocate, Issue 661/662, August, 23, 1994, 15-24.
11. Deenen, A. A., et al. Archives Serual Behavior,1994, 23, 421431.
12. Wockner, R. Advocate, Issue 726, February 4, 1997, 26.
13. McKusick, L., et al. Amer I Public Health, 1985, 75, 493-496.
14. Franceschi, S., et al. Lancet, 1989, 1, 42.
15. Dawson, J. M., et al. AIDS, 1994, 8, 837-841.
16. Coxon A.P.M., et al. AIDS, 1993, 7, 877-882.
17. Hoff, C.C., et al. I Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes,
1997, 14, 72-78.
18. Wang, J. et al. Soc Sci Med, 1997, 44, 469-77.
19. Stevens, P. E. Soc Sci Med, 1994, 39,1565-78.
20. Cameron, P., Playfair, W. L., Wellum, S. The longevity of
homosexuals. Omega, 1994, 29, 249 272.
21. Holt S. Ending the cycle of domestic violence. Gay Lesbian
Times, 9126196, p. 39.
22. Sorenson, J, et al.. Amer I Public Health. 1996, 86, 3540.
23. Ellis, D. Violence Victims, 1989, 4, 235-255.
24. Gardner, R. Method of conflict resolution correlates af
physical aggression victimization in heterosezual, lesbian, gay
male couples. Unpub Doc Dis, U Georgia, 1988.
25. Waterman, C.K, et al. J Sel Research 1989, 26, 118 124.
26. Lockhart, L.L., et al. I Interpersanal Vialence, 1994, 9, 469492.
27. Coleman, V. Violence in lesbian couples: a berween groups
comparison. Unpub Doc Dis, CA Sch Prof Psych:LA, 1990.
28. Merrill, G. Press release from National Coalition of
Anti-Violence Programs, October 22, 1996 from San Francisco
various inteniews in November, 1996 with senior author Memll, Jem
Lynn Fields in Chicago, Bea Hanson in New York.
29. Anti-Lesbian/Gay Violence in 1995. Horizons Community
Senices. Self published.
30. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Homosexual parents, Adolescence,
1996, 31, 757-776.
31. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Did the APA misrepresent the
scientific literature to couns in suppon of homosexual custody? I
Psychology, 1997, 131, 1-20.
32. Cameron, P. Cameron, K. Homosexual parents: a natural
comparison. Psychol Repts, 1997, in press.
Peter White
I expect Mr. Lee will pay close attention to the taste of his preferred
scholar, James Spada as noted in the second last paragraph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Spada is best known as the author of 1979s "The Spada Report: The
Newest Survey of Gay Male Sexuality" (I have still a copy) and the
biographer of Barbra Streisand, Bette Davis, Princess Grace and other
personalities.
"Black and White Men: Images by James Spada" is a pleasant surprise and
revelation to those of us who knew Spada as a writer. In fact, Spada the
photographer has had three exhibitions during the past two years, most
notably at the "prestigious" Gallery One at the New England School of
Photography in Boston.
"Photographing people is very much like writing about them," notes
Spada, "except that I’m creating the portraits with light rather than
words."
"Black and White Men" – the title refers to the color of the photos, not
the race of the models – features 60 of Spada’s favorite images, most of
them taken in Spada’s Brookline home and studio. The dudes who posed
nude or semi-nude for Spada’s camera are, we are told, "real" young men,
not professional models. However, thanks for the democracy of the gym,
any guy who puts his mind to it can have the body of a model. (This, by
the way, is why the new "Hercules" series was never popular with gay
men. Kevin Sorbo, however buff, could not compete with the hunks you saw
every night at the clubs. But I digress.)
The black and white men in "Black and White Men" are great eye candy,
and their presence is the reason why most people will buy the book.
Photographer Nick Johnson, in his "Foreword," compares Spada’s photos to
Michelangelo’s David and notes that "In these photographs one sees an
idealized male form, muscles rippling, skin as smooth as marble,
beautifully rendered through a masterful use of light and photographic
technique." Spada himself adds "Light is as much a subject for me as the
models. Some of these men emerge from darkness into the light. Others
are bathed in it, seeming to take comfort from it. Still others respond
to the illumination with pride, showing off their beauty to it as they
would to a lover."
Not being an art critic myself – though I got an A in Art Appreciation
class at Miami-Dade Community College – I wasn’t too concerned with
Spada’s light and shadows. It was Spada’s "idealized male forms" that
caught and held my eye. (One of Spada’s models is also his lover; he’s
the handsome African-American on the back cover of the book.)
"Black and White Men" is a wonderful book, and an essential text for
anyone who appreciates the male art form. It opens a new chapter in the
professional life of one of our favorite and most enduring artists.
Hopefully, the emergence of James Spada the photographer does not mean
the end of James Spada the writer. Perhaps Spada will soon find a way to
combine his two talents
Jason Moore
> Jason Moore wrote:
>
> > Since gay couples have been recognized as common law since 2001 (or
> > 1998 if they elected in their tax returns) they already have access to
> > the monetary benefits of marriage. As such, contra Carter, it is
> > disingenuous to claim that they want marriage to claim monetary
> > benefits since they already have these benefits in the first place.
>
> Why then do gay couples want to get married?
>
> Carter
Who knows.
Nonetheless, why did Rosa Parks refuse to go to the back of the bus
nearly 50 years ago? Probably because she was tired of the
discrimination and tired of being equal but separate (Only on the bus
of course. Equal in that she could ride the bus with white people,
separate in that she was forced to go to the back of the bus.)
Gays enter into relationships that are similar to heterosexual
relationships with the one exception that it is a relationship with
someone of the same gender as opposed to the opposite gender. If two
consenting adults want to publicly proclaim their love for each other
in a public ceremony we call marriage then that couple is no different
than me and my wife. Why should they be "equal" but separate with only
civil unions where they still receive all the rights and
responsibilities of marriage?
Don't give me that gargabe that the homosexual "lifestyle" is
inherently "dirty" and would harm society.
Why don't you complain about smoking/drinking/eating fatty food
etc...? These truly are examples of behaviour that could be easily
changed for the better of society thereby saving thousands of lives
each year.
Why don't you complain about men and women who sleep around and bring
home herpes or crabs? Why don't you disagree with heterosexual
marriage on the basis of the violence inherent in these relationships?
Why don't you consider men in general to be perverts since so many
women in our society are sexually touched, abused, harassed, and raped
by heterosexual men?
In other words, why are you unable to see yourself for the hypocrite
that you are?
You are unable to distinguish between individual behaviour which
should be dealt with on a case by case basis with the behaviour you
associate with groups of people you don't like based on your own
prejudices.
I'm glad I called your BS regarding the "monetary" rewards for gay
marriages. It has been demonstrated throughout this thread what type
of person you really are.
Too bad you can't hide behind the seemingly rational argument that
gays just want monetary rewards so that you can hide your true
homophobic agenda.
Stinker
"Next" <nextp...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3FDE5BC6...@yahoo.ca...
Yeah,Nothing will turn out right when the Kornhole Fanatics get their boys.
|
Carter Lee
> Don't give me that gargabe that the homosexual "lifestyle" is
> inherently "dirty" and would harm society.
>
> Why don't you complain about smoking/drinking/eating fatty food
> etc...? These truly are examples of behaviour that could be easily
> changed for the better of society thereby saving thousands of lives
> each year.
>
> Why don't you complain about men and women who sleep around and bring
> home herpes or crabs? Why don't you disagree with heterosexual
> marriage on the basis of the violence inherent in these relationships?
>
> Why don't you consider men in general to be perverts since so many
> women in our society are sexually touched, abused, harassed, and raped
> by heterosexual men?
>
> In other words, why are you unable to see yourself for the hypocrite
> that you are?
Interesting method of debate you have there. Ask some irrelevant
questions, don't wait for answers assume what they will be, then
put those non answers to the irrelevant questions into other
words just so you can call someone a hypocrite.
I think it is fairly clear who the hypocrite is.
Carter
Next
Carter Lee wrote:
>
> Interesting method of debate you have there. Ask some irrelevant
> questions, don't wait for answers assume what they will be, then put
> those non answers to the irrelevant questions into other words just so
> you can call someone a hypocrite.
>
> I think it is fairly clear who the hypocrite is.
>
> Carter
>
And once again, you have no rebuttal. You have no facts and no argument,
once again proving that you have no clue about what you are talking about.
- Next
Next
> | Do you have anything to say that is actually intelligent?
> |
> | - Next
>
> Yeah,Nothing will turn out right when the Kornhole Fanatics get their boys.
>
> |
>
>
As I thought. Nothing intelligent. Go back to your hole, little boy.
Next
Carter Lee wrote:
> Next wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Carter Lee wrote:
>
>
>>> Now, I have no intention of turning this into any more of a usenet
>>> slug fest than it already is. You have my opinion, you can agree or
>>> disagree to your heart's content but I will leave you with this
>>> advice, get some education concerning the institution of marriage,
>>> it's very apparent that you really don't understand it other than
>>> from a personal enjoyment standpoint.
>>>
>>> Bye.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is the second time you've said "bye". Just can't resist, can you?
>
>
> Well now sonny you might be right about that. I can't resist trying to
> pound some sense into the heads of smart assess who think they know it
> all. You appear to be one of them. From your comments it is apparent
> that you are not swayed by opinions born of knowledge and experience,
> you want facts. Notwithstanding that, as I said previously, you
> probably wouldn't recognize a fact if it hit you between the eyes, and,
> before I finally leave you in your uninformed misery I thought it only
> fair that I provide you with a few facts. Happy reading.
>
>
> Carter
>
> Society has a vested interest in prohibiting behavior that endangers the
> health or safety of the community. Because of this, homosexual liaisons
Hmmm,....so hats off to you. You are able to cut and paste and article
from http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html.
This just proves to me that you cannot think for yourself. Tell you
what....grow up, move out of your mommy's basement, get married, prove
to me that you have even an inkling what marriage is about (so far, you
have have given no evidence of being married or knowing why couples get
married), and then we'll talk
- Next
Carter Lee
ROTFLMAO at your abject stupidity. You asked for facts and
unlike you I don't pull facts out of thin air, I do some
research. I guess I was right, you couldn't recognize a fact it
it hit you between the eyes.
Tell you
> what....grow up, move out of your mommy's basement, get married, prove
> to me that you have even an inkling what marriage is about (so far, you
> have have given no evidence of being married or knowing why couples get
> married), and then we'll talk
No we will never talk, that involves listening, something you are
apparently incapable of.
I don't normally do this but in your case I'm making an
exception....PLONK!
SPAM]jeff@domynoes.net Jeff Johnston
> Jeff Johnston wrote:
>
>
> > Many things are an aberration... are you saying that all aberrations
should
> > be elliminated?
>
> No. Read my post it is self explanatory, it says exactly what I
> wanted it to say, nothing more, nothing less.
Ok so you are saying we should teach our children to distrust aberrations...
OK fine lets run with that.
> >
> >
> >> He completely ignores the fact that many heterosexual
> >>
> >>>couples also cannot create a child.
> >>
> >>No I don't think he does ignore that. Hetrosexual couples who,
> >>fo whatever reason, cannot conceive certainly have other
> >>options. Because of the atmosphere in which a child would be
> >>raised I don't think homosexual couples should be afforded those
> >>options.
> >
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because homosexuality is an aberration.
Ok, red heads are alos an aberration, lets not allow them to marry or have
children, after all they are an aberration.
> >
> >
> >>>But, looking at YOUR statement regarding the "reasons", what would be
> >>>the reason for a gay couple to adopt, use a surrogate, etc? Perhaps it
> >>>could be because they are a caring and loving couple who desire the joy
> >>>of raising a child, which are exactly the same reasons why most
> >>>infertile heterosexual couples adopt.
> >>
> >>Gay couples may desire that but that desire does not change the
> >>fact that the child would be raised in an atmosphere which I
> >>believe is unfit for raising children.
> >>
> >>Carter
> >>
> >
> >
> > So we should all follow what YOU believe? I think not.
>
> Another person who is out of reasoned argument.
>
> I guess I must be right,
>
> Carter
I am far from out of reasoned arguments, however you have not presented any
reasoned argument at all.
> >
> >
>
SPAM]jeff@domynoes.net Jeff Johnston
"Carter Lee" <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:tjrDb.12792$IF6.5...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Jeff Johnston wrote:
> > For the same reason anyone wants to get married, because they love each
> > other and want to express that love in a binding ceremony and exchange
vows
> > of thier intent.
>
> That's laudable. The problem is that the traditional and
> conventional institution of marriage in our society does not
> include homosexual relationships among the values it espouses.
> Gays are going to have to develop their own binding ceremony in
> which to exchange vows of their intent.
>
> Carter
Right, and they should have to do that because they are not 'good' enough
for our ceremony (I use the term our since I am a heterosexual who is
married). I disagree with you over what you say the values marriage espouse,
I feel that marriage between two people is just as valid between two men or
two women as between a man and a woman. Do you have a valid argument against
that?
Carter Lee
> "Carter Lee" <cr...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:tjrDb.12792$IF6.5...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
>>Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>
>>>For the same reason anyone wants to get married, because they love each
>>>other and want to express that love in a binding ceremony and exchange
>
> vows
>
>>>of thier intent.
>>
>>That's laudable. The problem is that the traditional and
>>conventional institution of marriage in our society does not
>>include homosexual relationships among the values it espouses.
>>Gays are going to have to develop their own binding ceremony in
>>which to exchange vows of their intent.
>>
>>Carter
>
>
> Right, and they should have to do that because they are not 'good' enough
> for our ceremony (I use the term our since I am a heterosexual who is
> married).
You know Jeff, sarcasm is not going to get me to agree with your
points, if you have any to make.
I disagree with you over what you say the values marriage espouse,
> I feel that marriage between two people is just as valid between two men or
> two women as between a man and a woman. Do you have a valid argument against
> that?
I assume by that you are asking me to argue against same sex
marriage. That is exactly what I have been doing. I have said
why I am against it and when asked by one idiot I presented a
number of research reports which support my position. I thought
that the idiot could have done some research and presented some
similar stuff in rebuttal but I guess I was too optimistic, all
he could manage was a bunch of ad hominem BS.
To answer your question I would have to go over all the same
ground again, something I am not inclined to do. Read what I
have said and the research I have presented and do with it what
you will.
You could start by saying why you disagree with the things I have
said, Like the values I believe the institution of marriage
espouses and, more specifically, doesn't espouse.
You see, I have said I disagree with same sex marriage and I have
said why. You have said you disagree with me but have not said
why. You have said that you feel that marriage is just as valid
between two men or two women as between a man and a woman, but
you have not said why you feel that.
Carter
Qi
decided to lighten the load:
If I were to exlude my interest in exposing fascist tendancies amidst the
ways of today, I could say that on the whole, the interst in excluding
someone from something, based on sex or race, besides being unlawful and
immoral, has a selfish and hypocritical tint to it, and I'm speaking
generally here: the same people who want this unconstitutional act to
become law (rendering the constitution void?) are the same who have
traditionally exploited the land and the people on the land,
generationally...
I am what Natives call a Two Spirit, and I say this to the government: do
not allow same-sex marriages, and watch all value and potency held within
the constitution become legally and morally void, for all to know and see
and do with what they will.
And to all who read this, let me ask: are you assimilator, assimilated or
servat to the assimilators?
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/