[TonyV]

Torontovibe: take comfort in the fact that the mainstream media (in today's case, the editorial page of the Globe) are continuing to point out Ford's failings. (The Globe is praising Calgary's mayor for joining their parade, contrasted against Ford's no-show here).

I maintain that the media will shed a lot of light on Ford's failings, and not just the Pride disaster. He is in for a really rough ride now, and his support will crumble over ensuing years. It is not such a stretch that there is someone out there with enough smarts to dethrone Ford.

 

[jje1000]

There is not one legally defensible reason to prevent or deny gay marriage. Not one.

The Bible says that all gays must be stoned!

 

[Ak2809]

The Bible says that all gays must be stoned!

Is this advocating the legalization of marijuana?

 

[OttoSchloss]

I've said in the past, call same sex relationships unions. That's the definition I think works.

Marriage has always been defined as between the genders. It's reproductive in origin. And one can hardly accuse only Ford of misunderstanding the gay issue or community. Honestly, as an outside, how could most of us relate? I know I couldn't and can't. I can't relate to a black household either in certain respects. Or a women, or a poor person in Africa.

And hasn't Ford question other types of funding? Not just the Aids funding? Again, people have their blinders on.

Marriage has not always been defined as a union of two genders. You are completely ignorant of history and what exactly marriage has been historically. The early Christian Church married men often. And marriage is more historically a union of assets and not people. The other thing is you can get married in whatever church you desire but until you register that marriage with the state or jurisdiction you live in it is meaningless. Gay people cannot not force churches to marry them anymore than Catholics can force Mosques to display crucifixes on their front doors.

If we start using the argument that *this* is what *this* is historically then we may as well put women back in the kitchen, begin treating people like property or denying them the right to vote (separate but equal).

And finally, the push for marriage over civil unions is important in many jurisdictions because MARRIED people have more *rights* and options that people in CIVIL UNIONS do not share.

If people are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage then make divorce illegal.

 

[Ak2809]

Civil unions for homosexuals violates a person's right not to be discriminated against. Seperate but equal is still discriminatory.

 

[TonyV]

If people are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage then make divorce illegal.

If there is such a concern for the sanctity of marriage then why do so many heteros desanctify their own marriages?

The "sanctity of marriage" argument is junked. Everyday. In word and in deed. And not by homosexuals.

 

[tkip]

If there is such a concern for the sanctity of marriage then why do so many heteros desanctify their own marriages?

The "sanctity of marriage" argument is junked. Everyday. In word and in deed. And not by homosexuals.

Utter nonsense. People in general today have little regard towards all relationships, not just marriages. Families are separated and distant. We live in a disposable society.

 

[tkip]

I am extremely disturbed to find out that there are people here who are so deeply prejudiced that they actually think it's acceptable to say that it's okay to discriminate based on sexual orientation or race!

That is exactly what you are doing.

Of course it's discrimination! How can it possibly be anything other than discrimination! Even our courts have been very clear on this.

It's also an opinion/view of some that there shouldn't be interracial marriage. Or that Christians shouldn't marry Muslims. Are those also only opinion's and views?

I'm hiding something? Really? Yet you failed to answer the question of what industry you work in where everyone runs around discriminating against gays! Do your gay co-workers, friend, and relatives share in this ... or is it all done behind their backs?

Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe the trite you put out. Sadly, I just think you're a extremely bitter, hate filled individual that you accuse of others of being.

You appointed yourself the morality police and have decided that anyone who has a different moral compass is automatically a hate filled individual. You live in a very twisted and narrow world. I said it before. You're a bigot in your own right and a bully. It's actually fascinating reading your posts ranting that Ford, myself and everyone else are spreading hate and out to get gays.

Your over-the-top views on marriage and accusations of others being filled with prejudice and actively discriminating against gays make me question your own past.

 

[TonyV]

Utter nonsense. People in general today have little regard towards all relationships, not just marriages. Families are separated and distant. We live in a disposable society.

I don't live in a disposable society. Perhaps you do. Fine if that's your choice.

 

[nfitz]

You live in a very twisted and narrow world.

I live in a twisted and narrow word?

And yet your the one who admits to being prejudiced against gays? Get a mirror.

Your discrimination is one of the most despicable and disgusting behaviours imaginable to mankind. You have the gall to come here and say it's okay to discriminate, and then verbally attack those that disagree with you.

It's this belief that discrimination is okay, that - in it's most extreme form - ultimately leads to the murder of gays on the streets.

I'm shocked that anyone here thinks prejudice is okay. Who do you think you are to tell anyone who and who they shouldn't marry, based on sexual preference, race, or religion?

You've failed to answer the most interesting questions here. What kind of workplace do you work in where everyone is against gay marriage? In Toronto? Do your gay co-workers, friend, and relatives share your beliefs?

 

[doug]

Your over-the-top views on marriage

Believing in equality is "over the top" ? That speaks volumes about you.

 

[Tulse]

People in general today have little regard towards all relationships, not just marriages. Families are separated and distant. We live in a disposable society.

Right, and so one way to mitigate that is to allow all people to legally solemnize and contractually formalize their romantic relationships. What do you think promotes "disposability" more: having a significant group of people prohibited from having legal families, or allowing them to enter into the same legal structure as everyone else?

Those who are anti-gay often complain about how the allegedly promiscuous and consequence-free "gay lifestyle" is destroying traditional families, and yet at the same time balk when gay people want to adopt that same traditional family model. It makes no sense. Gay people are here, and will have relationships whether you like it or not. The question is whether it does more to strengthen traditional models of relationships and family if they are also allowed to participate in those models, or if instead they are prevented from marrying, and thus forced to act as a model of relationships without legal entanglements and contractually-enforced commitments. Do you really think that latter option is better for strengthening traditional marriage?

 

[tkip]

Believing in equality is "over the top" ? That speaks volumes about you.

Have you actually read nfitz's posts? His posts aren't about equality at all. They're about only his opinion mattering and smearing others for having a different view.

His never ending rants that Ford is evil and the worst human being ever. Have you actually read this guy's tirades where he accuses people like myself, Ford and the entire planet is out to get gays because we think it makes more sense for marriage being between men and women?

And no one challenges this guy on his own hate and instead smear others for speaking out loud against him.

 

[tkip]

Right, and so one way to mitigate that is to allow all people to legally solemnize and contractually formalize their romantic relationships. What do you think promotes "disposability" more: having a significant group of people prohibited from having legal families, or allowing them to enter into the same legal structure as everyone else?

Those who are anti-gay often complain about how the allegedly promiscuous and consequence-free "gay lifestyle" is destroying traditional families, and yet at the same time balk when gay people want to adopt that same traditional family model. It makes no sense. Gay people are here, and will have relationships whether you like it or not. The question is whether it does more to strengthen traditional models of relationships and family if they are also allowed to participate in those models, or if instead they are prevented from marrying, and thus forced to act as a model of relationships without legal entanglements and contractually-enforced commitments Do you really think that latter option is better for strengthening traditional marriage?

No, there is a attempt on this board to drag the honest debate about same sex marriage down and shame people that actually say they think marriage means between men and women.

 

[Tulse]

No, there is a attempt on this board to drag the honest debate about same sex marriage into the gutters and shame people that actually say they think marriage means between men and women.

But you didn't answer the question I posed -- is it better for traditional marriage if some people are forced to stay outside it and thus required to have "disposable" relationships"?