Hey Steve - We Can Get Married In Canada. Let's Go Then David!

[Said1]

Rape and homosexual sex and speeding and murder are all behaviours. It's just homosexuals are the only group to get people to justify their actions because 'they are born that way' and 'cannot and should not control their urges'.

(shrug).

Rape and murder and homoseuxality all harm society.

Get real. Violent crimes and speeding are not the same as gay marriage. I think you're serious overstretching yourself compairing them.

 

[GotZoom]

Years ago homosexuality was an abnormal behaviour. The, with the proper lobbying and influence, the medical community began to say that is wasn't a choice - it was something people were born with.

If your "DNA makeup" gives you a propensity to be homosexual, why is it such a stretch to assume the other abnormal behaviours won't be soon to follow.

 

[Shattered]

D, if two males engage in homosexual acts, it has no direct negative bearing on your life. If someone rapes another human being, that person is fucked up for life. The two aren't even comparable.

Much like the difference between simple speeding, and a drunk driver hitting YOUR car at 95mph. One's going to fuck you up royally, the other has no direct impact on your life.

 

[Said1]

Years ago homosexuality was an abnormal behaviour. The, with the proper lobbying and influence, the medical community began to say that is wasn't a choice - it was something people were born with.

Personally, I think homosexuality IS more environmental than anything.

If your "DNA makeup" gives you a propensity to be homosexual, why is it such a stretch to assume the other abnormal behaviours won't be soon to follow.

Like aquitting someone of rape? Gay marriage is not the same as rape, which is not consensual and is violent.

 

[GotZoom]

I can't imagine anyone ever getting acquitted of rape. But I can see the defense asking for a lighter sentence - hospitalization instead of jail, etc - for someone who is raped.

"After all your honor, my client can't help himself. Five different doctors said he was born with abnormal genes - he has a propensity to rape, just as that of a serial killer, etc."

I never said it would be correct or acceptable - absolutely not. But I can see the attempt by some less-than-honest and less-than-honorable lawyers.

 

[Said1]

"After all your honor, my client can't help himself. Five different doctors said he was born with abnormal genes - he has a propensity to rape, just as that of a serial killer, etc.

All the more reason to lock him up.

 

[dmp]

D, if two males engage in homosexual acts, it has no direct negative bearing on your life. If someone rapes another human being, that person is fucked up for life. The two aren't even comparable.

And if somebody gets raped it has no bearing on my life. But if somebody gets raped, or somebody engages in homosexual acts, there ARE victims - those involved.

Much like the difference between simple speeding, and a drunk driver hitting YOUR car at 95mph. One's going to fuck you up royally, the other has no direct impact on your life.

Speeding didn't cause the drunk to hit me - his drinking likely did.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Why does every freakin thing on the planet have to be equal? Good grief.

You want equal pay, do equal work.
You want equal rights? You start OUT with them. Only YOU can decide whether you get to keep them.

I would suggest the slaves prior to the 20th century would vehemently disagree with you.
I would also suggest that women rights movement of early century would also disagree.
The Chinese in early Canada, the Indian under the colonial British and the list goes on and on.

Much like our right to party, rights as we see them, must always be fought for. It doesn't have to be by the sword, but it does have to be fought for. Only THEY can decide if its worth fighting for.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I've always thought this argument, and no offense to you of course, was weak.

Idealism of the seperation of church and state aside, for both "sides" of the issue routinely rally under its banner. Whether is be lefties removing religious historical monuments from courtyards or those on the right who provide "faith" based funding for social programs.

The inexorable truth is that the government's endorsement of any marriage, whether it be heterosexual, or now homosexual has always had its religious base.

A wiser move would be remove the mention of marriage from civil unions, and leave it like that. This way the government neither endorses heterosexual nor homosexual unions and leaves it to the wacky ethical playgroups which reside in the Churches, Mosques, Synagogues, Temples, Jedi Training Centres and Covens of our country.

On a day to day basis, does it affect me?

Hardly, but it does revive some of the old Kids in the Hall sketches!

On one hand you liberals say we must "protect the children" but on the other hand you condone gay marriage, which - the real truth of the matter - is going to do nothing but "hurt the children".

All because of non-gay, self-centered people like you who think "it isn't going to affect me". The inexorable truth of the matter is that Canada is becoming a godless, heathen nation much like Europe. Not something particularly wanted in a close neighbor. No offense to you of course.

 

[Shattered]

And if somebody gets raped it has no bearing on my life. But if somebody gets raped, or somebody engages in homosexual acts, there ARE victims - those involved.



Speeding didn't cause the drunk to hit me - his drinking likely did.

*shakes head* Sometimes I just don't understand your callous attitude toward rape and seemingly toward the victims (after all, you just wished a rapist would get off scot-free)

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

No...now they have 'special rights'...the restrictions were the same for all:

1) One cannot marry a relative
2) One cannot marry a minor
3) One cannot marry somebody of the same gender

Now...it's 'special' allowances made for people who simply like having sex with those of the same gender.

I'm really hoping a rapist gets a rape charge thrown out under the same argument homosexuals use to justify THEIR behavior...I really hope it happens.

There was a time when the restrictions on voting were the same for all:

1) Minors cannot vote.
2) Blacks cannot vote.
3) Women cannot vote.

When the majority of people in America wanted #2 and #3 struck down, they were. Would you say that "special" allowances were made for people simply because they have dark skin or they happened to be lacking a Y chromosome? Peoples' beliefs change over time and it is up to the government to react to those changes and recognize them. Otherwise, the US Constitution would be the same today as it was when it was first written. Considering how many constitutional amendments there have been, even the US government feels change is necessary when appropriate.

In Canada, the majority of the population supports gay marriage so it is the responsibility of the government to react. In the US, the majority does not support gay marriage and it has been struck down in most States. What's the problem? It seems to me like democracy is working perfectly!

 

[dmp]

There was a time when the restrictions on voting were the same for all:

1) Minors cannot vote.
2) Blacks cannot vote.
3) Women cannot vote.

When the majority of people in America wanted #2 and #3 struck down, they were. Would you say that "special" allowances were made for people simply because they have dark skin or they happened to be lacking a Y chromosome? Peoples' beliefs change over time and it is up to the government to react to those changes and recognize them. Otherwise, the US Constitution would be the same today as it was when it was first written. Considering how many constitutional amendments there have been, even the US government feels change is necessary when appropriate.

In Canada, the majority of the population supports gay marriage so it is the responsibility of the government to react. In the US, the majority does not support gay marriage and it has been struck down in most States. What's the problem? It seems to me like democracy is working perfectly!

People can't artificially increase their age.
People can't choose their race
People can't choose their sex.


Your argument is useless - Homosexuality is a behavior...as pasttime.

 

[dmp]

*shakes head* Sometimes I just don't understand your callous attitude toward rape and seemingly toward the victims (after all, you just wished a rapist would get off scot-free)

I've known of rapists who weren't guilty of anything more than a woman changing her mind after the fact - it almost happened to Kobe.

I'm not calloused towards rape; I'm saying since people are arguing for OTHER deviant behaviours, we might as well sanction Rape, too...

 

[Shattered]

I've known of rapists who weren't guilty of anything more than a woman changing her mind after the fact - it almost happened to Kobe.

I'm not calloused towards rape; I'm saying since people are arguing for OTHER deviant behaviours, we might as well sanction Rape, too...

No! There's a difference between two consenting adults, and one person forcing themselves upon another. The two aren't even REMOTELY close.

My 12 year old neice is going through a rape case right now against her step father. I'd CERTAINLY rather see two homosexuals get whatever rights they think they should be entitled to (right or wrong) than to see this son of a bitch walk free. But, in your eyes, he should walk free - after all, what's the difference? One's just as deviant as the other, right?

 

[Said1]

No! There's a difference between two consenting adults, and one person forcing themselves upon another. The two aren't even REMOTELY close.

My 12 year old neice is going through a rape case right now against her step father. I'd CERTAINLY rather see two homosexuals get whatever rights they think they should be entitled to (right or wrong) than to see this son of a bitch walk free. But, in your eyes, he should walk free - after all, what's the difference? One's just as deviant as the other, right?

Not exactly, he's saying he hopes a rapist is aquitted here.

 

[Shattered]

A rapist aquitted gets to claim another victim or two...

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

People can't artificially increase their age.
People can't choose their race
People can't choose their sex.


Your argument is useless - Homosexuality is a behavior...as pasttime.

Hehe, I heard a great argument against the "homosexuality is a behaviour" defense. I don't know about you but I certainly didn't choose to be a heterosexual. At no point in my life did I sit at home and think "I wonder if I want to spend the rest of my life having sex with men or with women?" I did not choose to be heterosexual any more than I'm guessing you chose to be heterosexual, it is the way we were both born. Since we didn't choose to be heterosexual, it was thrust upon us by our hormones, is it so difficult to place yourself in the position of a homosexual for one moment and realize that they didn't choose to desire people of the same gender?

If you want to take my argument to "well, child molesters didn't choose to be attracted to children" or "rapists didn't choose to force themselves on people", I will only ask that you recognize that society chooses to allow truly consenting adults to do pretty much anything they want to do with each other. Sex with children is not between consenting adults so we don't tolerate it. Rape is not between consenting adults so we don't tolerate it. Consentual sex between 2 male or female adults simply can't be compared in any way to child molestation or rape and that is why you will never see a rapist get aquitted with the "I was born this way" defense.

 

[Isaac Brock]

On one hand you liberals say we must "protect the children" but on the other hand you condone gay marriage, which - the real truth of the matter - is going to do nothing but "hurt the children".

All because of non-gay, self-centered people like you who think "it isn't going to affect me". The inexorable truth of the matter is that Canada is becoming a godless, heathen nation much like Europe. Not something particularly wanted in a close neighbor. No offense to you of course.

How does promoting a monogomous relationship "hurt the children"? And who says I'm liberal? I would have preferred government to strike out marriage heterosexual and homosexual from the legal language, call them all civil unions and let the churches themselves decide what is moral. However, this legislation is pretty much that anyways. It's not going to change anyone's view on what is marriage if their religion dimetrically opposes it. Doesn't force a Catholic priest to sanction any religious union or civil union.

And no, I'm not self-centered, I know what I believe in my mind should constitute marriage, but I have no willingness, unlike some people, to force that on others. I'd rather err on inclusive than make the mistakes of our past. If the price I pay for that is allowing a few additional rights for same-sex couples, so be it.

Morals change, countries are different and if the sooner people can accept that, the sooner we move on.

 

[dmp]

Hehe, I heard a great argument against the "homosexuality is a behaviour" defense. I don't know about you but I certainly didn't choose to be a heterosexual. At no point in my life did I sit at home and think "I wonder if I want to spend the rest of my life having sex with men or with women?" I did not choose to be heterosexual any more than I'm guessing you chose to be heterosexual, it is the way we were both born. Since we didn't choose to be heterosexual, it was thrust upon us by our hormones, is it so difficult to place yourself in the position of a homosexual for one moment and realize that they didn't choose to desire people of the same gender?

If you want to take my argument to "well, child molesters didn't choose to be attracted to children" or "rapists didn't choose to force themselves on people", I will only ask that you recognize that society chooses to allow truly consenting adults to do pretty much anything they want to do with each other. Sex with children is not between consenting adults so we don't tolerate it. Rape is not between consenting adults so we don't tolerate it. Consentual sex between 2 male or female adults simply can't be compared in any way to child molestation or rape and that is why you will never see a rapist get aquitted with the "I was born this way" defense.

You make the choice to be heterosexual every day. You make the choice to 'not' be a theif or a rapist every day. Our homo or heterosexuality are based solely on one thing: Our Behavior. Every day I am not having sex with other men I am heterosexual. The day I have sex with another man I am homosexual, and vice versa. Homosexuality isn't a condition, it's an action.

 

[GotZoom]

Great debate everyone.

However, you are missing the point that D and I are making.

No one is justifiying rape or molesting a child. No one says that people who do this should get off from prosecution.

What we are saying is this: Years ago, homosexuality was a disease..it was abnormal and unacceptable. Through the years, with the proper lobbying from certain people with "agendas", it has become acceptable because they are "born that way." Since they are born that way, they are not abnormal and their rights should change accordingly.

Fast forward to a rape case or a child molestation case (or a murder case, or...any case). A crafty, sleazy lawyer can get a doctor on the stand to say that his client's behavior was born, not learned. He was born to rape, born to molest, born to murder, born to ________, therefore, using the same argument as homosexuals, their behavior is not abnormal, it is something they were born with. Therefore, the sentence must be lighter.

With some of the liberal agendas today, combined with the ACLU, and the way that some judges are ruling, this is not that far out of the realm of possibility.

I think I can speak for D (and myself obviously), that neither of us condone or want to lessen the stigma and criminality of rape or molestation. We do not want lighter sentences (get real).

We are simply saying that if society continues to progress as it has in the past decades, why is this so hard to consider?