[pyritechips]

This is a very hot topic in Canada now. It has already happened in Ontario, but my province, Alberta, is rejecting it lock, stock and barrel. Alberta Premier Ralph Klien has sated that he will "opt" out of the Federal decision.

What are your views, and why?

[TechGuy]

Alright, I'll bite...

I, personally, think of marriage as a bond between two people. Who cares about their sex, color, or origin?

I realize that there are many people who would be offended by such a thing on terms of their religion. However, we have separation of church and state. What if there was a religion who didn't approve of your marriage? Who gets to be right? *shrugs*

Just my two cents...

[MsPCGenius]

To each his own, I say.... <b>but</b>, I would be opposed to same sex marriages adopting -- kids need a mommy/daddy or single parent role model. Same sex partners is still not the generally-accepted norm and I don't think children should grow up thinking this is 'the way it is'. They can choose that path when they are old enough to decide on their own -- nature vs. nuture

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by TechGuy:
Alright, I'll bite...

Not sure that's the appropriate phrase to use to introduce your take on same sex marriages!

[valley]

well, i've already given my two cents in another thread....I am opposed. For religious reasons. I believe that God, as our Creator has the right to impose such restrictions on us.

That being said....I am not hateful to, nor do I dislike homosexuals or look down on them in any way. I just dont agree with their lifestyles.

[RandyG]

heheh, PC, did you vote?

you're a stinker, putting a topic like this up.

My take on the situation . . .

folks make issues out of what they don't like.

Marriage is a sacred bond between 2 people (sometimes in the presence of A God). Last I heard, both men and women were people!

[RandyG]

Originally posted by valley:
well, i've already given my two cents in another thread....I am opposed. For religious reasons. I believe that God, as our Creator has the right to impose such restrictions on us.

That being said....I am not hateful to, nor do I dislike homosexuals or look down on them in any way. I just dont agree with their lifestyles.

Val . . .

Love ya babe, you know I do . . .


is it Ok if I disagree with your reasoning?

To me, it's a bit more judgemental than that fraternity of brotherhood Jesus created intended!

Love thy brother, darlin'!!

Take it literally, or take it figuratively, either way, it means love, and that ain't a bad thing, just your perception of it is!

kisses, and bye-bye!

[pyritechips]

I have to echo TechGuy's post. An ex-Prime Minister of Canada once stated: "The Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" [paraphrase].

I don't think children should grow up thinking this is 'the way it is'

I must disagree with this. There is no evidence that children will grow up with any 'abnormal' standards of what is right or wrong. Do we also deny the right of people with Cerebal Palsy or parapeligics the right to 'nuture' children? Because Homosexuality is as much 'nature' as the above.

And what about legal issues? There are certains tax cuts and other 'privileges' afforded married people. If two people of the same sex love each other and want to 'bond' isn't denying them the same 'privileges' merely punishing them for it?

[pyritechips]

Oops! More posts arrived while I was posting! I hate 'leapfrog' posting!

Yes Randy, I posted. I believe from my previous post you can tell how I voted.

Val's comments bring up a very important point. It is no secret that Alberta is very Conservative (and conservative) and very religious. I'm afraid that our provincial government has disagreed that "The Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation".

I just dont agree with their lifestyles

This is the crux of the problem! This is where the misunderstanding lies. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle! There is no evidence to back up the idea that people "choose" to have a same-sex relationship. The damning word "lifestyle" is rhetoric in its worst form. As soon as you say that other people believe that such-and-such a person 'decided' to live that 'lifestyle'

And as Mike stated. We live in an alleged Democracy, not a Theocracy. I do not believe in God, I do not believe in the Word of God and I refuse to be ruled by it. The Bible may be a good book of morals and guidance but there is no way it should replace the Canadian Criminal Code.

[valley]

Originally posted by RandyG:
Love thy brother, darlin'!!

Take it literally, or take it figuratively, either way, it means love, and that ain't a bad thing, just your perception of it is!

kisses, and bye-bye!

Randy...sweetie-pie....hunny-bun...there is love, and there is sexual love. There is a difference. I've got no problems with men loving men and women loving women...just not in the sexual sense. A marriage is usually consumated to be considered valid, isnt it? And if its ok for men to love men in a sexual way.....then how far are we from it being ok for brothers to love sisters and mother to love their sons that way...as long as they are two consenting adults?

[jimi]

Originally posted by LeslieGibb:
To each his own, I say.... <b>but</b>, I would be opposed to same sex marriages adopting

we agree

kids need a <strike>mommy/daddy or single parent</strike> role model.

your words - modified for my opinion

I don't think children should grow up thinking this is 'the way it is'. They can choose that path when they are old enough to decide on their own -- nature vs. nuture

can someone please explain how having 2 adult partners of the same sex in a childs life is going to make a child "choose that path"; maybe a bit more open minded for some same sex experimentation, but that being said my dad was a doctor, which inturn gave me more exposure to knowledge of medications, but that sure wasn't the cause of my drug experimantation. IMHO - a committed relationship, no matter what flavor is by far better than a non-committed one.

[RandyG]

ahh . . .

there lies the peril of morality that has been handed to you on a plate.

choose your own darlin', and let the church dictate it's own terms!

[plschwartz]

Just yesterday sat down with a good lawyer to update our very simple will. I was amazed at the legal protection and special consideration a spouse gets versus an untraditional couple. When there was no divorce and only life-long marriages this made more sense. But a heterosexual in the tenth marriage has protection the long-term homosexual does not
So I would favor the same legal protection for all couples, but perhaps not on an unlimited basis. I don't think that there should be full legal protection for those multiply married.

Psychologically and especially where fids are concerned I am really undecided.
LeslieGibb said: kids need a mommy/daddy or single parent role model. I disagree with the latter. Kids need male and female role models, tho not only in the nuclear family. A mother who spits poison toward an ex-or absent father is not to me a good parent.

Is a stable homosexual relationship where a kid has two parents for years worse for a boy who has had a dozen fathers by the "church door?"

I just draw the line at keeping it within the human species<BR><BR> A 4-year old Indian girl has married a stray dog in a traditional Hindu service.<BR><BR>Now this is as strange as it gets.<BR>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...dog000715.html

[valley]

Originally posted by RandyG:
there lies the peril of morality that has been handed to you on a plate.

choose your own darlin', and let the church dictate it's own terms!

I did choose my own opinion.....had I chosen otherwise, there are plenty of churches that accept homosexual couples in them that I can join, if I so desire. I choose to agree with scripture, that is all. It wasnt forced on me. I joined a church that agrees with my biblical beliefs, not one that forces theirs on me.