None. Just like it is not their business to redefine marriage of a man and woman to include 2 gays or 2 lesbians.red said:they want to define their own relationships- how is it your business to define them?
None. Just like it is not their business to redefine marriage of a man and woman to include 2 gays or 2 lesbians.red said:they want to define their own relationships- how is it your business to define them?
Goober Mcfly said:....by legislating political correctness.
if they want to be married- how does it effect you? really- how? will you feel less married? will you leave your wife because, hey- being married is what gays do and you don't want people to think you're gay? I can't understand the hang upn_v said:None. Just like it is not their business to redefine marriage of a man and woman to include 2 gays or 2 lesbians.
Their unions would have the same benefits (tax and others) that current marriages have. That is euquality hich is what they want. For them to encroach on my beliefs is rather arrogant of them!!red said:so what? what has religion or spirituality got to do with it? equal but separate doesn't work.
How are the rights of the individuals being infringed upon? They will be at no disadvantage of traditionally married persons except in title!red said:sometimes the law has to be changed to protect the rights of individuals
Well said and I totally concur.Goober Mcfly said:The way I see it:
Allow same-sex unions by Act of Parliament. Call the union a "Civil Union". Attach any and all rights of traditionally married couples.
If at some point in the future, the cultural climate of Canada sees fit to blur the lines between traditionally married persons and "civilly unified" persons to call them both "married" in the common vernacular, fine.
I just don't think that the government should be ramming it down our throats now.
they want the same right as yourself, assuming you are straight, to have their union called a marriage. that's their beefGoober Mcfly said:How are the rights of the individuals being infringed upon? They will be at no disadvantage of traditionally married persons except in title!
This is my entire beef!
how is it encroaching on your beliefs? curiousn_v said:Their unions would have the same benefits (tax and others) that current marriages have. That is euquality hich is what they want. For them to encroach on my beliefs is rather arrogant of them!!
Or, I could rephrase....Goober Mcfly said:How? Don't dodge the issue this time. Tell me how having a different term for homosexual unions versus heterosexual unions somehow infringes on one groups equality or freedom.
From Page 1:yychobbyist said:Let me ask you and Goober a question: what is it about the term "marriage" or the concept of marriage that you hold so dear that it should not be extended to include homosexual couples?
What I object to is the fact that there IS a middle ground which will address everyone's concerns. Each side is just so intent on standing firm that it's becoming a pissing match.Goober Mcfly said:Sounds good to me. Why not meet in the middle somewhere?On Tuesday, Harper told reporters that he's aiming for a consensus recognizing traditional marriage without taking away from the rights of same-sex couples.
What I object to is the fact that there IS a middle ground which will address everyone's concerns. Each side is just so intent on standing firm that it's becoming a pissing match. [/B][/QUOTE]Goober Mcfly said:From Page 1:Sounds good to me. Why not meet in the middle somewhere?
Hmmm?Originally posted by Goober Mcfly
How? Don't dodge the issue this time. Tell me how having a different term for homosexual unions versus heterosexual unions somehow infringes on one groups equality or freedom.
Or, I could rephrase....
How is your argument any different from requesting that from now on, all homosexuals MUST be referred to as "heterosexuals" because that's what heterosexuals are called?