Gay marraige and the end of the world

Where does it say in there that the government had tried/ was trying to take away the tax exempt status of religious institutions that refused to perfrom gay marriages? This quote from the Prime Minister's address is refuting the people/religous fanatics who claimed that the government would overrule religious freedoms and force them to perform gay marriages. Nowhere is the removal of tax exempt status mentioned in the prime minister's statement.You have yet to provide any proof that the government of Canada (or a portion thereof) had tried/is trying to remove the tax exempt status of religious bodies that refused to perfrom gay marriages. Again, can you provide any support for this assertion? Can you name the politician/political party that tried to have this done? Do you have any knowledge of how the Canadian government works? Do you have any clue as to the history of the passing of the same-sex marriage law? What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? This "silly sidebar" was started by you promoting a falsehood about Canada. It will continue until you retract your claim or provide some support for it. Protecting their right to beleif is not the issue. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that churches are free to marry whoever they choose and refuse marriage to whoever they choose, the church's rights have never been in doubt.

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

So, to tell you the truth, just how many couples out there get themselves altered right off the bat, and say we are never having kids?

​

That is not too common. Plus, I also don't really agree with it, in the sense of calling it a marraige. I think it is a bit on the selfish side to take control of your own body, cut your organs and say no more.

---

Selfish?There are millions of starving people already here on the planet.The United States consumes a hugely disproportionate portion of the world's resources.You think it's selfish to bring even more people, particularly Americans, into the world to use up more resources when the environment is already straining to the breaking point to support human population growth?We reproduce too much already; it is the height of selfishness to be in the richest country in the world and have a bunch of natural children instead of adopting unwanted children who are already here and in need of parents.AbE: Are you really saying that a marriage shouldn't be called a marriage if people decide to not ever have children?Since when is a marriage defined by the existence or not of children?I thought a marriage was between two people who are in a committed relationship?Again, you thoughtlessly insult every person who chooses to remain childless.How dare you?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-14-2006 05:30 PM

quote:

---

Really schraf, the fact that you may feel insulted doesn't make it a fact that I insulted you.

---

True.However, Riverrat, this is what you said:

quote:

---

To me, a family is all about trying to make one, having one, and then caring for one. There is something special about a child that lives in a happy home, that has his/her natural mother and father.

​

This may or may not be fantasy land I'm talking about, and statistics will say that this is not the norm, but it should be the goal, and it should represent who and what we are as a race of beings.

---

So according to you, any marriage that does not fit the above description is not "representative of humanity".A family that has no children doesn't have the proper "goal" according to you, and it isn't really a true family, correct?Yes, riverrat, you were very insulting to me and to Zhimbo, and to every other "childless by choice" couple in the world.

quote:

---

The fact is that your marriage IS different from one who chooses to have children.

---

Of course it's different, genious.What it isn't is LESS-THAN or INFERIOR to any other marriage.How dare you say that it is?Just who do you think you are?

quote:

---

You do not wish to care for children, only yourselves.

---

You only wish to breed like rats in your arrogance and pathetic need to have your fragile ego petted.You are populating the planet with more people that it cannot support, sucking more resources away from the starving people who are already here.

quote:

---

That is the fact by your own admission, and not an insult. If you are insulted, maybe it is because you feel you are doing something wrong?

---

I am insulted because you blatantly told me that my marriage isn't worthy or even "real".Apologize.

My point was that it was an issue, one that the Canandian government felt it should defend.I do not remember who started it, but I believe it was someone in the governement.Maybe i was wrong for saying governement, but that doesn't falsify that it was/is an issue.It is also off-topic now.You are nit-picking to try and make all my statements look false when the truth of the matter is that it remains an issue.

So you have no support for your assertion. Your statement was false. Since when is correcting a lie "nit-picking"? You have yet to show that it was an issue to begin with, nevermind show that it is currently an issue.

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Again, can you please condense your replys, you appear to be flying off the handle.You go crazy on one reply, then in the next change your stance.First you say I am insulting you, then you back it up again, then you agree that it is not a fact that I am insulting you, make up your mind. Now, if you has read through all my posts, and looked at them rationally and logically, then replied, we wouldn't have to go through all this pain and suffering of calling each other names.The fact that you appear so angry at what I am saying is dishearting. How does humanity all of a sudden come into play here?
When did I ever mention the word humanity. You can retract that statement. again, putting words in my mouth, I explained myself quite clearly. No, you got insulted. The fact is that if everyone thought like you, you wouldn't be here. The sarcastic camments have no place here.I never said it was inferior, I said it was different, and then you backed me up, thank you. Now this is an insult, clearly. I hope an admin steps in now.Yep, you got me all figured out, no need to discuss this any more with you. WHAT????????You didn't just say that did you. Way to go, insulting billions of people. They are starving because the earth cannot support them.The earth can support everyone whos here, what are you doing to help?You know, I used to think you were a smart person, but now I am starting to wonder. I am losing respect for you, and your comments.
You just seem angry, and irrational.I am a humble person, and I have stated clearly that my attitude towards all this could very easily be wrong.Yelling at me and calling me names, and insulting me does not reinforce your position on this. Your position is not "the way" or the "right one". If anythin, you are only reinforcing my position, and making me continue to think the way I do.I do not feel anger on the subject, and I do feel compasion towards people whoa re gay, want to get married, but can't.This doesn't make it wrong or right, and neither does your view points.So I'll leave you with this question.
How did you come into existance?

Yes, I gave it to you. If it was a non-issue, then the Prime minister would not have to defend it, end of story.

Nowhere have you provided any evidence that the Canadain government was trying to remove the tax-exempt status from religious institutions that refused to perform gay marriages. I'll remind you of your original unsubstantiated claim from way back in Message 12: Which member of parliment in which political party proposed this law? 1. I never said it was a non-issue. I said that the government is not trying nor has it tried to take away churches tax free status if they refuse to marry gays. That doesn't mean that there aren't citizens or individual members of parliment who share this view.2. The Prime Minister's statement is quoting the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. Before the same-sex marriage legislation was put forth in the House of Commons a draft of the bill was taken to the Supreme Court for their opinion, this was done in order to head off any legal challenges to the legislation after it was passed. The Supreme Court had already ruled that the laws confining marriage to heterosexuals couples was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that they must be changed to allow same-sex marriages. The court reviewed the proposed changes to the legislation that would enable marriages to be granted to homosexual couples and found that it was suitable and did not violate the charter. They also made it clear that religious freedoms were not to be violated and that any religious body would be free to deny marriage to same sex couples. The opinion of the court regarding religious freedoms was a prememptive protection of churches, not brought about because of any immediate threat to their freedom.Of course if you had actually attempted to research the matter instead of blindly swallowing the bigoted propaganda of the enemies of human rights you'd know this already.

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Schraf,Riverrat is presenting a position, and doing so calmly and it seems to me fairly respectfully. If you find the position itself to be disrespectful or insulting, you need to discuss why rationally. If the subject is too insulting or upsetting to discuss more calmly and clearly, then I'd suggest you might want to take a break from replying to the topic.Right now I don't see that the emotion you're exhibiting is contributing to the discussion. Let's cool it and focus on what's being said and explaining how you're making the deductions that you're making.Questions? Comments? Take it to the "General..." thread linked below.

---

quote:

---

How does humanity all of a sudden come into play here?
When did I ever mention the word humanity. You can retract that statement.

---

Here's how:

quote:

---

This may or may not be fantasy land I'm talking about, and statistics will say that this is not the norm, but it should be the goal, and it should represent who and what we are as a race of beings.

---

According to you, all marriages "should" have children, otherwise they do not "represent who and what we are as a race of beings"."What we are as a race of beings" = "humans/humanity".We are humans. The human race. What we are as a race of beings.YOU brought humanity into the discussion, and which marriages, according to you, are worthy of representing "who and what we are as humans".According to you, my marriage doesn't qualify. That is insulting.

quote:

---

again, putting words in my mouth, I explained myself quite clearly.

---

This is what you wrote:

quote:

---

This may or may not be fantasy land I'm talking about, and statistics will say that this is not the norm, but it should be the goal, and it should represent who and what we are as a race of beings.

---

You said it "should" be "the goal" of a family to have children.Says who? You? Since when is it your place to decide these things?

quote:

---

I never said it was inferior,

---

Oh yes you absolutely did!

quote:

---

So, to tell you the truth, just how many couples out there get themselves altered right off the bat, and say we are never having kids?

​

That is not too common. Plus, I also don't really agree with it, in the sense of calling it a marraige.

---

So, a marriage that is childless by choice shouldn't even be called a marriage at all, according to you.You are calling my marriage a sham, a fake, inauthentic.It isn't a "real" marriage according to you because procreation isn't the be all and end all goal.How dare you? Who do you think you are?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-14-2006 07:29 PM

quote:

---

Right now I don't see that the emotion you're exhibiting is contributing to the discussion. Let's cool it and focus on what's being said and explaining how you're making the deductions that you're making.

---

Agreed.Apologies to all.

Ok, your right.But I am not a liar. I did some research, and there is propaganda all over the internet that claims this might happen, but it doesn't come from the governement, but might be a result of laws made by the government.I should have studied that claim better, and then I would have expressed myself better.I think what I am most concerned about anyway, is that it is an issue, and we both agree on that.I apologize for making a technically incorrect ascertion.

Ok, you could explain it that way, if you like. I couldn't agree with you more on that one. I have professed that many times. Yes, what we are as humans includes reproduction. Without it we wouldn't be here.I believe marriage that leads to a family should be protected, and it is different than all other marriages. *sigh*
Again? I never said it doesn't qualify, I said it was different, and techically it is.For the last time, I am not insulting you, just stating facts. I am truely sorry that you feel insulted. Maybe you should examine yourself why anyone as insignificant as myself, a rat on an internet forum has the capability in making an honest statement about life and you taking it as an insult. It is my place to decide these things for myself. I am not deciding it for others. I am allowed to believe what I want to believe, and feel right about it. What sense would it be for me to feel wrong about it?Instead of responding the way you are, you should be appreciating my complete honesty on the subject, and then explain to me rationally why I am wrong. OMG schraf. I am not calling it those things, I am just not calling it a marriage.Stop freaking putting words in my mouth, I don't even feel like responding to you, and you are definately reinforcing my beliefs. I am the great rat, the greatest rat that ever lived on this mother earth. All bow to me (if you can get lower than a rat) and worship the sewer I crawl in. It is from down here that I gain a better than average perspective of what is going on up there, and you humans stink to high heaven.Oh, and stop flushing your tampons down the toliet, it stinks.You didn't answer my question.Just what brought you into existance?

quote:

---

Yes, what we are as humans includes reproduction. Without it we wouldn't be here.

---

So what? Without opposable thumbs and upright locomotion, we would have never become Homo Sapiens Sapiens

quote:

---

I believe marriage that leads to a family should be protected, and it is different than all other marriages.

---

You mean it should be protected because it is better, more important, and more special than other marriages, is that correct?

quote:

---

I never said it doesn't qualify,

---

Yes, you did:

quote:

---

This may or may not be fantasy land I'm talking about, and statistics will say that this is not the norm, but it should be the goal, and it should represent who and what we are as a race of beings.

---

According to you, all marriages "should" have children, otherwise they do not "represent who and what we are as a race of beings".So, are you now changing your qualifications for marriages that may, according to you, "represent who and what we are as a race of beings" to include childless marriages?You said it "should" be "the goal" of a family to have children.
Says who? You? Since when is it your place to decide these things?

quote:

---

It is my place to decide these things for myself.

---

Of course it is.

quote:

---

I am not deciding it for others.

---

But you are making broad proclamations about marriage as an institution and what you deem to be a valid purpose or goal of a marriage in general.Just as you have the right to your opinion, I have the right to mine, and your opinion on these matters are highly insulting and offensive to me.Remember, this is within a thread which discusses the fact that gay people do not share the right to marry that heteros do, which has now spawned this discussion of your opinion of the validity of "childless by choice" marriages.

quote:

---

I am allowed to believe what I want to believe, and feel right about it. What sense would it be for me to feel wrong about it?

---

And I am allowed to take insult and offense at what I deem your insulting and offensive statements about the kind of marriage and life I choose to have.So, a marriage that is childless by choice shouldn't even be called a marriage at all, according to you.

quote:

---

OMG schraf. I am not calling it those things, I am just not calling it a marriage.

---

What would you call it, then, if you deny that my marriage is a "real" one?An "unmarriage"? A "non-marriage"? A "minimarriage"? A "lesser marriage"?I am simply astounded that you cannot see how insulting you are being right now.How dare you declare that my marriage isn't "real"?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-14-2006 10:21 PM

It appears Schraf that RiverRat's real view of marriage is that we, being base animals, are only here to reproduce our kind. We are not a bit more than rats themselves that must breed prolifically to feed the many predators that eat them.He doesn't see that a marriage can be more than the mating of beasts in order to breed. He doesn't see that humans can be something different because of our sentience.