UNMODERATED - DISCUSS AT YOUR OWN RISK!:Uptown Sports has this little ditty to say:

hemlock wrote:

strachattack wrote:I enjoy Hitchen's quip on happy marriage that twists the debate: "This is an argument about the socialisation of homosexuality, not the homosexualisation of society. It demonstrates the spread of conservatism, not radicalism, among gays."

Hitchens :KKK:

SpezDispenser wrote:Not touching this with a 10 foot pole. I didn't think we'd get into a debate of any kind on happy marriages or happy people in general.

Moderators out IMO, good luck to everyone who wants to discuss this issue in detail.

My stance stays the same: UptownHockey should keep their opinions to themselves in this day and age.

hemlock wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:The majority of well respected biologist will say that homosexuality is "natural", im almost certain. Especially because homosexuality is not always a choice. Just as I was born heterosexual, millions of people in the world were born with a natural tendency to be homosexual; its all in the brain.

Now these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are and how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

If it's the former, then I am ashamed of our society for making them feel this way. If it's the latter, then they deserve to be treated no differently than the rest of us. We're a society that takes a long time to accept that other groups are equal. It looks like the only way out of this is to wait for the bigots die off.

I have never been against the legal union of homosexuals, and that couple receiving all the rights granted a married couple. My only issue is the insistance of marriage as opposed to a legal or civil union. This isn't an argument against Rights, it is an argument against the need of our population to feel that protection of a certain way of life is wrong and the societal guilt we are made to feel. If you want to discuss Rights then let's stop bickering about "marriage" and start taking about women's rights, rights to religious freedoms, a woman's right to choose, visible minority rights. I equate the fight to have same-sex marriage to the fight of women to be allowed to join male only clubs. It's simply trying to prove a point, that doesn't need to be proven.

For the record I believe that homesexuality is "natural" in that for a great deal of homosexuals their instints lean towards that orientation. I also believe that our societal acceptance of homosexuals, while a good thing, has created an enviornment where there are a great number of "by choice" homosexuals. All the power to them, just leave marriage alone.

By choice homosexuals? LOL! I believe the term you are looking for is bisexual. Being a true homosexual (as in not bi) is not a choice. Sure they are people who engage with both sexes, and that is a choice, but that has to do with gratification and not a biological sexual orientation. This is supported by decades of research and frankly, is beyond argument.

Also, calling it a civil union and denying the right to have it called a marriage is still discrimination in my opinion. There is a clear distinction there.

Just say what you want to say: My archaic beliefs don't allow me to have an open mind.

Oglethorpe wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:The majority of well respected biologist will say that homosexuality is "natural", im almost certain. Especially because homosexuality is not always a choice. Just as I was born heterosexual, millions of people in the world were born with a natural tendency to be homosexual; its all in the brain.

Now these people could either ignore their natural urges, living a life of shame, humiliation, and misery, hiding a major part of who they are and how they were made, or they could be open about their sexuality, and proud of the way they were born.

If it's the former, then I am ashamed of our society for making them feel this way. If it's the latter, then they deserve to be treated no differently than the rest of us. We're a society that takes a long time to accept that other groups are equal. It looks like the only way out of this is to wait for the bigots die off.

I have never been against the legal union of homosexuals, and that couple receiving all the rights granted a married couple. My only issue is the insistance of marriage as opposed to a legal or civil union. This isn't an argument against Rights, it is an argument against the need of our population to feel that protection of a certain way of life is wrong and the societal guilt we are made to feel. If you want to discuss Rights then let's stop bickering about "marriage" and start taking about women's rights, rights to religious freedoms, a woman's right to choose, visible minority rights. I equate the fight to have same-sex marriage to the fight of women to be allowed to join male only clubs. It's simply trying to prove a point, that doesn't need to be proven.

For the record I believe that homesexuality is "natural" in that for a great deal of homosexuals their instints lean towards that orientation. I also believe that our societal acceptance of homosexuals, while a good thing, has created an enviornment where there are a great number of "by choice" homosexuals. All the power to them, just leave marriage alone.

By choice homosexuals? LOL! I believe the term you are looking for is bisexual. Being a true homosexual (as in not bi) is not a choice. Sure they are people who engage with both sexes, and that is a choice, but that has to do with gratification and not a biological sexual orientation. This is supported by decades of research and frankly, is beyond argument.

Also, calling it a civil union and denying the right to have it called a marriage is still discrimination in my opinion. There is a clear distinction there.

Just say what you want to say: My archaic beliefs don't allow me to have an open mind.

Comments like this are why it is impossible to have a debate with some people. The liberal minds of today talk about debate and openmindedness, yet when an opposing viewpoint is expressed they make comments like this.

Oglethorpe wrote:Below are the descriptions of marriage and civil unions in Canada. IMO what needs to be done is the removal of "Civil Marriage". Thus all legalities and rights would be gained under the Civil Union, whether you are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple. Marriage would then be "Religious Marriage" only thus protecting the sanctity of marriage.

•Marriage — Governments are concerned only with civil marriage. Religious marriages, by themselves, have no legal effect. As a practical matter, the difference between religious and civil marriage is often invisible in Canada. In most provinces, civil authorities licence religious officials to simultaneously conduct the religious and civil marriage.
•Civil union — is different from civil marriage. It is a registration system that recognizes the desire of two individuals to register their relationship in order to trigger legal consequences. There is currently no such system at the federal level in Canada, although four provinces have passed a form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation for provincial laws.

Before you get all liberal minded on me and call me a Social conservative religous zealot, I should come clear. I do not belive in God, nor am I in any way a member of any religion, I only respect religious freedoms. I am 100% against discrimination of all types. I fully support same-sex couples and believe that any and all rights given to opposite-sex couples are given to same-sex couples.

Most people tend to think that everyone who is for the traditional definition of marriage is anti-homosexual, that is just ignorant thinking. Some of us see the debate as a balance of all rights and freedoms.

hemlock wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:Below are the descriptions of marriage and civil unions in Canada. IMO what needs to be done is the removal of "Civil Marriage". Thus all legalities and rights would be gained under the Civil Union, whether you are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple. Marriage would then be "Religious Marriage" only thus protecting the sanctity of marriage.

•Marriage — Governments are concerned only with civil marriage. Religious marriages, by themselves, have no legal effect. As a practical matter, the difference between religious and civil marriage is often invisible in Canada. In most provinces, civil authorities licence religious officials to simultaneously conduct the religious and civil marriage.
•Civil union — is different from civil marriage. It is a registration system that recognizes the desire of two individuals to register their relationship in order to trigger legal consequences. There is currently no such system at the federal level in Canada, although four provinces have passed a form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation for provincial laws.

Before you get all liberal minded on me and call me a Social conservative religous zealot, I should come clear. I do not belive in God, nor am I in any way a member of any religion, I only respect religious freedoms. I am 100% against discrimination of all types. I fully support same-sex couples and believe that any and all rights given to opposite-sex couples are given to same-sex couples.

Most people tend to think that everyone who is for the traditional definition of marriage is anti-homosexual, that is just ignorant thinking. Some of us see the debate as a balance of all rights and freedoms.

This leads me to ask, why you feel the need to make homosexual marriage distinctive from all opposite sex marriages by not classifying it the same? Clearly, for whatever reason, you don't feel that homosexual marriage should not be classified in the same manner. You've stated it's not religious, so what is it?

Also, I'll agree with you on religious freedoms. As an atheist, I practice no form of religion (except for the church of Alfie ), but I respect others right to do so. However, once any religious group tries to regulate or affect the way others live, that's when my agreement ends. Same sex marriage is most definitely one of those things.

Oglethorpe wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:Below are the descriptions of marriage and civil unions in Canada. IMO what needs to be done is the removal of "Civil Marriage". Thus all legalities and rights would be gained under the Civil Union, whether you are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple. Marriage would then be "Religious Marriage" only thus protecting the sanctity of marriage.

•Marriage — Governments are concerned only with civil marriage. Religious marriages, by themselves, have no legal effect. As a practical matter, the difference between religious and civil marriage is often invisible in Canada. In most provinces, civil authorities licence religious officials to simultaneously conduct the religious and civil marriage.
•Civil union — is different from civil marriage. It is a registration system that recognizes the desire of two individuals to register their relationship in order to trigger legal consequences. There is currently no such system at the federal level in Canada, although four provinces have passed a form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation for provincial laws.

Before you get all liberal minded on me and call me a Social conservative religous zealot, I should come clear. I do not belive in God, nor am I in any way a member of any religion, I only respect religious freedoms. I am 100% against discrimination of all types. I fully support same-sex couples and believe that any and all rights given to opposite-sex couples are given to same-sex couples.

Most people tend to think that everyone who is for the traditional definition of marriage is anti-homosexual, that is just ignorant thinking. Some of us see the debate as a balance of all rights and freedoms.

This leads me to ask, why you feel the need to make homosexual marriage distinctive from all opposite sex marriages by not classifying it the same? Clearly, for whatever reason, you don't feel that homosexual marriage should not be classified in the same manner. You've stated it's not religious, so what is it?

Also, I'll agree with you on religious freedoms. As an atheist, I practice no form of religion (except for the church of Alfie ), but I respect others right to do so. However, once any religious group tries to regulate or affect the way others live, that's when my agreement ends. Same sex marriage is most definitely one of those things.

Let me clear one other thing up. I am in no way liberal, and in no way want to come across as liberal. The institution of marriage began to desolve once it was used by the government as a "Civil marriage". My beliefs remain, marriage is a religious union, whereas civil unions are the legal union. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state.

hemlock wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:Below are the descriptions of marriage and civil unions in Canada. IMO what needs to be done is the removal of "Civil Marriage". Thus all legalities and rights would be gained under the Civil Union, whether you are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple. Marriage would then be "Religious Marriage" only thus protecting the sanctity of marriage.

•Marriage — Governments are concerned only with civil marriage. Religious marriages, by themselves, have no legal effect. As a practical matter, the difference between religious and civil marriage is often invisible in Canada. In most provinces, civil authorities licence religious officials to simultaneously conduct the religious and civil marriage.
•Civil union — is different from civil marriage. It is a registration system that recognizes the desire of two individuals to register their relationship in order to trigger legal consequences. There is currently no such system at the federal level in Canada, although four provinces have passed a form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation for provincial laws.

Before you get all liberal minded on me and call me a Social conservative religous zealot, I should come clear. I do not belive in God, nor am I in any way a member of any religion, I only respect religious freedoms. I am 100% against discrimination of all types. I fully support same-sex couples and believe that any and all rights given to opposite-sex couples are given to same-sex couples.

Most people tend to think that everyone who is for the traditional definition of marriage is anti-homosexual, that is just ignorant thinking. Some of us see the debate as a balance of all rights and freedoms.

This leads me to ask, why you feel the need to make homosexual marriage distinctive from all opposite sex marriages by not classifying it the same? Clearly, for whatever reason, you don't feel that homosexual marriage should not be classified in the same manner. You've stated it's not religious, so what is it?

Also, I'll agree with you on religious freedoms. As an atheist, I practice no form of religion (except for the church of Alfie ), but I respect others right to do so. However, once any religious group tries to regulate or affect the way others live, that's when my agreement ends. Same sex marriage is most definitely one of those things.

Let me clear one other thing up. I am in no way liberal, and in no way want to come across as liberal. The institution of marriage began to desolve once it was used by the government as a "Civil marriage". My beliefs remain, marriage is a religious union, whereas civil unions are the legal union. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state.

Ok, so I think I understand your position. You are saying that homosexual marriage should not be classified as a "traditional" marriage because it's a religious union, and since homosexuality isn't allowed in most religions, it should be classified as something different, is that correct?

To which I would say, what does that do for married couples (such as myself and my wife) who are not religious? Should we have to have a separate classification because we don't adhere to a specific religious doctrine? Perhaps, marriage regardless of the participants should be a strict civil union (by law) and religion should be left out entirely.

Oglethorpe wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Oglethorpe wrote:Below are the descriptions of marriage and civil unions in Canada. IMO what needs to be done is the removal of "Civil Marriage". Thus all legalities and rights would be gained under the Civil Union, whether you are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple. Marriage would then be "Religious Marriage" only thus protecting the sanctity of marriage.

•Marriage — Governments are concerned only with civil marriage. Religious marriages, by themselves, have no legal effect. As a practical matter, the difference between religious and civil marriage is often invisible in Canada. In most provinces, civil authorities licence religious officials to simultaneously conduct the religious and civil marriage.
•Civil union — is different from civil marriage. It is a registration system that recognizes the desire of two individuals to register their relationship in order to trigger legal consequences. There is currently no such system at the federal level in Canada, although four provinces have passed a form of civil union or domestic partnership legislation for provincial laws.

Before you get all liberal minded on me and call me a Social conservative religous zealot, I should come clear. I do not belive in God, nor am I in any way a member of any religion, I only respect religious freedoms. I am 100% against discrimination of all types. I fully support same-sex couples and believe that any and all rights given to opposite-sex couples are given to same-sex couples.

Most people tend to think that everyone who is for the traditional definition of marriage is anti-homosexual, that is just ignorant thinking. Some of us see the debate as a balance of all rights and freedoms.

This leads me to ask, why you feel the need to make homosexual marriage distinctive from all opposite sex marriages by not classifying it the same? Clearly, for whatever reason, you don't feel that homosexual marriage should not be classified in the same manner. You've stated it's not religious, so what is it?

Also, I'll agree with you on religious freedoms. As an atheist, I practice no form of religion (except for the church of Alfie ), but I respect others right to do so. However, once any religious group tries to regulate or affect the way others live, that's when my agreement ends. Same sex marriage is most definitely one of those things.

Let me clear one other thing up. I am in no way liberal, and in no way want to come across as liberal. The institution of marriage began to desolve once it was used by the government as a "Civil marriage". My beliefs remain, marriage is a religious union, whereas civil unions are the legal union. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state.

Ok, so I think I understand your position. You are saying that homosexual marriage should not be classified as a "traditional" marriage because it's a religious union, and since homosexuality isn't allowed in most religions, it should be classified as something different, is that correct?

To which I would say, what does that do for married couples (such as myself and my wife) who are not religious? Should we have to have a separate classification because we don't adhere to a specific religious doctrine? Perhaps, marriage regardless of the participants should be a strict civil union (by law) and religion should be left out entirely.

Leave marriage to mean a religious union. My wife and I were not married in a religious ceremony, therefore if I could rewrite the laws we would be in a Civil Union as opposed to a Marriage since "Civil Marriage" would no longer exist in a legal sense, and all same-sex couples would be treated identically to us, thereby ensuring equal rights to them. I believe this accomplishes the equal rights goal faster and with less objection since it marginalizes any religious groups argument.

wprager wrote:

Tuk Tuk wrote:Diddle traditional morals and values. Traditional roles includes men holding all the power, basically buying women to be their wives, and stoning women who were raped.

There's a reason why my generation mainly supports happy marriage. Its all the natural progression.

First of all, stoning was never a traditional value, unless you want to talk about the Middle East (or do you want to bring the Salem witch hunts into this?)

However, I'm actually more curious what you mean by "the natural progression". Progression to what, exactly? Clearly, from the emotions-aside, strictly-nature and life-finds-a-way point of view, homosexuality is an aberration; it does not promote the species. You can argue that it is a matter of choice, or that it is a matter of how they were created/made, but you cannot argue that it is not the way it was intended by nature. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, evolution -- no matter what you want to call it, homosexuality does not "fit in" well.

Sorry to have gone off on a tangent, a bit. Back to this progression . What if cousins want to marry? First cousins, is that OK? How about brothers and sisters, or parents and their children? Abhorrent, you say? Why? What makes homosexuality more acceptable than incest (provided everyone has reached the age of consent, of course)? There are no laws against marrying someone old enough to be your son or daughter, just not you son or daughter (or sibling or first cousin). The underlying reason for this (other than the ick factor) is that it's a bad thing to do from a genetic point of view. It may promote the species, but in a potentially dangerous way, whereas homosexuality simply does not promote the species. You can argue semantics, how one brings about the extinction of the species more quickly than the other but, really, what is the point?

So I'll ask you again. Progression to what? Are you prepared to defend same-sex marriage while continuing to prohibit same-family marriage? Or how about inter-species? Or self-marriage (there was a movie on, the other night, where an unmarried woman in her 30s decided to marry herself; cute, but makes you think).

Or we can just return to talking about hockey.

Oglethorpe wrote:Leave marriage to mean a religious union. My wife and I were not married in a religious ceremony, therefore if I could rewrite the laws we would be in a Civil Union as opposed to a Marriage since "Civil Marriage" would no longer exist in a legal sense, and all same-sex couples would be treated identically to us, thereby ensuring equal rights to them. I believe this accomplishes the equal rights goal faster and with less objection since it marginalizes any religious groups argument.

wprager wrote:Spader, do you really want to bring views on abortion into this discussion as well? Yikes.

wprager wrote:Spader, do you really want to bring views on abortion into this discussion as well? Yikes.

Big Ev wrote:I heard Reynolds also has a strong relationship with the blacks.