Skip to content | Skip to navigation
I was just curious to hear others views on the new act passed by parliment allowing gay marriages. I am a canadian but i'm in Mississippi for the summer so i haven't really been there to hear what's really going on but i've definetly gotten some rednecks points and would like to hear some more both pro and con.
I was just curious to hear others views on the new act passed by parliment allowing gay marriages.
While there are some couples under a normal marriage that cannot procreate, these are an exception and not the rule. Same-sex couples are never capable of procreatingw aside from grabbing DNA and doing in-vetero fertilization (which is independant from marriage.)
I'm all for giving the same privilages to same-sex partners that "normal" married couples have. However, this will ultimatly degrade the value of marrige to something that's either insignificant or a liability.
Here's something I wrote a little while ago, part of a play. A satire, obviously.
Radio: (the end of a commercial, then a brief pause) ... John Hunter here, back to wrap up today’s edition of The Huntin Season. It’s been a great show today folks, and to finish up, I want to dialogue about a par-tic-u-lar subject, and that is the phenomenon of homosexuality. Perhaps good people if you have your children listening to this right now you ought to usher them off to elsewhere, for this is quite an uh-dult topic of discussion. Now, never mind the fact that the holy bahble, the words of God hisself commands us not to respect and tolerate homosexuality; forget for a moment the horrible pressure that it puts on us all, for men are no longer allowed to be manly, and women must now act like whores just to keep all of us from going queer. (Building up intensity) Forget for just a moment the unholy spreading of body parts and furthermore the spreading diseases and plagues as a result of those previous spreadings!! (toned back down after a brief pause) And consider their latest assault onto one of our righteous institutions. Recently a judge in Canada granted a pair of lesbians a divorce from the bonds of holy matrimony with which they were bonded a short time earlier. My fellow decent citizens, just how far are we going to let this go!? A divorce is defined by our laws and by our holy lord god as the dissolution of the bonds of holy matrimony that are held between a man and a woman! I ask you, as a man who has been divorced from altogether three women, how can we allow this sacred separation be applied to couplings of the same sex?! Well, our far-left Liberal government might start whibbling and whining about “rights” and “freedoms”. But what about our right to bear judgement on others? What about our right to decide what kind of people will make for a better society for our children? What about our right to live in a simpler, happier way that does not include having to compromise with the needs of those who’s choices are different than ours? These are the questions that the good people of this nation must begin to ask once again of their leaders and mayors and ministers. We can do it my friends, together we can make a country that is just and holy and good, but we must act swiftly, and without compromise. (Brief pause) That’s all for today folks, join me next time when I will have William D. Loncort, Phd, a professor of philosophy down at the university as a guest. Until then, happy hunting, and God bless North America.
"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford
Jul 22, 2005 06:57 # 37341
Dude, are you smoking crack? I see rainbows.
*sings*This little freak flag of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine... :-)
Er. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, being a bi-sexual. You must have not pressed the 'sarcasm' icon, just as null suggested. Otherwise...very funny.
My mind is made up...not like my bed, which is a mess.
... ouch. Head on collision of idea trains. If I may make a suggestion, don't let this get out of hand. Debates on this subject always seem to get heated beyond recognition, and I can't truly understand why. It affects no-one except a small (albeit vocal) minority. I don't buy the whole moral degredation bit. The stability of your beliefs should not depend on the freedom to shun others.
And hey, if what they're saying is right and homosexuality is genetic, allowing people to marry out of the closet (as opposed to forcing them to be straight and have kids) means that eventually the homo gene will be eliminated via natural selection.
(That IS sarcasm... sort of. Technically, it could happen.)
"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford
This post was edited by Bunk on Jul 22, 2005.
If marriage is solely for the purpose of reproduction, then, what would you say to heterosexual married couples who use birth control? Should they not allowed to be married?
I'll give you a reason why it's right: because it's ethical. Allowing marriage between heterosexual couples, but not homosexual ones is simply an outrage and should make everyone rethink the traditional dogma and beliefs that society upholds.