another post about gay marriages... but this one might make you go "hmmmm"...

[PT]

Why do you feel two men can marry but 43 year old man and a 15 boy can’t get married? Because he is not 18? Why the arbitrary age of 18? Men are not mentally mature at 18.

Quite simply because the legal age of consent is 18. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not going to sit here and say that all boys and girls are ready to make that choice at 18, I'd be more than happy for there to be a 'Age of Consent" test to take before you were allowed to get married, vote, drink, etc.. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon, besides the new problems that would cause, classifying people for how they scored on "The Test"

 

[Professur]

I can see the other side of the coin, it just don't like it. You're fighting for your side to protect the name of marriage, as well as the slippery slope you think allowing gays to marry will start. I say that heteros have fucked up the name quite well enough on their own, and that the slope has been sliding for quite some time, don't think this will make is slide any faster.

Then isn't it time to stand up and start fixing what marriage is supposed to be? It won't get any better on it's own. Not while everyone is still thinking "ME, ME, ME, ME, ME". Not until the old definition is restored and defended.

 

[PT]

Then isn't it time to stand up and start fixing what marriage is supposed to be? It won't get any better on it's own. Not while everyone is still thinking "ME, ME, ME, ME, ME". Not until the old definition is restored and defended.

If we're going to restore, why can't we redefine at the same time? Do you really think your marriage will mean any less if two guys that live down the street are allowed to call their relationship a marriage as well?

 

[Professur]

Quite simply because the legal age of consent is 18. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not going to sit here and say that all boys and girls are ready to make that choice at 18, I'd be more than happy for there to be a 'Age of Consent" test to take before you were allowed to get married, vote, drink, etc.. Unfortunately I don't see that happening anytime soon, besides the new problems that would cause, classifying people for how they scored on "The Test"

Question. Consenting age in Quebec is 14. (but not for sex) If you, and a 30+ year old, bring your neighbour's 14 year old girl up here and marry her, do you think it's legally binding when you get back home?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

If we're going to restore, why can't we redefine at the same time? Do you really think your marriage will mean any less if two guys that live down the street are allowed to call their relationship a marriage as well?

A resounding YES on that!

It does not meet the criteria, just like 17 does not qualify as 18.

 

[PT]

Question. Consenting age in Quebec is 14. (but not for sex) If you, and a 30+ year old, bring your neighbour's 14 year old girl up here and marry her, do you think it's legally binding when you get back home?

I don't think it would be, though I'm not a lawyer. I believe the specs are that the states have to recognize each others, not necessarily that we have to recognize other countries though.

 

[PT]

A resounding YES on that!

It does not meet the criteria, just like 17 does not qualify as 18.

Why? If your marriage means less because of it, I have to think that the insecurity lies with you, not a problem with them.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Why? If your marriage means less because of it, I have to think that the insecurity lies with you, not a problem with them.

My marriage would continue to be strong reguardless, the institution of marriage will have have less social value by allowing a sect that does not meet the critera of marriage.

I think the insecurity lies with the homosexuals, why do they demand the validation that is afforded by the time-honored title?

How does the title change their love?

 

[PT]

How would you feel if you were told that you couldn't get married because you are left-handed? You can have a civil union, but not marriage.

 

[Nixy]

How would you feel if you were told that you couldn't get married because you are left-handed? You can have a civil union, but not marriage.

See, that's the thing...if we're talking "marriage" as something that happens in churches then in Canada they CAN have that...in certain churches...

 

[ResearchMonkey]

How would you feel if you were told that you couldn't get married because you are left-handed? You can have a civil union, but not marriage.

I really need to tell you; That is the dumbest thing you have posted yet.

While the use of ones left hand IS a congnitive behavior, it has no social bearing or morality issues in this culture.

Whereas Homosexuality has both.

 

[freako104]

No. My argument is that it's not long before you're in court arguing that. There's a town here in quebec that's been trying to put in place a cerfew to stop teenagers being out after 10 unsupervised, because of alot of vandalism. It's been blocked at every turn by ... the human rights board. Seems that forcing kids off the streets at night is a violation of their human rights. Given that kids now must be given all human rights, without restriction, how long before a case is in the courts allowing a preteen marriage? Allowing any modification of a law opens the door to all modifications of the law. Surely you can see that.

isnt that what was said abou interracial relationships and marriage in the past?

 

[PT]

I really need to tell you; That is the dumbest thing you have posted yet.

While the use of ones left hand IS a congnitive behavior, it has no social bearing or morality issues in this culture.

Whereas Homosexuality has both.

Really, glad we have you to rate our level of dumbness. Thanks for participating.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

isnt that what was said abou interracial relationships and marriage in the past?

Do similar circumstances equate to the same final results?



NAMBLA is awating your answer.

 

[MrBishop]

I really need to tell you; That is the dumbest thing you have posted yet.

While the use of ones left hand IS a congnitive behavior, it has no social bearing or morality issues in this culture.

Whereas Homosexuality has both.

And if homosexuality is a cognative behaviour? Born and not made...what then? Left-handedness was considered evil (hence the term - sinister=left) and thus immoral. Kids were forced to learn to use their right hand at home and in school. The colour of one's skin is still a trait assocaited with social bearing, as is gender. People understand now that all of these are techinically unalterable. People don't understand that homosexuality is also technically unalterable, despite the religious right's 'conversion' techniques.

Morality changes...interracial marriages have changed to become a more accepteable behaviour. When I first married, mixed-marriages were still being looked down upon, and that's only 9 years ago or so. Half a generation later..it's pretty much OK.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Really, glad we have you to rate our level of dumbness. Thanks for participating.

OK sorry for hurting your feelings.

It was brilliant, the comparison made a perfectly simple point that exactly equates the social and moral ramifications that both have on society, and thus proves beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

And if homosexuality is a cognative behaviour? Born and not made...what then? Left-handedness was considered evil (hence the term - sinister=left) and thus immoral. Kids were forced to learn to use their right hand at home and in school. The colour of one's skin is still a trait assocaited with social bearing, as is gender. People understand now that all of these are techinically unalterable. People don't understand that homosexuality is also technically unalterable, despite the religious right's 'conversion' techniques.

Morality changes...interracial marriages have changed to become a more accepteable behaviour. When I first married, mixed-marriages were still being looked down upon, and that's only 9 years ago or so. Half a generation later..it's pretty much OK.

Cognitive behavior can change. There is no credible indication that people are born gay.

Society changes, this is true. But that does not mean change will be afforded to every will. Just because a group seeks change does not mean that it will be allowed by society.

I will add that thru the ages homosexuality has been granted normalcy and accepted only to be tossed back into the catogopry of taboo. It does not have the natural acceptance it takes to be held in the class of a societal norm.

 

[Rose]

There is no credible indication that people are born gay.

At this time.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

At this time.

I give you, there may come a day in which this comes to fruition. Up to this point the the only indicator is the statement "I was born gay".

As difficult as may be to believe, I do not hate gay people. I know many fine folks that are gay.

I have a fundamental difference of opinion on this issue. I see more harm being done to the structure of social values that out-weighs the desire for the few in need of validation.

Much like the civil rights fight that has been waged and made great success; the majority of the struggle being waged today is doing more harm to the cause than good. If let to run its natural course, the equality gap will close even more with-out the social division caused by the confrontations.



I don’t know that the gaps will ever fully close in my lifetime, but they will be resonably acceptable.

 

[MrBishop]

I give you, there may come a day in which this comes to fruition. Up to this point the the only indicator is the statement "I was born gay".

As difficult as may be to believe, I do not hate gay people. I know many fine folks that are gay.

I have a fundamental difference of opinion on this issue. I see more harm being done to the structure of social values that out-weighs the desire for the few in need of validation.

Much like the civil rights fight that has been waged and made great success; the majority of the struggle being waged today is doing more harm to the cause than good. If let to run its natural course, the equality gap will close even more with-out the social division caused by the confrontations.



I don’t know that the gaps will ever fully close in my lifetime, but they will be resonably acceptable.

Its a matter of time and speed. Given enough time, homosexuality will grow to become accepteable and eventually...just another commonplace thing, like eye-colour. Once this happens, the issue of gay-marriage will no longer be an issue. The gay-rights movemement is trying to accelerate this process. Change is upsetting, and change that comes too fast is far more upsetting.

It's already considered against the law to refuse to allow homosexuals into the military, restaurants, stores, clubs, or to dicriminate against anyone based on their sexuality. This gay-marriage issue is another example of a barrier between mere tollerance and acceptance of the equality of all people, and their access to all things.

We've come a long way since the Stonewall incidents on June 27, 1969.