[roger-roger]

hwacker hwacker:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

being told you can marry because you are gay IS AGAINST A BASIC RIGHT AND FREEDOM. It is the same as saying you cannot marry her, she is black!

BULLSHIT

Damnit! You said bullshit!

That counters everything thing I said, I should have never tried to mess with the master debator!

No Wait.... I got it, a way to counter such an air tight argument!

DOUBLE BULLSHIT on your BULLSHIT!

[simjanes2k]

TattoodGirl TattoodGirl:

lily lily:

As an atheist, how can you cite religious beliefs as a valid reason to ban SSMs?

This oughtta be good.

Oh yes cant wait for this

Okay. I'm gonna go real slow here for ya. I am citing religious beliefs as a valid reason to ban SSMs.... because our system allows it to be.

Get it?

See, people have these opinions. They take them with them to the voting booth! Then they add up how many people want what, and the biggest group of people wins.

Religion is the only reason for SSM being bad, isn't it? Someone let me know if there is another major reason, at all. Fill me in.

I can do a diagram if anyone would like. I can even write premises out mathematically. Dammit I'm getting my college textbooks out, I gotta draw the peeps up ins some pix.

[TattoodGirl]

hwacker hwacker:

BECAUSE

Awww you stamping your feet now...head turning beat red, eyes bugging out, quite unattractive...something only a mother could love. Better call her down to the basement your asthma might kick in next...we dont want you turning purple now

[roger-roger]

simjanes2k simjanes2k:

TattoodGirl TattoodGirl:

lily lily:

As an atheist, how can you cite religious beliefs as a valid reason to ban SSMs?

This oughtta be good.

Oh yes cant wait for this

Okay. I'm gonna go real slow here for ya. I am citing religious beliefs as a valid reason to ban SSMs.... because our system allows it to be.

Get it?

See, people have these opinions. They take them with them to the voting booth! Then they add up how many people want what, and the biggest group of people wins.

Religion is the only reason for SSM being bad, isn't it? Someone let me know if there is another major reason, at all. Fill me in.

I can do a diagram if anyone would like. I can even write premises out mathematically. Dammit I'm getting my college textbooks out, I gotta draw the peeps up ins some pix.

So you see nothing wrong with religion dictating your life?

[scarecrowe]

KyleEverett KyleEverett:

Its about having spousal benefits from my employer.

We often hear of the existence of child poverty (even though in a relative sense, Canadians are not impoverished). Nevertheless, the benefits of marriage originated from the need to protect the children involved in the relationship and to assist their caregivers.
Childless couples should not be rewarded simply because of cohabitation for there is no contribution they make to the greater good of society in such an arrangement. Worse yet, money is taken out of the "system" and given to the unworthy that instead should go towards improving the lives of children. You may argue that childless couples pay for their spousal benefits but in the end, the cost of supporting spouses for the sake of them being officially declared a spouse comes from the tax breaks given to those corporate entities that provide the benefit to the working spouse and that tax break in the end affects support programs for those rearing children.

In the end, all the lovey dovey couplets out there without children are simply freeloading and helping create "child poverty". Also, all this hoopala about wanting to have legally recognized marriages no matter what the circumstances for the sake of "equality" is simply driven by shear greed. Shame on you.

[kenmore]

Try asking a gay couple (male or female) who have lived through the death of a life long partner.. or say 20yr relationship and are told they have no rights.. no right to decide on medical decisions, no right to survivor benefit or in some cases insurance or even funeral decisions.. comparing same sex marriage to abortion or interracial marriage doesn't make sense.. religion may or may not play a part in same sex marriages. but religion does not have the right to dictate or force laws that are based on religous ideation on the masses. civil law should be geared to human rights which protects all people no matter what gender, religion. sexual orientation or race.. the will of a few should not impact the rights of many

[roger-roger]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

KyleEverett KyleEverett:

Its about having spousal benefits from my employer.

We often hear of the existence of child poverty (even though in a relative sense, Canadians are not impoverished). Nevertheless, the benefits of marriage originated from the need to protect the children involved in the relationship and to assist their caregivers.
Childless couples should not be rewarded simply because of cohabitation for there is no contribution they make to the greater good of society in such an arrangement. Worse yet, money is taken out of the "system" and given to the unworthy that instead should go towards improving the lives of children. You may argue that childless couples pay for their spousal benefits but in the end, the cost of supporting spouses for the sake of them being officially declared a spouse comes from the tax breaks given to those corporate entities that provide the benefit to the working spouse and that tax break in the end affects support programs for those rearing children.

In the end, all the lovey dovey couplets out there without children are simply freeloading and helping create "child poverty". Also, all this hoopala about wanting to have legally recognized marriages no matter what the circumstances for the sake of "equality" is simply driven by shear greed. Shame on you.

What about the gay couples who have gay childeren?

[hwacker]

kenmore kenmore:

Try asking a gay couple (male or female) who have lived through the death of a life long partner.. or say 20yr relationship and are told they have no rights.. no right to decide on medical decisions, no right to survivor benefit or in some cases insurance or even funeral decisions.. comparing same sex marriage to abortion or interracial marriage doesn't make sense.. religion may or may not play a part in same sex marriages. but religion does not have the right to dictate or force laws that are based on religous ideation on the masses. civil law should be geared to human rights which protects all people no matter what gender, religion or race.. the will of a few should not impact the rights of many

Well then you better let the muslims have sharia law because to them it's a human right.

[roger-roger]

How is non secular government a human right?

[scarecrowe]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

KyleEverett KyleEverett:

Its about having spousal benefits from my employer.

We often hear of the existence of child poverty (even though in a relative sense, Canadians are not impoverished). Nevertheless, the benefits of marriage originated from the need to protect the children involved in the relationship and to assist their caregivers.
Childless couples should not be rewarded simply because of cohabitation for there is no contribution they make to the greater good of society in such an arrangement. Worse yet, money is taken out of the "system" and given to the unworthy that instead should go towards improving the lives of children. You may argue that childless couples pay for their spousal benefits but in the end, the cost of supporting spouses for the sake of them being officially declared a spouse comes from the tax breaks given to those corporate entities that provide the benefit to the working spouse and that tax break in the end affects support programs for those rearing children.

In the end, all the lovey dovey couplets out there without children are simply freeloading and helping create "child poverty". Also, all this hoopala about wanting to have legally recognized marriages no matter what the circumstances for the sake of "equality" is simply driven by shear greed. Shame on you.

What about the gay couples who have gay childeren?

I have no problem with that because they are doing something worthwhile.

[hwacker]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

KyleEverett KyleEverett:

Its about having spousal benefits from my employer.

We often hear of the existence of child poverty (even though in a relative sense, Canadians are not impoverished). Nevertheless, the benefits of marriage originated from the need to protect the children involved in the relationship and to assist their caregivers.
Childless couples should not be rewarded simply because of cohabitation for there is no contribution they make to the greater good of society in such an arrangement. Worse yet, money is taken out of the "system" and given to the unworthy that instead should go towards improving the lives of children. You may argue that childless couples pay for their spousal benefits but in the end, the cost of supporting spouses for the sake of them being officially declared a spouse comes from the tax breaks given to those corporate entities that provide the benefit to the working spouse and that tax break in the end affects support programs for those rearing children.

In the end, all the lovey dovey couplets out there without children are simply freeloading and helping create "child poverty". Also, all this hoopala about wanting to have legally recognized marriages no matter what the circumstances for the sake of "equality" is simply driven by shear greed. Shame on you.

What about the gay couples who have gay childeren?

gay couples should not have kids.

[scarecrowe]

kenmore kenmore:

Try asking a gay couple (male or female) who have lived through the death of a life long partner.. or say 20yr relationship and are told they have no rights.. no right to decide on medical decisions, no right to survivor benefit or in some cases insurance or even funeral decisions..

That's what wills and POA's are for.

[hwacker]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

How is non secular government a human right?

Have fun this Christmas at work while the rest of Canada has a federal non secular government holiday

[hwacker]

lily lily:

hwacker hwacker:

kenmore kenmore:

Try asking a gay couple (male or female) who have lived through the death of a life long partner.. or say 20yr relationship and are told they have no rights.. no right to decide on medical decisions, no right to survivor benefit or in some cases insurance or even funeral decisions.. comparing same sex marriage to abortion or interracial marriage doesn't make sense.. religion may or may not play a part in same sex marriages. but religion does not have the right to dictate or force laws that are based on religous ideation on the masses. civil law should be geared to human rights which protects all people no matter what gender, religion or race.. the will of a few should not impact the rights of many

Well then you better let the muslims have sharia law because to them it's a human right.

Would you accept Sharia Law if it was put to a vote and passed?

Or do you agree that religious-based laws have no place in our society?

put it to a vote then we can put it to bed forever.

just like gay marriage, oh wait, we can't do that in Canada because the liberals shoved it up our XXX.

[scarecrowe]

hwacker hwacker:

gay couples should not have kids.

There are a lot of straight couples that should not have kids. Would you rather have a state run orphanage and have a society with "The People's Children" as in Commieland?