Exactly.yychobbyist said:Good for them. Hope it goes through.
I don't think this is an election issue - I don't think either side can afford to role the dice at this point on this issue.
Re:re:#4 - No I don't believe married couples who cannot reproduce naturally through intercourse have any less of a marriage, hence the need for adoption or IVF. However, this is the exception - most heterosexual couples can reproduce without aid. ALL homosexual couples need IVF or adoption to have kids. And how many of the women in these relationships know who the donor of the sperm is? That should be of concern.yychobbyist said:Re #4 - so what of hetero couples who cannot conceive because of medical reasons? Is their marriage somehow less of a marriage because of it? What if the female in a hetero relationship must go to a sperm donor because hubby is incapable of producing semen. That's exactly what lesbians can do as well. Does that mean you therefore advocate gay marriage for women only.
Re - #5. A child is better off with parents who love them and nurture them and are there for them throughout everything throughout their lives. End of story.
Re #7 - blah blah blah. The "it's always been there so never change it" argument is so weak it need never be included. We never let women vote until the middle of the last century - we changed that. Women historically didn't have the right to divorce - we got rid of that. Everything changes. Get used to it.
K Douglas said:Re:re:#7 - You argue apples and oranges. Women were deprived of a basic human right that directly affected their lives. They also comprised half of the population. Gays are not being deprived if they are allowed civil unions with all the spousal benefit entitlements. They just don't get to call themselves married. Plus they only comprise 5% of the population not 50%. Big difference.
Let me end this by saying some things are never meant to change. To do so would be a threat to the evolution of society.
onthebottom said:tounge firmly in cheek
So, what do the people think? With KKKanada being a single party democracy I'm curious on what the lowly people think of Gay marriage. Certainly there must be poll data - I'm sure at least half of KKKanadians have phones by now.
OTB
This is the best I could come up with:onthebottom said:tounge firmly in cheek
Certainly there must be poll data - I'm sure at least half of KKKanadians have phones by now.
OTB
Thanks,Cardinal Fang said:This is the best I could come up with:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2491
On whether or not this should be an election issue:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2541
*Cockpunches OTB*
the real questions is- will people vote against it as they have done in the US.onthebottom said:Thanks,
Looks like your numbers are not that different from ours - 60/40 against marriage, 70/30 in favor of civil unions.
Bitch slaps CF
OTB
Yo Don,DonQuixote said:Attorneys will get to handle the pre-nup and divorce. Great for business. Plus,
there's the Reception and the profit for caterers as well as the outfits. Imagine
two brides in white satin dresses walking down the aisle! My attitude is why do
they get off by not having all the expenses of a union while we heteros get hosed?
As for adopting children, that will always be a facts and circumstances situation.
I don't buy the argument that the children need a father and mother. Having practiced
law for 30 years I can tell you many ugly stories about child molestation by ste-fathers
and boy friends. Enough to make your skin crawl. Either the person is decent or a
jerk. Gender neutral. Studies have been done in the States that shows there are
no lasting injuries to the children. I've also read stories where one of the parents has
a sex change after the divorce with no lasting damage to the children.
Lets get real folks, there's no such thing a normal when it comes to we human beings.
Don
or will they get the chance.red said:the real questions is- will people vote against it as they have done in the US.
onthebottom said:or will they get the chance.
OTB
If we included the referendum on the next federal ballot, it could be used to force the next gov't to use the notwithstanding clause because any attempt to get around this issue will apparently only end up back in the supreme court. If Martin can get this through with a free vote and a minority gov't, the people will have had their say. I agree that a referendum is no way to decide an issue involving individual rights, especially with the courts looming over the whole thing anyway.red said:...Not sure I agree with the process in the US where you can have a referendum effecting personal liberties.
There you go.. You ruined a perfectly good dream..of polygamy.DonQuixote said:If you read the bible literally, harems or polygamy, is OK.
But, who would want more than one wife? Who could afford them?
Who could handle the stress?
Come on, get real. One doesn't lead to the other. That's convoluted thinking.