NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/012905focCanada.htm

Ooh, they must be getting really scared. Once Canada gets (federal) gay marriages US conservatives won't have a leg to stand on because nothing they claim is going to happen will happen, just as it hasn't in the European countries that have gay marriage laws. Canada being so close, they just won't be able to dismiss it and they know it.

Good luck to them. It's not easy defying the constitution of a foreign country.

But what does this have to do with the United States?

I might just wave a Canadian flag when you guys help us gain more civil freedoms.

Good luck to them. It's not easy defying the constitution of a foreign country.

But what does this have to do with the United States?

Exactly. What does this have to do with the US? Why are US conservatives trying to meddle in Canadian affaires? Because they know that it won't stop at Canada. And it has them crapping their pants.

Exactly. What does this have to do with the US? Why are US conservatives trying to meddle in Canadian affaires? Because they know that it won't stop at Canada. And it has them crapping their pants.
I mean; this sort of equality is built into our Constitution, so our courts have no choice but to rule in favour. It's not the same in the States.

I can sense their hysteria growing as the bill makes it's way through parliament.
This really will cause all of their paranoid excuses for bigotry to crumble when (newsflash!) it's shown that allowing gays to marry won't lead to bestiality and increased pedophilia.
Or a dramatic surge of divorce for heterosexuals.

They'll have to tell the truth, namely, they want to legislate morality cuz they think it's ickey.

I mean; this sort of equality is built into our Constitution, so our courts have no choice but to rule in favour. It's not the same in the States.

No, it isn't, but so far they have been able to scare US voters into voting for state gay marriage bans. They know they won't be able to do so anymore.

i dont suppose you would consider KEEPING them. kind of a trade off for all the old canadians in florida this time of year.....

please?

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/012905focCanada.htm

Ooh, they must be getting really scared. Once Canada gets (federal) gay marriages US conservatives won't have a leg to stand on because nothing they claim is going to happen will happen, just as it hasn't in the European countries that have gay marriage laws. Canada being so close, they just won't be able to dismiss it and they know it.

Well if they're not happy with it, they can just suck it up and NOT move in Canada. We wouldn't want them in our neighbourhoods anyway. Let them stay in central jesusland and keep discriminating against gays, blacks, arabs, women or whoever takes their fancy. But they should know just because they do and think it's right doesn't mean we have to agree with them, or even care that they're scandalized.

Any american who supports equal rights for everyone is welcome in our nice country though.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/012905focCanada.htm

Ooh, they must be getting really scared. Once Canada gets (federal) gay marriages US conservatives won't have a leg to stand on because nothing they claim is going to happen will happen, just as it hasn't in the European countries that have gay marriage laws. Canada being so close, they just won't be able to dismiss it and they know it.
The sooner people knock off this anti-gay BS, the better. :)

No, it isn't, but so far they have been able to scare US voters into voting for state gay marriage bans. They know they won't be able to do so anymore.
Our constitution guartees no discrimination based on gender.

And why do events in a foreign country scare people in the United States?

i dont suppose you would consider KEEPING them. kind of a trade off for all the old canadians in florida this time of year.....

please?
If it was just me, I'd agree in a flash.

i dont suppose you would consider KEEPING them. kind of a trade off for all the old canadians in florida this time of year.....

please?


Hahahaha! No.

Nice try though. :)

I'm assuming you mean the evangelists.

And why do events in a foreign country scare people in the United States?

You haven't been following the debate, have you?

Conservatives in the US have basically been saying that if gay marriages are allowed, heterosexual marriages and families will crumble and society will fall into chaos. Once that doesn't happen in Canada, well, you get the picture.

some one send dosbon this: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Reaper2k3/suicideoption.jpg

And why do events in a foreign country scare people in the United States?
Because the success of another nation on this issue directly threatens the future credibility of their entire political agenda.
Captain Obvious to the rescue!

You haven't been following the debate, have you?

Conservatives in the US have basically been saying that if gay marriages are allowed, heterosexual marriages and families will crumble and society will fall into chaos. Once that doesn't happen in Canada, well, you get the picture.
No, I don't get the picture. The laws and events in a foreign country should have no effect on anyone in the United States.

Because the success of another nation on this issue directly threatens the future credibility of their entire political agenda.
Captain Obvious to the rescue!
Do people in the United States realise that the marriages talked about for gays in Canada are civil marriages?

No, I don't get the picture. The laws and events in a foreign country should have no effect on anyone in the United States.
Please Google foreign affairs or perhaps globalization.
This isn't 1827.

No, I don't get the picture. The laws and events in a foreign country should have no effect on anyone in the United States.

To make it really, really simple so even you understand:

US conservatives claim something (doom) will happen if gay marriages are allowed. Once that doesn't happen in Canada, they won't be able to claim it anymore. Thus, and this is the really obvious part you have been missing, they won't be able to scare people in the US with it anymore. Therefore they want to stop gay marriages in Canada, because when people in the US see that it practically changes nothing for anyone except gays, they won't be so hostile to gay marriage anymore and gay marriage will have an easier time being accepted in the US.

Read that. Repeat. Repeat again. Get it now?

You haven't been following the debate, have you?

Conservatives in the US have basically been saying that if gay marriages are allowed, heterosexual marriages and families will crumble and society will fall into chaos. Once that doesn't happen in Canada, well, you get the picture.

Newflash doc, byt the way: it's been happening for a whole two years now in seven out of the thirtheen provinces and territories of Canada(those seven totalize about 3/4 of Canada's population, btw).

There have yet to be mass annulments of heterosexual marriages, poeple haven't been marrying their childrens and/or pets in incestuous bestial polygamy unions of unholiness. And we haven't been smittent by holy thunder yet.

All in all, it's been going on for months and years, and nobody seems to give a damn except the catholic church. Who really shouldn't be complaining, since they DO NOT HAVE TO CELEBRATE THOSE DAMN MARRIAGES. Seriously, please, no more religion in politics. I thought we had taken care of that decades ago.

Do people in the United States realise that the marriages talked about for gays in Canada are civil marriages?

Umm, that's not the case.

or send him this
http://maddox.xmission.com/crybaby.gif

Do people in the United States realise that the marriages talked about for gays in Canada are civil marriages?
I do. And maybe the US conservatives are nervous for the same reasons that Canadian marijuana decriminalization freaks them out.

Please Google foreign affairs or perhaps globalization.
This isn't 1827.
hmm... I googled 'marriage 1827' and found a lot of information about William Blake. Was that what you intended?

Newflash doc, byt the way: it's been happening for a whole two years now in seven out of the thirtheen provinces and territories of Canada(those seven totalize about 3/4 of Canada's population, btw).

I am fully aware of what has been going on in the different provinces.

Hahahaha! No.

Nice try though. :)

I'm assuming you mean the evangelists.
yes yes i did

we can throw in a few neocons to sweeten the deal....


PLEEEEEEESE

I find this vastly amusing.

Bloody missionaries just can't keep their big warty noses out of everyone else's business.

To make it really, really simple so even you understand:

US conservatives claim something (doom) will happen if gay marriages are allowed. Once that doesn't happen in Canada, they won't be able to claim it anymore. Thus, and this is the really obvious part you have been missing, they won't be able to scare people in the US with it anymore. Therefore they want to stop gay marriages in Canada, because when people in the US see that it practically changes nothing for anyone except gays, they won't be so hostile to gay marriage anymore and gay marriage will have an easier time being accepted in the US.

Read that. Repeat. Repeat again. Get it now?
Okay, but I just don't understand why US conservatives might claim doom if gay marriage happens in a foreign country.

Well, it's about time that someone invaded Canada.

Umm, that's not the case.
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that it is the case.

Religions have rights in Canada.

Okay, but I just don't understand why US conservatives might claim doom if gay marriage happens in a foreign country.

Ugh, I give up. No offense, but you really need to start using your brain.

hmm... I googled 'marriage 1827' and found a lot of information about William Blake. Was that what you intended?
Actually, you did far better than expected.

Umm, that's not the case.

Yes, it is. It's only civil marriage that's being debated on.

Freedom of religion is also protected in the charter. That means that, even though civil marriage WILL be open to same-sex couples, but churches remain(as they always had) the right to decide wheter they celebrate a marriage or not. Just like how you can get married a second time after a divorce according to civil law, even though the church may refuse to celebrate it because you got divorced in the first place.

That means the catholic church can continue not liking gays and lesbos, while some other churches(Such as the United Church of Canada, and some anglican and protestant denomination) will chose to celebrate religious gay marriages. Which, in my opinion, is better than having the Catholic church impose its view and trample all other churche's liberty of religion in choosing whatever sacraments they provide for their followers.

Ugh, I give up. No offense, but you really need to start using your brain.
Well, maybe you can explain it to me? Please?

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that it is the case.

Religions have rights in Canada.

Yes, but the Canadian government recognises the marriage contract; not the ceremony. If gays find a church that wants to wed them, they'll have the same sort of marriage as anyone else who gets married in a church, which, coincidentally, is the same sort of marriage anyone who doesn't get married in a church has. :rolleyes:

Well, maybe you can explain it to me? Please?
Nobody knows why the conservatives claim doom if gay marriages are allowed. They just do, and that's their main argument against allowing it in the US. Canada will show that this isn't the case, no doom will happen, and we'll all be blissfully, blissfully happy. Or something like that, I think.

Well, it's about time that someone invaded Canada.

Good luck with that.

I mean, it's all well and good to INVADE, but which of your good republican voting, gay hating, neocon soldiers are you prepared to sacrifice? Because, you know, after a couple of weeks or months in this liberal lala-land where gays can kiss on the streets and marry, where hippies hug trees, where women are(in theory) paid as much as men for the same workload, and where everybody has a right to free healthcare, they'll be going crazy.

Yes, it is. It's only civil marriage that's being debated on.

Again - there is no other kind of marriage in the eyes of the law. Sure churches may not be forced to wed gay people, but the gay people who do wed (in a church or not) will have the same marriage as any straight couple.

Well, maybe you can explain it to me? Please?

They claim doom in the US. Once gay marriage doesn't cause doom in Canada, they won't have a leg to stand on claiming it in the US.

Nobody knows why the conservatives claim doom if gay marriages are allowed. They just do, and that's their main argument against allowing it in the US. Canada will show that this isn't the case, no doom will happen, and we'll all be blissfully, blissfully happy. Or something like that, I think.
My point, though, is that Canada is an entirely different set of laws, and there is no reason why the law allowed in Canada should impact the law in the United States at all.

My point, though, is that Canada is an entirely different set of laws, and there is no reason why the law allowed in Canada should impact the law in the United States at all.

"No man is an island."

Again - there is no other kind of marriage in the eyes of the law. Sure churches may not be forced to wed gay people, but the gay people who do wed (in a church or not) will have the same marriage as any straight couple.

I do know that. I'm just putting emphasis on the CIVIL part, because some people seem to think churches and religion have something to do with it, or that somehow we should give a damn about their opinion.

After all, I've NEVER heard of anybody objecting to gay MARRIAGE on a basis other than religion. EVER. I've heard people who weren't comfortable with gays, even homophobes, but none of them ever had anything to object that wasn't based on religion.

(Of course, I'm disregarding the sheer stupidity of claims such as the beaten-to-death topic of the "slippery slope")

Okay, but I just don't understand why US conservatives might claim doom if gay marriage happens in a foreign country.

Well, Canada's got more guns per household than we do.. and they're smart enough not to shoot each other...

So maybe they're worried that there'll be a New Sparta, with armies of Gay Mountie Married Couples rifling down the South?

My point, though, is that Canada is an entirely different set of laws, and there is no reason why the law allowed in Canada should impact the law in the United States at all.
It won't impact the law, but it will impact the people. Well, it *may* impact the people. After it's shown unture that homosexuals being allowed to marry will bring about the end of civilization, immanentize the eschaton, or whatever else, the conservatives won't have much of a leg to stand on anymore, and will have to come up with something new against gay marriage.

All in all, thank god for Canada. (no pun intended)

Yes, but the Canadian government recognises the marriage contract; not the ceremony. If gays find a church that wants to wed them, they'll have the same sort of marriage as anyone else who gets married in a church, which, coincidentally, is the same sort of marriage anyone who doesn't get married in a church has. :rolleyes:
The legislation being introduced by the federal government guarantees that churches will not be obligated to perform marriages that are contradictory to their beliefs.

Again - there is no other kind of marriage in the eyes of the law. Sure churches may not be forced to wed gay people, but the gay people who do wed (in a church or not) will have the same marriage as any straight couple.
No church in Canada will be forced to perform a marriage ceremony.

I do know that. I'm just putting emphasis on the CIVIL part, because some people seem to think churches and religion have something to do with it, or that somehow we should give a damn about their opinion.

After all, I've NEVER heard of anybody objecting to gay MARRIAGE on a basis other than religion. EVER. I've heard people who weren't comfortable with gays, even homophobes, but none of them ever had anything to object that wasn't based on religion.

(Of course, I'm disregarding the sheer stupidity of claims such as the beaten-to-death topic of the "slippery slope")

But that's just the thing. The religious marriage doesn't exist in the eyes of the law. If you don't sign that marriage licence your state/government requires you to sign, you won't be married. The non-civil marriage just simply doesn't exist as far as society is concerned. Hence it is not discussed, apart from maybe what right churches who have the right to wed people (again - even churches perform the civil marriage ceremony, otherwise there is no marriage) have to discriminate. And that's where freedom of religion might step in; in the case of being able to deny a service that is offered to others, and not the marriage itself.

My point, though, is that Canada is an entirely different set of laws, and there is no reason why the law allowed in Canada should impact the law in the United States at all.

The law in Canada does not have any direct impact on the law in the US.

What they've been trying to tell you is that the legislation will not have impact: the effects of the legislation will. Once the legislation passes(officially, since it's been going on for two years now), it's going to be mediatized. Poeple will know gays are marrying in Canada. And nothing negative (i.e doom, chaos, the collapse of Canadian society) will occur.

Seeing that, those americans will start to wonder why allowing gays to marry in the US would cause doom, chaos and the collapse of society when it did nothing of the sort in Canada. They won't be as scared of it, and they probably will stop to care about wheter gays can marry or not. Which may pave the way to eventual (read: a couple of years) an actual AMERICAN law that could allow same-sex marriage in the US.

Now if you don't get it, I don't think anyone can state it clearer than that, so just drop the subject :P (No offense intended)

eh, that site seems kind of biased if you ask me.

The legislation being introduced by the federal government guarantees that churches will not be obligated to perform marriages that are contradictory to their beliefs.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with being able to discriminate to whom you offer a service - in this case a ceremony.

The law in Canada does not have any direct impact on the law in the US.

What they've been trying to tell you is that the legislation will not have impact: the effects of the legislation will. Once the legislation passes(officially, since it's been going on for two years now), it's going to be mediatized. Poeple will know gays are marrying in Canada. And nothing negative (i.e doom, chaos, the collapse of Canadian society) will occur.

Seeing that, those americans will start to wonder why allowing gays to marry in the US would cause doom, chaos and the collapse of society when it did nothing of the sort in Canada. They won't be as scared of it, and they probably will stop to care about wheter gays can marry or not. Which may pave the way to eventual (read: a couple of years) an actual AMERICAN law that could allow same-sex marriage in the US.

Now if you don't get it, I don't think anyone can state it clearer than that, so just drop the subject :P (No offense intended)
Well now, how has this same legislation passed in New Zealand two years ago affected the United States? Besides the proximity thing.

eh, that site seems kind of biased if you ask me.

The site is biased, of course. But in what way is the story biased? Both sides' arguments are presented.

But that's just the thing. The religious marriage doesn't exist in the eyes of the law. If you don't sign that marriage licence your state/government requires you to sign, you won't be married. The non-civil marriage just simply doesn't exist as far as society is concerned. Hence it is not discussed, apart from maybe what right churches who have the right to wed people (again - even churches perform the civil marriage ceremony, otherwise there is no marriage) have to discriminate. And that's where freedom of religion might step in; in the case of being able to deny a service that is offered to others, and not the marriage itself.

Which is basically what I've been telling the whole time. Churches have nothing to do with marriage, so to speak: all they do is add some organ playing, prayers and tossing rice on the newlyweds. It's all for the show. And while it may have importance for those believers participating in the ceremony, it is the signing of the legal contract at the end that constitutes the marriage.

I have the impression you seem to thin I'm arguing with you: I'm not. I agree with what you say.

Well now, how has this same legislation passed in New Zealand two years ago affected the United States? Besides the proximity thing.

Not at all, or not much to say the least. We Americans don't know much about New Zealand and therefore (no offense) don't pay much attnetion, except those Lord of the Rings fanatics ("I want to go to NZ cause that's where Lord of the Rings was filmed!!!1!one!"). Canada, however, is right next to us, people go between the two so much every day, and they are so much similar to us that people pay attention to them and their laws, and therefore it could quite possibly impact peoples' views.

Well now, how has this same legislation passed in New Zealand two years ago affected the United States? Besides the proximity thing.
It passed in New Zealand?
I didn't know that.
I guess it has to do with the publicity. The Canada thing has been on the local news, while I never even knew it was legal in New Zealand.

I dunno, but I guess we'll find out soon.

Not at all, or not much to say the least. We Americans don't know much about New Zealand and therefore (no offense) don't pay much attnetion, except those Lord of the Rings fanatics ("I want to go to NZ cause that's where Lord of the Rings was filmed!!!1!one!"). Canada, however, is right next to us, people go between the two so much every day, and they are so much similar to us that people pay attention to them and their laws, and therefore it could quite possibly impact peoples' views.
So it is a proximity thing. :-)

You're all DOOMED, DOOMED I say.

Heh, sorry couldn't resist. :D

Which is basically what I've been telling the whole time. Churches have nothing to do with marriage, so to speak: all they do is add some organ playing, prayers and tossing rice on the newlyweds. It's all for the show. And while it may have importance for those believers participating in the ceremony, it is the signing of the legal contract at the end that constitutes the marriage.

I have the impression you seem to thin I'm arguing with you: I'm not. I agree with what you say.

I may have misunderstood, because the person who started arguing that the law was only about civil marriages seemed to assume that there was some sort of other marriage that gays would be precluded from entering, which is of course incorrect. You replied in such a manner that I was led to believe that you agreed with the original person I replied to, and well, here we are ;)

You're all DOOMED, DOOMED I say.

Heh, sorry couldn't resist. :D
DOOMED to an eternity of shiny, happy gay-ness!
Oh noes!

Well now, how has this same legislation passed in New Zealand two years ago affected the United States? Besides the proximity thing.

Well, like you said it's essentially the proximity thing. Plus the fact that our cultures are very similar. And the fact that we have an open border and our poeple freely mingle with each other.

I mean, it's easy for conservatives to say that gay marriage in the Netherlands works because it's a far away country of sexual depravation and drug abuse, but it's another to try to convince those americans living near the border who meets Canadians everyday that said Canadians are fundamentally and morally different from them.

I wouldn't be so optimistic. Look at how well the neo-conservative movement has managed to slander Canada's health care system: at least enough so that people don't use it as an example for nationalized healthcare in the US. Never under-estimate the ability of authoritarian newsmakers to make gay marriage in Canada look bad.

The site is biased, of course. But in what way is the story biased? Both sides' arguments are presented.

It mentions Dr. Dobson and his radio ministry is using the controversy to line its pockets with donations when all the Focus on the Families' harping in the world won't change the fact they are...
a) a conservative Christian US based business.
b) unlikely to make a difference on MP's vote but stir up a divisive political pot, kinda like in the states.
and
c) ideologues, demagogues, and dinosaurs.

At least that's what I got from it. :D

we can throw in a few neocons to sweeten the deal....


We would consider that an act of war.

I may have misunderstood, because the person who started arguing that the law was only about civil marriages seemed to assume that there was some sort of other marriage that gays would be precluded from entering, which is of course incorrect. You replied in such a manner that I was led to believe that you agreed with the original person I replied to, and well, here we are ;)
I'm sorry; my argument was as much a request for you to challenge your statements as anything else; you seem to have a firm understanding for your beliefs. I respect that.

I may have misunderstood, because the person who started arguing that the law was only about civil marriages seemed to assume that there was some sort of other marriage that gays would be precluded from entering, which is of course incorrect. You replied in such a manner that I was led to believe that you agreed with the original person I replied to, and well, here we are ;)

Well, then, no hard feelings :fluff:

I suppose my wording WAS kind of ambiguous. Since, after all, there IS a marriage of sort gays would be precluded from getting: the religious (i.e. catholic) "marriage". I still consider religious ceremonies marriages, even though without the civil part they hold no weight in the eyes of law.

As a person, if I got married in a religious celebration, even without signing papers for being officially married in the government's papers, I would still think of myself and my partner as "spouses".

DOOMED to an eternity of shiny, happy gay-ness!
Oh noes!
This brought much joy to my being.

I think it says it all.

Well, then, no hard feelings :fluff:

I suppose my wording WAS kind of ambiguous. Since, after all, there IS a marriage of sort gays would be precluded from getting: the religious (i.e. catholic) "marriage". I still consider religious ceremonies marriages, even though without the civil part they hold no weight in the eyes of law.

As a person, if I got married in a religious celebration, even without signing papers for being officially married in the government's papers, I would still think of myself and my partner as "spouses".

There are churches who are willing to wed gay couples (and who have performed the religious ceremonies), so not even the religious symbolism is something gays will miss out on. It'll probably end up being a market of sorts; if one church won't wed you, go to one that will.

DOOMED to an eternity of shiny, happy gay-ness!
Oh noes!

Why does everyone seem to think that gayness is shiny?

From what I've seen, it's pinkish, not shiny. Get you facts straight :P

It is indeed happy, though. Althought "happy gay" is redundant :D

There are churches who are willing to wed gay couples (and who have performed the religious ceremonies), so not even the religious symbolism is something gays will miss out on. It'll probably end up being a market of sorts; if one church won't wed you, go to one that will.

Again, I know, I said as much in a previous post. But in most poeple's mind, a religious marriage equals a catholic marriage, probably because the Catholic Church has the most followers of all denominations in Canada. And since the Catholic Church doesn't want to marry gays, those same poeple think those gays can't be married anywhere else. Of course, they're very wrong.

I still think it's a wonder the Catholics have so many followers here, what with their reactionnary policies on gays, women, contraception and all. But then again, by all accounts I'm one of those followers, since I haven't taken the time to be de-baptized by them yet. Even though I disagree with all the bullshit they're pulling "in the name of the lord" that totally goes against anything written in the new testament. But I disgress, and I don't want to hijack this into a religious thread :P

WHAT!!!!
How can you people not believe that allowing gay marraige will end the world?
If it's allowed everyone will start raping babies and sodomizing children in the streets! As we speak GOD is striking down Canadians with HIS HOLY LIGHTNING BOLTS!!!

Since I haven't seen Commando2 lately I thought I'd fill in for him. :p

WHAT!!!!
How can you people not believe that allowing gay marraige will end the world?
If it's allowed everyone will start raping babies and sodomizing children in the streets! As we speak GOD is striking down Canadians with HIS HOLY LIGHTNING BOLTS!!!

Since I haven't seen Commando2 lately I thought I'd fill in for him. :p

You forgot to add in some bestiality threats. And the end of humanity as the birth rate drops to zero because everyone turns into a baby/puppy sodomizing sex machine.


...



Because everyone knows deep down that sodomizing babies and puppies is fun. No, really, it it. You know you want it.


(Edit: just to be safe, if you've been taking the above lines even remotely seriously, you really need to see a doctor.)

WHAT!!!!
How can you people not believe that allowing gay marraige will end the world?
If it's allowed everyone will start raping babies and sodomizing children in the streets!
Thought that was NAMBLA?

Again, I know, I said as much in a previous post. But in most poeple's mind, a religious marriage equals a catholic marriage, probably because the Catholic Church has the most followers of all denominations in Canada. And since the Catholic Church doesn't want to marry gays, those same poeple think those gays can't be married anywhere else. Of course, they're very wrong.

I still think it's a wonder the Catholics have so many followers here, what with their reactionnary policies on gays, women, contraception and all. But then again, by all accounts I'm one of those followers, since I haven't taken the time to be de-baptized by them yet. Even though I disagree with all the bullshit they're pulling "in the name of the lord" that totally goes against anything written in the new testament. But I disgress, and I don't want to hijack this into a religious thread :P
In the good news; the incidence of Chinese and Indian immigrants has risen sharply in the last decade, especially in the conservative West, and so the idea of "traditional marriage" will no longer be limited to a Catholic one.

EDIT: I live in Edmonton, right near the University of Alberta, which offers programmes to immigrants to allow them to live here and learn English while they get an education. Being a city strong in multi-culturalism, the incidence of non-Catholic marriage ceremonies is ...popular here.

Thought that was NAMBLA?

What's NAMBLA?

In the good news; the incidence of Chinese and Indian immigrants has risen sharply in the last decade, especially in the conservative West, and so the idea of "traditional marriage" will no longer be limited to a Catholic one.

Ah, some more good news. I've personally always been a big fan of cultural and religious diversity.

I feel that seeing other cultures and religions actually encourages us to think for ourselves and challenge our ideas rather than be mindlessly conditionned by authorities in place.

In the good news; the incidence of Chinese and Indian immigrants has risen sharply in the last decade, especially in the conservative West, and so the idea of "traditional marriage" will no longer be limited to a Catholic one.

Argh! Why do BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba always get lumped in with Alberta?

Look the trend is: Alberta conservative, except Edmonton. BC mainly liberal, with conservatives in the north. Saskatchewan and Manitoba - liberal, although they did go Conservative in the last election as a protest vote versus the Liberal party. If you look at patterns over the last hundred years, Sask and Man are predominately liberal. (American friends please note the diff between small c and l and capital C and L. The capitals are the parties, the lower case is the political position.)

I mean; this sort of equality is built into our Constitution, so our courts have no choice but to rule in favour. It's not the same in the States.

It never ceases to amaze me that we have this great consitution with this radical idea (for the time it was written) that all men are created equal. Since that time, we've had to amend it over and over and over again to say "No, really guys, we do mean all men, not just white landowning protestants. . .really, everyone."

Ah, some more good news. I've personally always been a big fan of cultural and religious diversity.

I feel that seeing other cultures and religions actually encourages us to think for ourselves and challenge our ideas rather than be mindlessly conditionned by authorities in place.
Seriously, I think it separates us from the U.S. moreso than any other cultural factor. We are more a nation-wide "melting pot" than the U.S. has ever been.

What's NAMBLA?

Some nuts who advocate adult/child sex. I think it stands for National Association of Man Boy love- aw crap -something like that. Their slogan goes like "sex by eight or it's too late"

What's NAMBLA?

From what I understand from on here, its this group of people who advocate legalizing pedophilia. They argue that children can consent to sex.

Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that by legalizing same sex marriage, you are opening the door to legalized pedophilia. Woo! Look at the scary slippery slope!

Of course, the arguement is a pile of BS. What two consenting ADULTS do has nothing to do with what children can or cannot do.

Seriously, I think it separates us from the U.S. moreso than any other cultural factor. We are more a nation-wide "melting pot" than the U.S. has ever been.

Oh don't you know what our schools no longer teach "melting-pot"? Instead America is a salad or soup. Identifiable pieces with all that wholesome goodness of segregation with the potatoes trying to lord it over the celery.

Instead American is a salad or soup.
With your choice of baguette or garlic bread on the side.

With your choice of baguette or garlic bread on the side.

And now I'm hungry.

Argh! Why do BC, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba always get lumped in with Alberta?

Look the trend is: Alberta conservative, except Edmonton. BC mainly liberal, with conservatives in the north. Saskatchewan and Manitoba - liberal, although they did go Conservative in the last election as a protest vote versus the Liberal party. If you look at patterns over the last hundred years, Sask and Man are predominately liberal. (American friends please note the diff between small c and l and capital C and L. The capitals are the parties, the lower case is the political position.)
Because BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are Alberta at heart. :-)

It never ceases to amaze me that we have this great consitution with this radical idea (for the time it was written) that all men are created equal. Since that time, we've had to amend it over and over and over again to say "No, really guys, we do mean all men, not just white landowning protestants. . .really, everyone."
Good point. This is why I think it's incredibly arrogant of the current administration to insist that we're the "Leaders of the Free World".

I don't think we're there yet, although we have everything in place if we decided to go that route.

Good point. This is why I think it's incredibly arrogant of the current administration to insist that we're the "Leaders of the Free World".

I don't think we're there yet, although we have everything in place if we decided to go that route.

Ah, but to be the leaders of the free world, we would have to relinquish our domination over everyone else.

Would you believe that I used to be a Republican?

Seriously, I think it separates us from the U.S. moreso than any other cultural factor. We are more a nation-wide "melting pot" than the U.S. has ever been.

I don't think we're all that different. The US houses just as many immigrants from other cultures. What makes us different is how we react to it: americans seem to want to cling more to their institutions to protect them from being "polluted" from foreign ideas, while we(most of us anyway) are not afraid to question the choices we've made in the past when faced with poeple who brings new ideas and ways of life.

How can I word this... I believe some americans who meets someone from a different culture/religion who disagrees with him tends to think "Well I don't think like that" and stop there. While I, when confronted with someone whom I disagree with, think more along the lines of "Well, I don't agree. Why the hell am I not agreeing again?". And it's that questionning that I find healthy. I don't agree with everything or everyone who has a different culture or religion than I, but at least if I disagree I take the time to find out why those ideas bother me. It just seems to me too many americans are quick to say "I disagree because I'm right and you have no morals", while they didn't take the time to give thought to the matter.

Meh, forgive me for making gross generalizations, I'm getting a little tired :(

Some nuts who advocate adult/child sex. I think it stands for National Association of Man Boy love- aw crap -something like that. Their slogan goes like "sex by eight or it's too late"

You're nucking futs.



...



Seriously, you're kidding right?

You're nucking futs.



...



Seriously, you're kidding right?


No that's really what they are.

Oh, and based on your last post . . . . you're now one of my new best friends.

You're nucking futs.



...



Seriously, you're kidding right?
Nope. They really exsist.

No that's really what they are.

Oh, and based on your last post . . . . you're now one of my new best friends.

Thanks, we can never have too many friends :)

But geez...Those guys wanna have sex with children? Even so, the slippery slope stuff is bullshit, because there is NO equal rights arguments involved. I mean, it's not like heteros can have sex with little girls, so tough luck on gay pedophiles as well. No double standards= not a chance in hell this is going to change.

Holy crap. Children consenting to sex? Most don't even know what sex is really about until they're 20.

What's NAMBLA?

North American Men Boy Loving Association

(It's from South Park :) )

but then South Park is based on real events so I don't who the real life NAMBLA is.

"Yo, ho, and Upshi rises... early in the morning."

North American Men Boy Loving Association

(It's from South Park :) )

Thank god(or whoever)!

That mean nobody's been st00pid enough to actually start an association of men who wants to have sex with boys, right?


Right?

North American Men Boy Loving Association

(It's from South Park :) )

Thank you. I couldn't think of it. Maybe my mind just blanked it out because it's too horrible to think of.

Thanks, we can never have too many friends :)

But geez...Those guys wanna have sex with children? Even so, the slippery slope stuff is bullshit, because there is NO equal rights arguments involved. I mean, it's not like heteros can have sex with little girls, so tough luck on gay pedophiles as well. No double standards= not a chance in hell this is going to change.

Holy crap. Children consenting to sex? Most don't even know what sex is really about until they're 20.

For every possible paraphilia, there is probably a group that advocates it. Anti-gay marriage folks like to use this one because the idea of pedophilia gets the reaction like the one you just had. There is a major disgust/ick factor. You don't hear them using the group that advocates sex with trees--because while weird to most of us, it doesn't evoke the disgust. Instead you hear gays compared to people into necrophilia, pedophilia and beastiality, when there really is no similarity.

Sadly, most people aren't like you and are unable to separate the two and to see the difference.

Thank god(or whoever)!

That mean nobody's been st00pid enough to actually start an association of men who wants to have sex with boys, right?


Right?

Actually, they're real ... South Park made them look like idiots. :confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

Thank god(or whoever)!

That mean nobody's been st00pid enough to actually start an association of men who wants to have sex with boys, right?


Right?


It looks like they are real. I figured. . . organization. . . probably non-profit. . .they must have a website.

And sure enough www.nambla.org exists. And it looks real.

I'm not going to read the whole thing, cause god knows under the current administration I can probably be held without bail, charges, or legal defense just for visiting (yes I am being overly-dramatic--but I do have a poetic license issued by the state).

Would you believe that I used to be a Republican?
sure...back when Republicans stood for small government and fiscal responsibility, i was all about Republicanism. or, at least, i would have been, had i been alive at the time. if there were a small government, fiscal responsibility party today i would totally back them.

sure...back when Republicans stood for small government and fiscal responsibility, i was all about Republicanism. or, at least, i would have been, had i been alive at the time. if there were a small government, fiscal responsibility party today i would totally back them.

Still. . . I was a gay Republican. I mean, that's almost oxy-moronical.

For every possible paraphilia, there is probably a group that advocates it. Anti-gay marriage folks like to use this one because the idea of pedophilia gets the reaction like the one you just had. There is a major disgust/ick factor. You don't hear them using the group that advocates sex with trees--because while weird to most of us, it doesn't evoke the disgust. Instead you hear gays compared to people into necrophilia, pedophilia and beastiality, when there really is no similarity.

Sadly, most people aren't like you and are unable to separate the two and to see the difference.

Well, it's not a matter of the "ick factor". The "ick factor" can never hold any weight in any argument. If it did, we would have legalized about the evils of broccoli long ago :D

It's a matter of protection. Children don't know the first thing abour sex, even if they think otherwise.

Although I'm not one to force them to go in prison for having sex (like some states in the US do), I believe if they're old enough to experiment it they should be doing it with kids their age(I'm talking about teenagers here).

But those of us adults who do know better about sex and relationships shouldn't be taking advantage of them.

As for those children who aren't even in their teens, they won't even be thinking about sex unless an adult tries to do something funny to them. They haven't been through puberty, and they can't be sexually attracted to someone yet. So the idea of them beng able to consent is simply ludicrous.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/012905focCanada.htm

Ooh, they must be getting really scared. Once Canada gets (federal) gay marriages US conservatives won't have a leg to stand on because nothing they claim is going to happen will happen, just as it hasn't in the European countries that have gay marriage laws. Canada being so close, they just won't be able to dismiss it and they know it.
Damn! I thought from the title they were physically going to Canada. I was hoping they might stay.

Well, it's not a matter of the "ick factor". The "ick factor" can never hold any weight in any argument. If it did, we would have legalized about the evils of broccoli long ago :D

It's a matter of protection. Children don't know the first thing abour sex, even if they think otherwise.

Although I'm not one to force them to go in prison for having sex (like some states in the US do), I believe if they're old enough to experiment it they should be doing it with kids their age(I'm talking about teenagers here).

But those of us adults who do know better about sex and relationships shouldn't be taking advantage of them.

As for those children who aren't even in their teens, they won't even be thinking about sex unless an adult tries to do something funny to them. They haven't been through puberty, and they can't be sexually attracted to someone yet. So the idea of them beng able to consent is simply ludicrous.

Okay, so I shouldn't have used the word ick and even the word disgust is dubious. I agree with everything you just said. I just had a much shorter (and albeit poorer) way of putting it.

Still. . . I was a gay Republican. I mean, that's almost oxy-moronical.
again, that wouldn't have been such an oxy-moron if you had been a gay Republican back when they stood for small government, because the original Republican party wouldn't have tried to pass laws against gay marriage or any other such thing. they certainly would never have been trying to pass FEDERAL laws about it, since their whole platform was about minimizing federal regulation. only since the smarmy little neo-cons came to power has the Republican party begun trying to expand government into the bedrooms of private citizens. :)

again, that wouldn't have been such an oxy-moron if you had been a gay Republican back when they stood for small government, because the original Republican party wouldn't have tried to pass laws against gay marriage or any other such thing. they certainly would never have been trying to pass FEDERAL laws about it, since their whole platform was about minimizing federal regulation. only since the smarmy little neo-cons came to power has the Republican party begun trying to expand government into the bedrooms of private citizens. :)

You remind me of my sister. . .last word on everything :)

Forutnantely I enjoy reading your last words--I never fail to learn something or to challenge some crappy belief of mine.

It looks like they are real. I figured. . . organization. . . probably non-profit. . .they must have a website.

And sure enough www.nambla.org exists. And it looks real.

I'm not going to read the whole thing, cause god knows under the current administration I can probably be held without bail, charges, or legal defense just for visiting (yes I am being overly-dramatic--but I do have a poetic license issued by the state).



Well holy freaking shit.



I can now say I've seen it all.



I feel a strong urge to yell "PREPOSTEROUS", but you seem to want to avoid drama.

Well if they're not happy with it, they can just suck it up and NOT move in Canada. We wouldn't want them in our neighbourhoods anyway. Let them stay in central jesusland and keep discriminating against gays, blacks, arabs, women or whoever takes their fancy. But they should know just because they do and think it's right doesn't mean we have to agree with them, or even care that they're scandalized.

Any american who supports equal rights for everyone is welcome in our nice country though.
Thanks for the hospitible offer, but I'll wait till summer if it's all the same to you. It's cold enough here in NYC!

Thanks for the hospitible offer, but I'll wait till summer if it's all the same to you. It's cold enough here in NYC!

I wonder if my medical license will be valid up there once I finish residency. . . . I've heard PEI is beautiful year round, and it would satisfy some inner romantic in me as I searched for my inner Anne.

Thanks for the hospitible offer, but I'll wait till summer if it's all the same to you. It's cold enough here in NYC!

Cold? In New York City?


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :D


*wheeze*


WAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :D

Now, seriously :p

On a more serious note, we're always happy to see our americans friends come for a visit or even to stay. We're just noticeably happier when said american friend happens to be one of the sensible americans, not one of the self-righteous ones.

Good luck with that.

I mean, it's all well and good to INVADE, but which of your good republican voting, gay hating, neocon soldiers are you prepared to sacrifice? Because, you know, after a couple of weeks or months in this liberal lala-land where gays can kiss on the streets and marry, where hippies hug trees, where women are(in theory) paid as much as men for the same workload, and where everybody has a right to free healthcare, they'll be going crazy.
Just take a few planeloads at a time and wear them down with your legendary politeness. We could be talking a quiet mega industry here. Whatever you do, don't tell anyone else!

It won't impact the law, but it will impact the people. Well, it *may* impact the people. After it's shown unture that homosexuals being allowed to marry will bring about the end of civilization, immanentize the eschaton, or whatever else, the conservatives won't have much of a leg to stand on anymore, and will have to come up with something new against gay marriage.
Aside from the "Jesus don't like it" argument?

I wouldn't be so optimistic. Look at how well the neo-conservative movement has managed to slander Canada's health care system: at least enough so that people don't use it as an example for nationalized healthcare in the US. Never under-estimate the ability of authoritarian newsmakers to make gay marriage in Canada look bad.
THis is what worries me about this.

Aside from the "Jesus don't like it" argument?

It's not that Jesus don't like it. . .its that it makes baby Jesus cry.

That or the scary people like Fallwell like it a little too much and that frightens them.

But that's just the thing. The religious marriage doesn't exist in the eyes of the law. If you don't sign that marriage licence your state/government requires you to sign, you won't be married. The non-civil marriage just simply doesn't exist as far as society is concerned. Hence it is not discussed, apart from maybe what right churches who have the right to wed people (again - even churches perform the civil marriage ceremony, otherwise there is no marriage) have to discriminate. And that's where freedom of religion might step in; in the case of being able to deny a service that is offered to others, and not the marriage itself.
That seems to be a bit of a stretch. I think there are precious few individuals (of sound mind)who want to share one of the happiest days of their lives in a hostile environment.

That seems to be a bit of a stretch. I think there are precious few individuals (of sound mind)who want to share one of the happiest days of their lives in a hostile environment.

Not all churches are hostile.

It's not that Jesus don't like it. . .its that it makes baby Jesus cry.

That or the scary people like Fallwell like it a little too much and that frightens them.

Jesus wouldn't even give a damn about this. He spent all day hanging out with beggars, thieves and prostitutes.

I'm certain all those god-fearing, respectable, right-wing "Christians" would have a fit if they actually bothered reading their bible :p

Somehow, I just can't wait for the day where I hear "Jesus had no morals". This is SO happening sooner or later :D

Not all churches are hostile.

Exactly. And its a violation of freedom of religion for the government to discriminate against those churches by saying that their marriages are not valid in a civil setting while the marriges of other churches are.

Well now, how has this same legislation passed in New Zealand two years ago affected the United States? Besides the proximity thing.
Proximity is THE thing. Americans and the American media see Canada as a close cousin. Perceptually NZ does not have this status.

That seems to be a bit of a stretch. I think there are precious few individuals (of sound mind)who want to share one of the happiest days of their lives in a hostile environment.

What exactly is a bit of stretch? He's saying that churche who don't want to perform gay marriages won't have to.

Unless you're thinking that no gay catholic would want to be married in church... In which case you are(paradoxally) wrong. I know some who would be overjoyed of being accepted in their church... I just don't know why they don't leave that church and find another, more welcoming one in the first place.

Proximity is THE thing. Americans and the American media see Canada as a close cousin. Perceptually NZ does not have this status.

It doesn't (not saying it shouldn't). In the American mind its GB, Canada, and Australia that are the most closely related to us. Of course we'd tell them to blow it out their rear ends if (and when) they actually disagree, though it would cause some minor grief I suppose.

Please note, I'm not arguiing this is a valid stance, just putting out my observations.

What exactly is a bit of stretch? He's saying that churche who don't want to perform gay marriages won't have to.

Unless you're thinking that no gay catholic would want to be married in church... In which case you are(paradoxally) wrong. I know some who would be overjoyed of being accepted in their church... I just don't know why they don't leave that church and find another, more welcoming one in the first place.

No church should have to perform a wedding they don't believe in.

Of course, that's already the way it is.

It is up to the members to change the stance of the religious organization, not to the government.

We would consider that an act of war.
Aw c'mon! We aren't complaining about the snowbirds. Whadda ya say?

I've been going back and forth on this issue with a Baptist Pastor in my neighborhood. The arguments he gives me are nothing but platitudes and bible verse, and so on. Here's a smaple...

"Sellwood Church and others like us did not take steps to even make our religious convictions heard until there arose a well-organized and well-funded movement to force homosexual marriage upon this nation. Locally that took the form of the Multnomah Co. Commissioners high-handedly violating the state's accepted legal definitions and beginning to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. We responded, well within our legal rights and freedoms, joining with countless other religious groups of all faiths to take a position for the sanctity of marriage. In fact, all across the Union measures like Measure 36 passed by huge margins, supported by both religious and nonreligious people alike. For us, that support was not given in a hateful, mean-spirited way, but rather out of a profound sorrow that this nation has slipped so far from its moorings and its Judeo-Christian foundation."

This is what we're up against in this country. People who have revised history to make their hateful point of view OK. Thank god for you, Canada! Maybe you're what we, as a country, need in order to finally understand that creating seperations like this among fellow human beings will only cause problems.

I've been going back and forth on this issue with a Baptist Pastor in my neighborhood. The arguments he gives me are nothing but platitudes and bible verse, and so on. Here's a smaple...

"Sellwood Church and others like us did not take steps to even make our religious convictions heard until there arose a well-organized and well-funded movement to force homosexual marriage upon this nation. Locally that took the form of the Multnomah Co. Commissioners high-handedly violating the state's accepted legal definitions and beginning to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. We responded, well within our legal rights and freedoms, joining with countless other religious groups of all faiths to take a position for the sanctity of marriage. In fact, all across the Union measures like Measure 36 passed by huge margins, supported by both religious and nonreligious people alike. For us, that support was not given in a hateful, mean-spirited way, but rather out of a profound sorrow that this nation has slipped so far from its moorings and its Judeo-Christian foundation."

This is what we're up against in this country. People who have revised history to make their hateful point of view OK. Thank god for you, Canada! Maybe you're what we, as a country, need in order to finally understand that creating seperations like this among fellow human beings will only cause problems.

You should ask him to point out just where in the Constitution it says we have a Judeo-Christian foundation.

Why does everyone seem to think that gayness is shiny?

From what I've seen, it's pinkish, not shiny. Get you facts straight :P

It is indeed happy, though. Althought "happy gay" is redundant :D
No offense, but a well groomed, scrubbed pink is kinda shiny.

It is up to the members to change the stance of the religious organization, not to the government.

Those would be people with a lot more motivation and courage than I. Changing and organization such as the catholic church is an herculean task. So many old fossils with uber-conservative ideas are in charge, and choosing yet other uber-conservatives to be in charge whenever one of them croaks, that positive change is almost undreamable(is that a word?:p).

Personally, I find it easier to just tell them to forget about me, and find another organization that's more in touch with reality. But that's just my opinion.

Aw c'mon! We aren't complaining about the snowbirds. Whadda ya say?

Snowbirds may not be particularly graceful, but most aren't much of a bother.

Neocons and religious fundamentalists, however, can be real pains in the ass. I think we can't compare apples and oranges, now can we?

Those would be people with a lot more motivation and courage than I. Changing and organization such as the catholic church is an herculean task. So many old fossils with uber-conservative ideas are in charge, and choosing yet other uber-conservatives to be in charge whenever one of them croaks, that positive change is almost undreamable(is that a word?:p).

Personally, I find it easier to just tell them to forget about me, and find another organization that's more in touch with reality. But that's just my opinion.


I wasn't just referring to the Catholic church. The Methodist and Episcopal churches are really just ripe for the picking.

No offense, but a well groomed, scrubbed pink is kinda shiny.

Liar! Heathen! nothing can tarnish the pinkyness of gay... whatever were we talking about? shirts?

Use cheer color-protect detersive, and your pink will never be shiny. I rest my case.

Some nuts who advocate adult/child sex. I think it stands for National Association of Man Boy love- aw crap -something like that. Their slogan goes like "sex by eight or it's too late"
If I have my South Park database right it stands for North American Man-Boy Love Association and should never be confused with the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes.

You should ask him to point out just where in the Constitution it says we have a Judeo-Christian foundation.

Actually I have, but he, like just about any other right wing CONservative, changes the subject and refuses to answer. I've been dueling with this guy for more than 2 months (ever since the election).

I finally tried to pin him down with something I found here in these forums too. A passage written by President John Adams...

"[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[.]"

He has yet to get back to me, but it's saturday ;-)

Snowbirds may not be particularly graceful, but most aren't much of a bother.

Neocons and religious fundamentalists, however, can be real pains in the ass. I think we can't compare apples and oranges, now can we?
Come on man have heart, you don't have to take all of them just a few, honest. Come on Pretty Please.


PS they need a beg smily :D

I've been going back and forth on this issue with a Baptist Pastor in my neighborhood. The arguments he gives me are nothing but platitudes and bible verse, and so on. Here's a smaple...

"Sellwood Church and others like us did not take steps to even make our religious convictions heard until there arose a well-organized and well-funded movement to force homosexual marriage upon this nation. Locally that took the form of the Multnomah Co. Commissioners high-handedly violating the state's accepted legal definitions and beginning to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. We responded, well within our legal rights and freedoms, joining with countless other religious groups of all faiths to take a position for the sanctity of marriage. In fact, all across the Union measures like Measure 36 passed by huge margins, supported by both religious and nonreligious people alike. For us, that support was not given in a hateful, mean-spirited way, but rather out of a profound sorrow that this nation has slipped so far from its moorings and its Judeo-Christian foundation."

This is what we're up against in this country. People who have revised history to make their hateful point of view OK. Thank god for you, Canada! Maybe you're what we, as a country, need in order to finally understand that creating seperations like this among fellow human beings will only cause problems.
If all he can give you is platitudes, maybe you should look for another church. He sounds like an ass. There is no well-funded, well-organized movement to force marriage upon anyone in Canada. No religious institution in Canada will be forced to perform marriages, dispite whatever definition of marriage the federal goverment may impose.

I wasn't just referring to the Catholic church. The Methodist and Episcopal churches are really just ripe for the picking.

Sorry about always bringing up the Catholics. I don't to discriminate the Methodists or the Episcopals by not complaining about them: it's just that I live in Québec, where the Catholic Church had a near monopoly on faith for about 400 years. So understandably I tend to point my finger at them more often than not.

That, plus I'm (theoretically) part of that church.

*shudders*

Oh don't you know what our schools no longer teach "melting-pot"? Instead America is a salad or soup. Identifiable pieces with all that wholesome goodness of segregation with the potatoes trying to lord it over the celery.
I laughed. I choked. Tears flowed.
I nearly passed out doing all the above at once. :D

Actually I have, but he, like just about any other right wing CONservative, changes the subject and refuses to answer. I've been dueling with this guy for more than 2 months (ever since the election).

I finally tried to pin him down with something I found here in these forums too. A passage written by President John Adams...

"[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[.]"

He has yet to get back to me, but it's saturday ;-)


Ah yes, the Treat of Tripoli. A worthless piece of paper now except for that line which is probably the greatest testament of the early congress/presidents views on the non-theocratic nature of this nation.

Of course, he will ignore it.

Come on man have heart, you don't have to take all of them just a few, honest. Come on Pretty Please.


PS they need a beg smily :D

Lol, alright, I do suppose we could drive a couple of them crazy with all our gay-hippy-socialist-liberal talk about nonsenses such as love, equality and acceptance for all.

Just don't make a habit of it, okay? :D

That, plus I'm (theoretically) part of that church.

*shudders*

Show us on the dolly where the bad priest touched you./Utilisez cette poupée pour nous montrer où le mauvais prêtre vous a touché. :D

Sorry about always bringing up the Catholics. I don't to discriminate the Methodists or the Episcopals by not complaining about them: it's just that I live in Québec, where the Catholic Church had a near monopoly on faith for about 400 years. So understandably I tend to point my finger at them more often than not.

That, plus I'm (theoretically) part of that church.

*shudders*

LOL, its all good dude. No need to apologize to me :)

Thank god(or whoever)!

That mean nobody's been st00pid enough to actually start an association of men who wants to have sex with boys, right?


Right?
Sorry. All jokes & South Park references aside it is a real organization. Google gives this link http://216.220.97.17/

Show us on the dolly where the bad priest touched you. :D

*rolls eyes*

Seriously though, I can't seem to stop thinking that those tragedies could have been avoided if only priests were allowed to have healthy, normal, adult sex lives. Marrying whomever they fancy.

On a side note, though, it really does show the incredible hypocrisy of those religious organizations who take a stand against gay marriage. They condemn that which they do not know as "evil", while they protected and used the extensive ressources of their Churches to cover up the atrocities commited by men who were abusing helpless children. Tell me again how two men or two women who wants to marry is evil, but as so-called "man of God" raping altar boys should be protected?

Am I really the only one outraged by this?

Well, it's not a matter of the "ick factor". The "ick factor" can never hold any weight in any argument. If it did, we would have legalized about the evils of broccoli long ago :D The heck with broccoli,. Can we talk Brussel Sprouts! What the hell were those Belgians thinking? Are they exporting their excrement as a food or what?

It's a matter of protection. Children don't know the first thing abour sex, even if they think otherwise.

Although I'm not one to force them to go in prison for having sex (like some states in the US do), I believe if they're old enough to experiment it they should be doing it with kids their age(I'm talking about teenagers here).

But those of us adults who do know better about sex and relationships shouldn't be taking advantage of them.

As for those children who aren't even in their teens, they won't even be thinking about sex unless an adult tries to do something funny to them. They haven't been through puberty, and they can't be sexually attracted to someone yet. So the idea of them beng able to consent is simply ludicrous.
That is exactly the thinking of most people save sexual experimentation can take place at any age. If two preschoolers do so with each other it is a learning opportunity for a parent to discuss in an age appropriate manner with their child.

Am I really the only one outraged by this?
Yes.

Not all churches are hostile.
Understood and agreed. I was referring to those churches that would refuse to perform the ceremony. Who would want to go there if they were made to feel unwelcome?

*rolls eyes*

Seriously though, I can't seem to stop thinking that those tragedies could have been avoided if only priests were allowed to have healthy, normal, adult sex lives. Marrying whomever they fancy.

On a side note, though, it really does show the incredible hypocrisy of those religious organizations who take a stand against gay marriage. They condemn that which they do not know as "evil", while they protected and used the extensive ressources of their Churches to cover up the atrocities commited by men who were abusing helpless children. Tell me again how two men or two women who wants to marry is evil, but as so-called "man of God" raping altar boys should be protected?

Am I really the only one outraged by this?

Oh I am. I am now a "blue-moon" Catholic. Even did the alterboy thing myself. The sad thing is that I know of a few decent priests that get the looks of "did he?"

Then I remember a workmates story. Her husband is Irish and visits home yearly. He last outing he came home a moody SOB! She finally got him to talk and he said his lifelong friend shared his story. When they were alterboys the Priest kidnapped him, took him far away, tortured and raped him. The Churches response; send the Priest to Canada.

I will listen to their morality lessons after they clean up their own house.

*rolls eyes*

Seriously though, I can't seem to stop thinking that those tragedies could have been avoided if only priests were allowed to have healthy, normal, adult sex lives. Marrying whomever they fancy.


Re-reading this. Access to a woman doesn't prevent pedophillia.

Yes.

No.

If two preschoolers do so with each other it is a learning opportunity for a parent to discuss in an age appropriate manner with their child.

I'm not talking about telling preschoolers that sex and their genitals is dirty is they're caught playing doctors. I was talking more along the lines of a complete sexual relation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of any children of that age "having sex" in the complete sense of the term.

I do realize most kids will do a little fooling around, that's just part of discovering their body. But I'm certain none would ever think of having penetrative or oral sex without having been pushed to it by an adult.

Yes.

*sniff*


...



*sniff*



This smells like sarcasm.

A stubborn posting system prevented a very good story about the Olar. There you go.

I will listent to their morality lessons after they clean up their own house.

"Amen" seems an appropriate response to that comment ;)

Hey Canadians, send those people to Europe with t-shirts on that says:
DEFINITELY NOT CANADIAN

Thierry, Helmut and other guys from the pink brigade will take care of them.

:fluffle: ;)

Re-reading this. Access to a woman doesn't prevent pedophillia.

I'm certain not all priests involved in those horrific stories were sexual predators who attained priesthood in the goal of abusing children.

I think at least some of them just took advantage of said children to satisfy urges they couldn't satisfy otherwise. Let's not forget you can intimidate children into silence whereas an adult could always decide to tell. I think some of them did it because they could deny it and their words would always have more weight than a child's.

I've always thought this whole forced chastity and "masturbation is evil" policy was more harm than good. Chastity should be a choice, a sacrifice freely made, not imposed by authorities.

What exactly is a bit of stretch? He's saying that churche who don't want to perform gay marriages won't have to.

Unless you're thinking that no gay catholic would want to be married in church... In which case you are(paradoxally) wrong. I know some who would be overjoyed of being accepted in their church... I just don't know why they don't leave that church and find another, more welcoming one in the first place.
I may have misunderstood Fass' comment to say that there would be a case against a given church that discriminates. My statement was based on that. What I was trying to get across is that I feel there would be little or no conflict.

Let me use the Catholic church as an example: From my view, the private organization should not be compulsed to provide the service since it is in conflict with their core beliefs. Equally, since it is the church's core belief, what gay person finds any good relationship within the church?

While I am not religious, I understand the influences of family tradition - but the tradition of treating gays as sinners would seem to make for the individual seeking a more hospitable environment for expressing their faith and finding community. It does not seem too far fetched to assume that a couple sharing one of the most exciting and wonderful days of their lives would want to do so in a warm, hospitable setting among friends.

Sorry for any confusion - for me it is a natural state.

It doesn't (not saying it shouldn't). In the American mind its GB, Canada, and Australia that are the most closely related to us. Of course we'd tell them to blow it out their rear ends if (and when) they actually disagree, though it would cause some minor grief I suppose.

Please note, I'm not arguiing this is a valid stance, just putting out my observations.
I generally agree but it is almost a though Canada is the relative you see all the time. GB & Australia are more like close friends and less the relative next door.

I'm certain not all priests involved in those horrific stories were sexual predators who attained priesthood in the goal of abusing children.

I think at least some of them just took advantage of said children to satisfy urges they couldn't satisfy otherwise. Let's not forget you can intimidate children into silence whereas an adult could always decide to tell. I think some of them did it because they could deny it and their words would always have more weight than a child's.

I've always thought this whole forced chastity and "masturbation is evil" policy was more harm than good. Chastity should be a choice, a sacrifice freely made, not imposed by authorities.

Well no not really. Attacking children doens't happen because they don't have a sexual outlet.

These creatures were already attracted to children. Some probably thought the church would cure them or at least prevent them. Some joined up because they would be close to them.

Look at family incest cases. Men had a regular sex life with their wives and yet still attacked their children.....

Let me use the Catholic church as an example: From my view, the private organization should not be compulsed to provide the service since it is in conflict with their core beliefs. Equally, since it is the church's core belief, what gay person finds any good relationship within the church?

While I am not religious, I understand the influences of family tradition - but the tradition of treating gays as sinners would seem to make for the individual seeking a more hospitable environment for expressing their faith and finding community. It does not seem too far fetched to assume that a couple sharing one of the most exciting and wonderful days of their lives would want to do so in a warm, hospitable setting among friends.


I had guessed correctly at what you were saying. And while I do tend to think very much like you in that regard, I also know a gay catholic who just doesn't want to stop being catholic. I don't know why, and I don't get it, but that's the way he wants things to be.

So what I was trying to say is that, even though common sense may make us think no gay man in his right mind would want to stay catholic... well, some of em still do.

Well no not really. Attacking children doens't happen because they don't have a sexual outlet.

These creatures were already attracted to children. Some probably thought the church would cure them or at least prevent them. Some joined up because they would be close to them.

Look at family incest cases. Men had a regular sex life with their wives and yet still attacked their children.....

Some of them clearly were, yes. But do you honestly believe things would have gotten so widespread if only a couple of sexual predators had joined the ranks?

I've heard cases of priests wracked with guild and shame at what they had done. Not all of them systematically abused of children.

I somehow can't seem to believe it could have gotten to such a wide scale unless there was something causing the problem somewhere. The only other alternative would be that all pedophiles seemed to make the cut for priesthood undetected, which I do not find very plausible. I mean, when you hear that guy at the seminary saying how "He LOVES children", a few alarm bells ought to be ringing somewhere.

Snowbirds may not be particularly graceful, but most aren't much of a bother.

Neocons and religious fundamentalists, however, can be real pains in the ass. I think we can't compare apples and oranges, now can we?
Please believe me when I tell you I say this in all honesty, your snowbirds are no walk in the park. But let's not bicker.

I am talking a huge market for depregramming and reeducation. There is money to be made both on a private level and on a governmental level which will be of sufficient depth to have a favorable impact on you current tax structures.

I do not disregard the initial emotional startup costs but I think if you consider the package as a whole rather than focusing on the minor details you will find this is quite an attractive offer.

Please believe me when I tell you I say this in all honesty, your snowbirds are no walk in the park. But let's not bicker.

I am talking a huge market for depregramming and reeducation. There is money to be made both on a private level and on a governmental level which will be of sufficient depth to have a favorable impact on you current tax structures.

I do not disregard the initial emotional startup costs but I think if you consider the package as a whole rather than focusing on the minor details you will find this is quite an attractive offer.

You seem to forget I, as a good socialist Canadian, cannot be foolled with that kind of corporate talk and blatant bribery. :p

Seriously, you sound like the pointy-haired evil boss of Dilbert.

Liar! Heathen! nothing can tarnish the pinkyness of gay... whatever were we talking about? shirts?

Use cheer color-protect detersive, and your pink will never be shiny. I rest my case.
I humbly defer to your prodigious gayitude. I was merely suggesting glow and were I less hetero I would well know the vast difference between glow and shine. Utterly thoughtless of me. Please forgive me.

I humbly defer to your prodigious gayitude. I was merely suggesting glow and were I less hetero I would well know the vast difference between glow and shine. Utterly thoughtless of me. Please forgive me.

You are forgiven. I am, after all, not without mercy.

It is the duty of the enlightened to bring enlightenment to the unenlightened, is it not?(damn I love that word)

Oh, and by the way, "gayitude" isn't a word





It's actually "gaytitude" :D

You haven't been following the debate, have you?

Conservatives in the US have basically been saying that if gay marriages are allowed, heterosexual marriages and families will crumble and society will fall into chaos. Once that doesn't happen in Canada, well, you get the picture.
Ahhh traditional heterosexual marriages in the US that uphold traditional family values and result in a 50% divorce rate. :eek:

Re-reading this. Access to a woman doesn't prevent pedophillia.
Granted, but were the church to allow the priests to marry they would have a larger pool of healthier individuals to ordain.

I'm not talking about telling preschoolers that sex and their genitals is dirty is they're caught playing doctors. I was talking more along the lines of a complete sexual relation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of any children of that age "having sex" in the complete sense of the term.

I do realize most kids will do a little fooling around, that's just part of discovering their body. But I'm certain none would ever think of having penetrative or oral sex without having been pushed to it by an adult.
OK. Then we are tracking.

Granted, but were the church to allow the priests to marry they would have a larger pool of healthier individuals to ordain.

Which means they wouldn't have to lower the standards and accept anyone who wants to be ordained.

OK. Then we are tracking.
Tracking?

Some of them clearly were, yes. But do you honestly believe things would have gotten so widespread if only a couple of sexual predators had joined the ranks?

I've heard cases of priests wracked with guild and shame at what they had done. Not all of them systematically abused of children.

I somehow can't seem to believe it could have gotten to such a wide scale unless there was something causing the problem somewhere. The only other alternative would be that all pedophiles seemed to make the cut for priesthood undetected, which I do not find very plausible. I mean, when you hear that guy at the seminary saying how "He LOVES children", a few alarm bells ought to be ringing somewhere.

We can all "arm-chair" the reasons for the problem. But the average pedophile likes to get involved with things that will give them proximity to children. How do you detect them. Somebody says "I love children" nobody is going to think much of it(well before recent events). Priests do many things that involve children. You find them in schools, teaching sports, etc.

For what little I know, there is no way to detect them. In fact they are pretty smart about avoiding detection. An example with kiddy porn. Many started using the 1gig usb card drives to store there stuff. Easy to hide. So it's sad to say the only way you find them is when you find pictures or after they attacked somebody.

I think it's more widespred then we think. The timeframe I am no hearing are cases that go back 50 years. The church has as much blame as the pedophiles themselves. This is because of the practice of shifting the pedophiles around and abusing the trust of people so they don't go public. There are many cases of priests attacking other kids after they were caught and moved by the church.

Even now I just read an article in the paper that the chruch is politicing to keep new cases as low profile as possible and or lesson the punishment.

Every day there are more stories from other countries reporting this crime. Awhile back I read cases in the Philipenes and Brazil. Priests were moved there from the US and I think it was France after they were caught.

Sad.......

I had guessed correctly at what you were saying. And while I do tend to think very much like you in that regard, I also know a gay catholic who just doesn't want to stop being catholic. I don't know why, and I don't get it, but that's the way he wants things to be.

So what I was trying to say is that, even though common sense may make us think no gay man in his right mind would want to stay catholic... well, some of em still do.
Logic and emotion are often at odds. It is sad for him, but the church has the right to be who they are.

Granted, but were the church to allow the priests to marry they would have a larger pool of healthier individuals to ordain.

Without question. I am not arguing the chasity rule should remain. In fact it's hypocritical. They won't ordain a gay man. I even asked a Priest once why it was an issue if you had to take a vow of chasity? He just smiled and said "Now I see why you were on punishment detail all the time" I went to Catholic School.....

Sad.......

Indeed. I do find what you say hard to believe... but then again that may be because I would prefer it not to be true. I'm a little naive, I always want to think there is more god in people than it shows. The idea of a whole "army" of sexual predators hiding in the ranks of priesthood makes me shudder, and be glad that I don't attend Church or have children.

He just smiled and said "Now I see why you were on punishment detail all the time"

Because you asked pertinent questions for which they had no answer?

Being punished for being right is fun, isn't it? :D

Canada needs to arrest and depor a few 'evangelists' to send a strong message that fundementalism is not tolerated in the civilized world.

Which means they wouldn't have to lower the standards and accept anyone who wants to be ordained.

Well "standards" is a double edged sword. Would you deny a man who lived a bad life the chance to change his ways? I remember one priest who said he was basically a thug before he found the Church.

One thing that would lesson the attraction of pedophiles is if the Church openly defrocked them when they were found and handed them over to the local police. People would be upset but they would be more forgiving if they saw action happening.

The fact that they hid them and didn't keep them away from children will hurt them for a long time.

You seem to forget I, as a good socialist Canadian, cannot be foolled with that kind of corporate talk and blatant bribery. :p

Seriously, you sound like the pointy-haired evil boss of Dilbert.
Finance and corporate, while often related, are not synonymous. By pointing out potential financial benefits I am merely attempting to establish the potential benefit for all Canadians.

Were I to attempt to induce you we would be talking a position of C.C.E.O. with full corporate perks including free use of the jet, our villas in the south of France, Costa del Sol, the Caribbean, our Swiss Chateau and naturally a full benefits package including stock options and a generous seperation package that is totally unrelated to our profitability or your time in office.

Because you asked pertinent questions for which they had no answer?

Being punished for being right is fun, isn't it? :D

No. It was a polite way to say I was a smartass. He knew my past. I was a hellion. In fact one school year, I had to spend every weekend working chores at the Church, the Nuns house and the Priests house.

He said the issue was bigger then what he could do and it would not be answered in our lifetime.

Ahhh traditional heterosexual marriages in the US that uphold traditional family values and result in a 50% divorce rate. :eek:
God bless America! Now we can all live like movie stars!

Tracking?
Thinking along the same lines.

Without question. I am not arguing the chasity rule should remain. In fact it's hypocritical. They won't ordain a gay man. I even asked a Priest once why it was an issue if you had to take a vow of chasity? He just smiled and said "Now I see why you were on punishment detail all the time" I went to Catholic School.....
I thought you looked familiar.

Thinking along the same lines.
Ah, Glad to hear it.

On a side note, since it's 3:30 AM here, I think I'll be going to bed now. So no more answering from for a while. G'night. And let's hope I don't dream I'm an altarboy.... *shudders*

God bless America! Now we can all live like movie stars!
Hooooray for Hollywood!!

Canada needs to arrest and depor a few 'evangelists' to send a strong message that fundementalism is not tolerated in the civilized world.
That is retro thinking. The deprogramming and reeducation approach is the way to go. Proactive correction, not merely sweeping them under a rug.

Shame on you!

G'nite all.

Eccum Spiri Tu Tuo.

About NAMBLA:

What's stopping them now? Why aren't they emmigrating en masse to all those evil morally corrupt nations like Holland that allow same-sex marriages?
Because *obviously* once you allow those, you *have* to allow man-boy marriages right?
Isn't that what the bible-humpers are constantly screaming?

I generally agree but it is almost a though Canada is the relative you see all the time. GB & Australia are more like close friends and less the relative next door.


Which is fine since these are just observations. Personally, I think more Americans (at least militaristic right-wingers like my father, who incidentally has no problem with gay marriage) tend to write Canada off as too laid back like Scandanavian countries. But hey, like we said, these are observations.

The funny thing is that I bet that many of these moralist totalitarians were the same people raging against Guardian readers writing anti-Bush letters to people in Ohio. They hate people meddling in America, but they think it's fine and dandy to do it themselves.

eh, that site seems kind of biased if you ask me.
Indeed, it undoubtedly has a pro-gay marriage bias, but I don't see how this could be seen in any way other than as the citizens of one nation interfering in the affairs of another.

Well, like you said it's essentially the proximity thing. Plus the fact that our cultures are very similar. And the fact that we have an open border and our poeple freely mingle with each other.

I mean, it's easy for conservatives to say that gay marriage in the Netherlands works because it's a far away country of sexual depravation and drug abuse, but it's another to try to convince those americans living near the border who meets Canadians everyday that said Canadians are fundamentally and morally different from them.
I hope the bill passes the Canadian parliament and that it helps to undermine the religious fundamentalists' agenda of hatred all over the world.

What's NAMBLA?
North American Marlon Brando Lookalikes Association. A dangerous group, to say the least.

Aside from the "Jesus don't like it" argument?
Funny thing is, Jesus probably would permit it if he was in power. He was all for tolerance. Hell, just take almost any fundamentalist US Christian and their beliefs will be mostly opposite to those of the Jesus in the Bible.

This is what we're up against in this country. People who have revised history to make their hateful point of view OK. Thank god for you, Canada! Maybe you're what we, as a country, need in order to finally understand that creating seperations like this among fellow human beings will only cause problems.
I certainly agree. Is there really that much difference in the way that religious fundamentalists talk about gay people and the way that Nazis talk about Jews?

Funny thing is, Jesus probably would permit it if he was in power. He was all for tolerance. Hell, just take almost any fundamentalist US Christian and their beliefs will be mostly opposite to those of the Jesus in the Bible.




Are you for real? Sure he loved all people, but he did not like their sinful ways. Gods laws were the same as Jesus'. He even said we have to keep his fathers laws.

I think you need to re-read your bible little buddy!

Canada needs to arrest and depor a few 'evangelists' to send a strong message that fundementalism is not tolerated in the civilized world.
Hold on a minute now, that's tyranny. People still have a right to their free speech, even if it is hateful.

I generally agree but it is almost a though Canada is the relative you see all the time. GB & Australia are more like close friends and less the relative next door.

Funny, I thought GB was the grandad that the young'uns feel they have to be nice to so as not to hurt his feelings. Y'know, the one that's beginning to look a little decrepit of late and has a faint smell of cabbage about him?

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/012905focCanada.htm

Ooh, they must be getting really scared. Once Canada gets (federal) gay marriages US conservatives won't have a leg to stand on because nothing they claim is going to happen will happen, just as it hasn't in the European countries that have gay marriage laws. Canada being so close, they just won't be able to dismiss it and they know it.


Please, Canada, I absolutely BEG you as a concerned citizen of the United States to imprison these insurgent terrorists and hold them indefinately without access to legal council or religious materials.

Please, please, please, please, please!

NOW! Go get them! Stop reading this message!

Are you for real? Sure he loved all people, but he did not like their sinful ways. Gods laws were the same as Jesus'. He even said we have to keep his fathers laws.

I think you need to re-read your bible little buddy!

And yet, he dispelled a number of those laws...paving a way to convenient prejudice-reinforcing faith for salad bar "Christians" everwhere.

And yet, he dispelled a number of those laws...paving a way to convenient prejudice-reinforcing faith for salad bar "Christians" everwhere.

And here I thought Wicca was the salad bar religion--at least that's how I heard one of my Wiccan friends describe it. Or was it cafeteria style. . . <Shrugs> To each their own.

My question is... is this a military invasion. Overweight American preachers with semi-auto shotguns and deer rifles versus the Canadian military (a smorgasboard of American equipment, britich traning, and french cowardice IMNSHO) Who would win? The Americans probably have really bad melee skills, but the deer rifles are good at long rance... Ah but the canucks have tanks, even if they cant drive them or fire their main guns IMNSHO. I say do it, it would be an interesting bit of warfare, and would rid us of two slightly distatseful groups of people. Now if they could ally against the french...

I mean; this sort of equality is built into our Constitution, so our courts have no choice but to rule in favour. It's not the same in the States.

Actualy, it is.

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship rights

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

U.S. Constitution - Article 4 Section 1
Article 4 - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

These three pieces of the Constitution, taken together with the fact that Massachusetts currently allows gay marriage, means that every State must allow gay marriage.
To deny gay marriages rattified Massachusetts would be unconstitutional.
Although only one state currently allows same-sex marriage all are legaly bound to respect these marriages. Because of this, they might as well permit it in their own states.

Of course, no court or government will admit this.

Actualy, it is.

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship rights

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

U.S. Constitution - Article 4 Section 1
Article 4 - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

These three pieces of the Constitution, taken together with the fact that Massachusetts currently allows gay marriage, means that every State must allow gay marriage.
To deny gay marriages rattified Massachusetts would be unconstitutional.
Although only one state currently allows same-sex marriage all are legaly bound to respect these marriages. Because of this, they might as well permit it in their own states.

Of course, no court or government will admit this.


It all goes back to as I've said before. We have this great Consitution that guarantees equal rights to all. And time and time again we've had to amend it to say "No really, equal rights to all means equal rights to all . . . not just the majority."

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/012905focCanada.htm

Ooh, they must be getting really scared. Once Canada gets (federal) gay marriages US conservatives won't have a leg to stand on because nothing they claim is going to happen will happen, just as it hasn't in the European countries that have gay marriage laws. Canada being so close, they just won't be able to dismiss it and they know it.

LOL!

Can we just ship them all up your way?

i dont suppose you would consider KEEPING them. kind of a trade off for all the old canadians in florida this time of year.....

please?
Sorry, no deal.

Americans, sorry, nobody wants your evanga-fascists.

Americans, sorry, nobody wants your evanga-fascists.

We know. We don't want them either. That's why we were so happy to hear they were packing up to go to Canada.