Planetarion Forums

Nodrog · 7 Mar 2004, 06:11

Canada's Future?
by Kenneth HW Hilborn

Was one man a bride and the other a groom?
Or perhaps should we speak of "the groom and the groom"?
Whatever we call them, when tying the knot,
Both Michael and Joseph were puffing their pot.

Soon joining the quest for marital bliss,
Accompanied by many a nuptial kiss,
Will be Abdul Mohammed and his four would-be wives,
For among certain peoples polygamy thrives.

A "liberal" champions the cause of "diversity"
With a zeal that implies ever greater perversity;
But Wisdom responds with a resolute call
For standards and values made common to all.

Should a woman be killed for "dishonouring" kin?
Must one stone an adulteress, to punish her sin?
Should the creed of mad mullahs be permitted to win?
Must we let a Mid-Easterner make a great din
By aiming at air and discharging his gun
On the streets of our cities, merely for fun?

If all cultures are "equal" in merit and worth,
Though the mainstream may view them with anger or mirth,
We must shatter inherited law and tradition,
Ancient bulwarks against a nation's perdition,
And from sea unto sea make multicult reign --
Society's loss and insanity's gain!

lolling

Dace · 7 Mar 2004, 06:18

That's a really shit poem.

Nodrog · 7 Mar 2004, 06:21

I thought it was really good actually, although I obviously disagree with the content.

Qdeathstar · 7 Mar 2004, 06:45

so you saying that two men should be able to get married?

Thats wrong. Its not about religion, or fear, or the fact that they are gay. It has to do with Marriage.

Marriage is not simply a contract between to people and the state. It has ALWAYS been more than that. Throught history, from the earliest times, Marriage has ALWAYS involved a man and women.

A lot of the gay community enjoys mulitiple partners, even while they are in a commited relationship. Marriage is a sanctiful thing. Watering it down to money, or a word is wrong. Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as more. IF you want a man and a man to marry, by definition, based on historic events, ITS NOT MARRIAGE. If the Gay's were (like they say) worried about being ::equal:: then they should be happy with contracts. Marriage has always been defined between a man and a women. YOU might gain benefits from being married, but what marriage is hasnt changed in its basic form.

I dont care if the gays want to united, but that can be done w/ civil unions and contracts so we dont make a mockery of the instituion of marriage. Thats really unpleasant.

Tactitus · 7 Mar 2004, 07:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Marriage is not simply a contract between to people and the state.

I don't see that the state is adding anything to the equation. If the state ceased to exist, I'd still consider myself married.

Qdeathstar · 7 Mar 2004, 07:30

Yes i know tacticus, but some of teh people who want to support gay marriages are saying that ALL marriage is is a contract between two people and the state.

Nodrog · 7 Mar 2004, 07:43

I wasnt wanting this to be a debate about gay marriage, I just wanted to share a poem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

so you saying that two men should be able to get married?

Thats wrong. Its not about religion, or fear, or the fact that they are gay. It has to do with Marriage.

Marriage is not simply a contract between to people and the state. It has ALWAYS been more than that. Throught history, from the earliest times, Marriage has ALWAYS involved a man and women.

http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.shtml
http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?EPrimeLanguage

Anyway, if we have civil unions, whats to stop some 'rogue' group deciding to marry gays anyway? Or gays just deciding to marry themselves? If the state is only recognising unions, what is the difference between a 'real' heterosexual marriage, and 2 men who get a friend to marry them, and declare that they are husband and husband? Is it going to be illegal for a homosexual to call a man his spouse or something?

Phang · 7 Mar 2004, 10:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Marriage is not simply a contract between to people and the state. It has ALWAYS been more than that. Throught history, from the earliest times, Marriage has ALWAYS involved a man and women.

Throughout history people were burned for practising witchcraft. Throughout history, black people and women couldn't vote. Those were historical definitions and yet we changed those definitions because we all realised how stupid we were being. Or do you plan to bring the Bible in to support your argument?

Quote:

A lot of the gay community enjoys mulitiple partners, even while they are in a commited relationship.

Thank you for your insight. It's great to see that gay people as a community are held to far stricter standards than everyone else. Oh, and you're utterly utterly wrong incidentally.

Quote:

Marriage is a sanctiful thing. Watering it down to money, or a word is wrong.

Well, if you talk about 'watering it down to a word' you are obviously implying that gay relationships are less comitted or loving than heterosexual relationships and that doesn't sound like the best springboard for an opinion on anything. And on the money front? One has to assume once more that you oppose tax breaks and suchlike for married couples. Do you?

Quote:

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as more. IF you want a man and a man to marry, by definition, based on historic events, ITS NOT MARRIAGE.

see above. Oh, and capitalising something doesn't make you correct by the way.

Quote:

If the Gay's were (like they say) worried about being ::equal:: then they should be happy with contracts.

Uh, no. You see, for two things to be ::equl:: they have to be the same. The "contracts" are not this. Rather, thay are displays of the way gay people are viewed as lesser beings by those jolly people responsible.

Marriage has always been defined between a man and a women. YOU might gain benefits from being married, but what marriage is hasnt changed in its basic form.

Quote:

I dont care if the gays want to united, but that can be done w/ civil unions and contracts so we dont make a mockery of the instituion of marriage. Thats really unpleasant.

Oh yes, 'making a mockery'. It doesn't matter how many times the argument is made, but it's still valid: Rising divorce rates, Vegas marriages, Britney Spears getting drunk, married and divoreced in less than 24 hours...these are what make a mockery of the "institution of marriage", not the random decision to overwrite the Constiution to serve your own bigoted ends and play for reelection by other bigots.

Dante Hicks · 7 Mar 2004, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

A lot of the gay community enjoys mulitiple partners, even while they are in a commited relationship.

And of course, this has never happened with hetrosexuals?

Plus, since you seem to be appealing to history and little else - what about cultures where (historically) one man has been able to marry more than one woman? Is their historical experience valid, or are we ignoring them?

(I know, I know, DNFTT)

MrL_JaKiri · 7 Mar 2004, 11:31

Another well informed opinion there.

sayonara · 7 Mar 2004, 13:06

I was going to yell "strawman" at the poem but it seems like there's little point now.

Qdeathstar · 7 Mar 2004, 15:29

THere a differnece between thinks that hurt a person physically and economicly (like slavery, and not having the right to vote), and just wanting to piss people off. Thats, in my opinion, what some homosexuals want, to bring attention to themselves, to make themselves feel important. I have three homosexual freinds, all of which are against gay- marriage because they know there is a difference between a man/man marriage and a women/male marriage.

ANd as far as all those :: other :: cases of Mockery.

You get one marriage a life. (asside from widowship, OFC)

IF you even attempt to get married again = imprisoned for 364 days or community service for the same ammount of time.

IF its an abusive relationship, and you can prove it, then you have to go to treatement, after that, perhaps you will get your marriage back

ANd we put an end to vegas-weddings, At least a 6months engagement.

You cant get married before the age of 28.

Problem solved..

NExt, no im not going to use the bible, because thats probly a work of fiction. But i will say, that you making a false-anology compariing marriage to not being able to vote, and witchcraft. But your liberals. Cant expect you to understand.

In addition, i will say that ofcourse, there are logical errors in arguments that are against gay-wedding. Becuase you cant give proof why they shouldnt be married, and its a lot easier to show why they can. Its an opinion...

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 7 Mar 2004, 15:34

why does it bother you if gay peolple get married?? I DONT UNDERSTAND!

Qdeathstar · 7 Mar 2004, 15:35

" or are we ignoring them?"

Because it will help my argument, yes.

Qdeathstar · 7 Mar 2004, 15:39

why does it bother you if gay peolple get married?? I DONT UNDERSTAND!

"kiss the bride"

What bride?

In addition to that... Are they going to ave man-man wedding figurines? That will be a bit disturbing..

Also, i dont want to see an reality show "joe millionaire" where other gay ppl will be trying to get in with him.

And the fact that marriage is defined between a man and a women.

ANother thing is, we didnt redefine witchcraft, we just changed its punishment. False anology...And we didnt chage the definition of voting, just who could vote.

BUt as marriage is DEFINED between a man and a woman, we would be changing its definition.

roadrunner_0 · 7 Mar 2004, 15:41

what the hell? seriously mate? you are well off on one

pablissimo · 7 Mar 2004, 15:41

Is he talking crap again? God damn this was the right decision.

Qdeathstar · 7 Mar 2004, 15:44

(possible troll)

But i do want to know.

What atmosphere created so many liberals in one spot.

Phang · 7 Mar 2004, 15:45

You know, I'm not sure whether I hate you or pity you, but either way I hope you die soon.

Qdeathstar · 7 Mar 2004, 15:46

pity me plz. You know, it would have been more comical if you had said "i hope you shall die soon"

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 7 Mar 2004, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

BUt as marriage is DEFINED between a man and a woman, we would be changing its definition.

you do realise that definitions can, have and will change dont you?

your arguments are the WORST arguments i have ever seen on this forum. FACT!

Deepflow · 7 Mar 2004, 15:47

knowledge

Qdeathstar · 7 Mar 2004, 15:48

you guys dont get it do you. Werent those reasons awfully superficial?

No bride/the plastic ppl on top of the cake/reality show.... come on folks :-/

Deepflow · 7 Mar 2004, 15:50

so, youre saying you ARE a troll now?

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 7 Mar 2004, 15:51

oh i see :/

naughty

Qdeathstar · 7 Mar 2004, 15:52

it is sunday... i appologize, and if yo perfer, i will delete my posts on this threads...

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 7 Mar 2004, 15:55

nah, i dont mind looking stupid

Vermillion · 8 Mar 2004, 17:00

So this is what you do for fun on Sunday when bored?

Immature little twerp.

Snurx · 8 Mar 2004, 22:25

Bigot. ****ing bigot. This is insane. I mean, you completely warp everything, and fit them into your little world, and when somebody chooses to live life the way they choose, and call themselfs what they choose, you say that it's wrong? Who the hell gave you the power to judge over other people's lifes, when they live in harmony with what they are? Who the hell gave you the right to spew your filth?

Why should marriage be between man and woman? This attitude is absurd. Marriage is (for many people, straight or gay) the ultimate way of showing the world that they love eachother, no matter if they are same-sex or not.

And those "laws" or whatever you said should be implemented. Hey guy, wake up, we are actually not in Fedual times anymore! People should be allowed to do what they please to, don't you think? Marriage means different things to different people, why should everybody follow your moralistic and dogmatic ways and views? "Oh no, somebody "misused" my old traditions, I think im going to cry now!"

If you want to spew that facist propaganda, go to stormfront or whatever.

Nodrog · 8 Mar 2004, 22:28

Well technically marriage is a demonstration to those around you, so it does kind of invite them to make a judgement.

Dante Hicks · 8 Mar 2004, 22:39

I thinking judging the relationships/people you know is a little different from bland generalisations about all fags / ******s / whatever.

Nodrog · 8 Mar 2004, 22:41

Well yeah, but the "who gave you the power to judge?!?!?" cliche is still one of the most moronic things ever.

Dante Hicks · 8 Mar 2004, 22:43

Yeah true. I think there's a whole book ranting against that argument.

Nodrog · 8 Mar 2004, 22:45

Atlas Shrugged?

queball · 8 Mar 2004, 23:35

Code:

Marriage vows in an objectivist church would probably run along the
lines of "Do you promise to attempt to dominate and subdue this woman
until such time as you grow bored?"  "Maybe."  "Close enough.  And do
you promise to applaud this man`s production until such time as you
find someone with a bigger ... corporation?"  "Whatever."  "By the
power vested in me by having scammed you guys out of a marriage
license fee, I now pronounce you man and appendage.  May you be
unencumbered by small persons."

http://victoria.tc.ca/int-grps/books...v/bkatshrg.rvw

Phang · 8 Mar 2004, 23:38

<3 qbll

Nodrog · 8 Mar 2004, 23:54

You've been waiting to post that for a while havent you

Marilyn Manson · 8 Mar 2004, 23:58

Buggery should, by it's nature, be subversive. I detest this drive to force the establishment to find everything acceptable.

Phang · 9 Mar 2004, 00:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Buggery should, by it's nature, be subversive. I detest this drive to force the establishment to find everything acceptable.

entering through the back door sounds very much an MI5 sort of activity to me. Not neccessarily subversive but HIGHLY top secret.

Qdeathstar · 9 Mar 2004, 00:56

calm down man, and read what i said later :-/

On sundays I do occasionally troll... only on sundays.

Marilyn Manson · 9 Mar 2004, 01:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

On sundays I do occasionally troll... only on sundays.

You're sinning against God.

Qdeathstar · 9 Mar 2004, 01:03

I dont believe in Him.

Marilyn Manson · 9 Mar 2004, 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

I dont believe in Him.

God doesn't really care.

Leshy · 9 Mar 2004, 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

IF you even attempt to get married again = imprisoned for 364 days or community service for the same ammount of time.

IF its an abusive relationship, and you can prove it, then you have to go to treatement, after that, perhaps you will get your marriage back

Sweet jesus, have you just gotten out of a 200-year cryogenic stasis or what?!

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 9 Mar 2004, 01:42

come on leshy, i already made myself look stupid in order to save everyone else (i suppose im a bit like jesus in that sense

). he was trolling.

Leshy · 9 Mar 2004, 01:48

That's a relief. I guess.

*pokes the_dastardly_chihuahua in the side with a spear*

Snurx · 9 Mar 2004, 01:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leshy

Sweet jesus, have you just gotten out of a 200-year cryogenic stasis or what?!

Fox News, making people smarter since whenever

acropolis · 9 Mar 2004, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I wasnt wanting this to be a debate about gay marriage, I just wanted to share a poem

good poem. I especially liked the way the lines rhymed with each other!

"Groom" rhymes with "groom", who knew.

Anyway, for content I agreed with the argument but I thought it led to the opposite conclusion

If all cultures were equal, there would be no point in changing ours, hence no point in making gay marriage legal. But then it goes and claims all cultures aren't equal.

And it uses the example of middle eastern cultures again and again, cultures that are really anti-fag. If anti-fag cultures are worse than ours, why would we want to be more like them?

They should have used the example of those pot smoking fag lving hippies in the Netherlands.

Cynical Oracle · 10 Mar 2004, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

God doesn't really care.

God doesn't read this forum!

Mirai · 11 Mar 2004, 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

God doesn't read this forum!

Oh but I do.