way to go canada

[UglyJimStudly 0]

So, the 50% that doesn't support gay marriage are home grown idiots, huh?

No, it's the folks like yourself who classify anybody opposed to a legislative solution as opposed to gay marriage who are home grown idiots. Saying "I don't think the government should get involved" is not the same as saying "I don't think gays should be allowed to get married". The polls that show anything close to 50% opposition to the legislation are measuring the former, not the latter. Of course, I said this the first time and it sailed way over your head, so I don't expect it to stick this time, either.

[Socko669 0]

Congrats. Now butt rammers and rug munchers can get married. Wow, that is really something to be proud of. I am so jealous of you Canadians. You really have it all don't you?

[UglyJimStudly 0]

As for my personal opinion on gay marriage, I am somewhat torn.  I have no problem whatsoever with legal civil union between gays, with all the legal rights of marriage afforded to them.  But when it comes to constitutional change, to redefine marriage...I hesitate.

There is no constitutional change required to implement gay marriage in Canada - as anybody even vaguely familiar with C-38 would know, it is not a constitutional amendment. Quite the opposite; constitutional action (either directly with an amendment, or via the notwithstanding clause) is required to prevent gays from marrying.

[Allie 0]

So, the 50% that doesn't support gay marriage are home grown idiots, huh?

No, it's the folks like yourself who classify anybody opposed to a legislative solution as opposed to gay marriage who are home grown idiots. Saying "I don't think the government should get involved" is not the same as saying "I don't think gays should be allowed to get married". The polls that show anything close to 50% opposition to the legislation are measuring the former, not the latter. Of course, I said this the first time and it sailed way over your head, so I don't expect it to stick this time, either.

Wow, UglyJim, do you have to work really really hard at being this big of a douche? Or does it just come naturally?Now, having said that, you are correct about the constitutional amendment thing, and I was wrong and I have to eat my hat on that one. But, this whole thing started when I commented about your US influence/conspiracy theory....the way I read it, in the first post you made, was that Canadians who are opposed to same sex marriage are being influenced by US ideology/lobbyists/money, etc. You responded by calling those people home grown idiots, misinterpreting poll data....in reference to my assertion that 50% of canadians opposed gay marriage. Now, I guess I'm just a dumb redneckette, must be if I live in Alberta....but when I am saying roughly 50% for and 50% against....I'm obviously talking about supporting the law to legalize same sex marriage. You yourself said in a later post What Canadians are split 50/50 on is whether parliament should pass a law specifically legalizing gay marriage, or just continue the current court-enforced de facto legality (similar to the current legal status of abortion, for example). So what exactly was I misinterpreting? And my whole point at the beginning was.....there are Canadians who do not support legalizing gay marriage....they have their own opinions (doesn't matter if it's 50% or 20% or 90%).....and figured them all out by themselves in their little pea brains.....and my impression was that you were dismissing those people and their opinions as just pawns in some sort of right wing US agenda. Or just plain idiots. You obviously have followed this subject alot closer than I have....as I was assbackwards on the constitutional amendment thing....I thought that gays wanted an amendment to include gay marriage, and I now have been educated to the fact that it's just the opposite, gay marriage opponents wanted a change to make it illegal. I get that. And I humbly stand corrected. Must really be something to get up in the morning and arrogantly look at yourself in the mirror and say "my opinions are intellectually superior to all those who may disagree.... I am right....therefore they must be....idiots."

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm female, a registsered nurse, and a mother.  I am tolerant and compassionate of others.....as much as you would like to envision me as some sort of drooling, uneducated, unenlightened moron.    Gay couples should have the all the legal rights as anyone else, should they choose to join legally (including the right to pay alimony and give up assets should they divorce).  But being equal, doesn't mean you get to be "special"....even if the Stats Can number is low at 1%....let's say it's really 5-10%.....that's still a small number of people wanting change to something that the entire country's foundation is built upon.  

I don't care if you're a nurse and a mother. That's no excuse for being a bigot.I think you're missing my point.If only 1 person's rights were being violated, I would be concerned. 1% of 30 million (300,000 if you're having trouble) is enough people for me to take notice. That's probably more people than you have in your all-white small town.I'm not going to get into the whole foundation of the country argument with you. As was already stated, allowing gay marriage required no changes to our constitution. As for the definition of marriage, I believe, before gay marriage was legalized, it read silimar to:"A union between a man and a woman that is 61% likely to be dissolved within 4 years or less."Chances are that with no shotgun weddings in the gay community (pun intended), their divorce rate will be much, much lower. Maybe they'll be able to set an example for the straight community.

[Guest]

You don't know what you're missing out on, I can catch salmon like crazy.

lol

[Allie 0]

I don't care if you're a nurse and a mother. That's no excuse for being a bigot.I think you're missing my point.If only 1 person's rights were being violated, I would be concerned. 1% of 30 million (300,000 if you're having trouble) is enough people for me to take notice. That's probably more people than you have in your all-white small town.I'm not going to get into the whole foundation of the country argument with you. As was already stated, allowing gay marriage required no changes to our constitution. As for the definition of marriage, I believe, before gay marriage was legalized, it read silimar to:"A union between a man and a woman that is 61% likely to be dissolved within 4 years or less."Chances are that with no shotgun weddings in the gay community (pun intended), their divorce rate will be much, much lower. Maybe they'll be able to set an example for the straight community.

I am no bigot and resent that implication.You might want to be cautious about calling others something as offensive as bigot...."That's probably more people than you have in your all-white small town."Aside from your inaccuracy about where I reside, you have shown yourself to have misconceptions and stereotypical ideas about anyone who lives west of the Ontario border. Pot...meet kettle.I have not, one time, in this debate said I was against gay marriage. I said clearly that I support legal rights of gays to join and have the legal rights of a married couple. What I said I hesitate about, is this concept of redefining the word marriage....that's really what it comes down to for alot of people. I'm not sure where you got your definition of marriage, but the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that "… marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage."And really, this is the crux of the problem. There is no real clear definition....there is only interpretations of the definition, which is at the heart of the debate. I have not said clearly which side of this I fall, because I have mixed feelings.....that does not equate bigotry....it means I see both sides of the argument. If gay couples are not allowed to have legal rights as partners, ie. property rights, insurance benefits, legal decision making abilities for each other, etc etc.....then yes, I would see that as a human rights violation. But to be given all those rights....with the exclusion of using the term "marriage" in the tradition sense, calling it a legal union or whatever.....because its really just down to semantics then.....I'm not convinced that there's a breach of rights there. As far as the divorce rate among gays, it's obviously too soon to know....but I see no reason why, all things being equal, that the divorce rate would be any different than that of any other marriage.

[Guest Anonymous]

I don't care if you're a nurse and a mother. That's no excuse for being a bigot.I think you're missing my point.If only 1 person's rights were being violated, I would be concerned. 1% of 30 million (300,000 if you're having trouble) is enough people for me to take notice. That's probably more people than you have in your all-white small town.I'm not going to get into the whole foundation of the country argument with you. As was already stated, allowing gay marriage required no changes to our constitution. As for the definition of marriage, I believe, before gay marriage was legalized, it read silimar to:"A union between a man and a woman that is 61% likely to be dissolved within 4 years or less."Chances are that with no shotgun weddings in the gay community (pun intended), their divorce rate will be much, much lower. Maybe they'll be able to set an example for the straight community.

I am no bigot and resent that implication.You might want to be cautious about calling others something as offensive as bigot...."That's probably more people than you have in your all-white small town."Aside from your inaccuracy about where I reside, you have shown yourself to have misconceptions and stereotypical ideas about anyone who lives west of the Ontario border. Pot...meet kettle.I have not, one time, in this debate said I was against gay marriage. I said clearly that I support legal rights of gays to join and have the legal rights of a married couple. What I said I hesitate about, is this concept of redefining the word marriage....that's really what it comes down to for alot of people. I'm not sure where you got your definition of marriage, but the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that "… marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage."And really, this is the crux of the problem. There is no real clear definition....there is only interpretations of the definition, which is at the heart of the debate. I have not said clearly which side of this I fall, because I have mixed feelings.....that does not equate bigotry....it means I see both sides of the argument. If gay couples are not allowed to have legal rights as partners, ie. property rights, insurance benefits, legal decision making abilities for each other, etc etc.....then yes, I would see that as a human rights violation. But to be given all those rights....with the exclusion of using the term "marriage" in the tradition sense, calling it a legal union or whatever.....because its really just down to semantics then.....I'm not convinced that there's a breach of rights there. As far as the divorce rate among gays, it's obviously too soon to know....but I see no reason why, all things being equal, that the divorce rate would be any different than that of any other marriage.

You seem to have missed my point completely again. I appreciate the long, well thought out response though. Shows you are a long-winded bigot in denial. Accepting you have a problem is the first step to dealing with it. Remember that.(Now resorting to immature namecalling as attempts to show the fallacies in your argument and disregard for basic human rights have gone right over your head).As for Calgary having more than 300,000 people, remember, you're not allowed to count livestock. I didn't notice you were from Calgary, but that does explain a lot. No you're not from an Ontario hick town. Even better. You're from Alberta, a province that specializes in hoarding money and has no sense of federal responsibility. Geographically isolated from the world, living in a tax-free bovine utopia with almost no presence of visible minorities, you must have a hard time imagining what life must be like in the real world.Save your racist comments for another forum and stick to talking poker here. Do everyone a favor. This is not the place for you to be ignorantly spouting about how gay marriage makes you uncomfortable. Be careful, or else karma will have its way and next thing you know your neighborhood will be filled with Mr. and Mr. Smiths.

[Allie 0]

I don't care if you're a nurse and a mother. That's no excuse for being a bigot.I think you're missing my point.If only 1 person's rights were being violated, I would be concerned. 1% of 30 million (300,000 if you're having trouble) is enough people for me to take notice. That's probably more people than you have in your all-white small town.I'm not going to get into the whole foundation of the country argument with you. As was already stated, allowing gay marriage required no changes to our constitution. As for the definition of marriage, I believe, before gay marriage was legalized, it read silimar to:"A union between a man and a woman that is 61% likely to be dissolved within 4 years or less."Chances are that with no shotgun weddings in the gay community (pun intended), their divorce rate will be much, much lower. Maybe they'll be able to set an example for the straight community.

I am no bigot and resent that implication.You might want to be cautious about calling others something as offensive as bigot...."That's probably more people than you have in your all-white small town."Aside from your inaccuracy about where I reside, you have shown yourself to have misconceptions and stereotypical ideas about anyone who lives west of the Ontario border. Pot...meet kettle.I have not, one time, in this debate said I was against gay marriage. I said clearly that I support legal rights of gays to join and have the legal rights of a married couple. What I said I hesitate about, is this concept of redefining the word marriage....that's really what it comes down to for alot of people. I'm not sure where you got your definition of marriage, but the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that "… marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage."And really, this is the crux of the problem. There is no real clear definition....there is only interpretations of the definition, which is at the heart of the debate. I have not said clearly which side of this I fall, because I have mixed feelings.....that does not equate bigotry....it means I see both sides of the argument. If gay couples are not allowed to have legal rights as partners, ie. property rights, insurance benefits, legal decision making abilities for each other, etc etc.....then yes, I would see that as a human rights violation. But to be given all those rights....with the exclusion of using the term "marriage" in the tradition sense, calling it a legal union or whatever.....because its really just down to semantics then.....I'm not convinced that there's a breach of rights there. As far as the divorce rate among gays, it's obviously too soon to know....but I see no reason why, all things being equal, that the divorce rate would be any different than that of any other marriage.

You seem to have missed my point completely again. I appreciate the long, well thought out response though. Shows you are a long-winded bigot in denial. Accepting you have a problem is the first step to dealing with it. Remember that.(Now resorting to immature namecalling as attempts to show the fallacies in your argument and disregard for basic human rights have gone right over your head).As for Calgary having more than 300,000 people, remember, you're not allowed to count livestock. I didn't notice you were from Calgary, but that does explain a lot. No you're not from an Ontario hick town. Even better. You're from Alberta, a province that specializes in hoarding money and has no sense of federal responsibility. Geographically isolated from the world, living in a tax-free bovine utopia with almost no presence of visible minorities, you must have a hard time imagining what life must be like in the real world.Save your censored comments for another forum and stick to talking poker here. Do everyone a favor. This is not the place for you to be ignorantly spouting about how gay marriage makes you uncomfortable. Be careful, or else karma will have its way and next thing you know your neighborhood will be filled with Mr. and Mr. Smiths.

I am rendered almost speechless. You have done a fine job of defining bigotry with this post, and I need not say anything more. Oh, and this is the Off Topic forum in case you missed that.

[Guest Anonymous]

I need not say anything more.  

One can only hope.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

Wow, UglyJim, do you have to work really really hard at being this big of a douche? Or does it just come naturally?

Well, let's see - so far, you've shown you have no clue about the constitutional status of gay marriage in Canada, and no idea how to interpret a poll. Basically, you've proven you're clueless on every topic in which you've rendered an opinion. So given your track record, I'm honestly not that worried about your opinion of me personally.

But, this whole thing started when I commented about your US influence/conspiracy theory....the way I read it, in the first post you made, was that Canadians who are opposed to same sex marriage are being influenced by US ideology/lobbyists/money, etc.

And in that you kept up your perfect record of being completely wrong. All I did was note that US groups have established themselves in Canada in order to fund opposition to gay marriage, which as it happens is a factual statement. If you are so inept at reading that you thought that meant the only opposition to gay marriage was from US groups, then that's your problem, not mine. We have home-grown idiots and bigots, too, they're just not real well financed.

You responded by calling those people home grown idiots, misinterpreting poll data....in reference to my assertion that 50% of canadians opposed gay marriage. Now, I guess I'm just a dumb redneckette, must be if I live in Alberta....but when I am saying roughly 50% for and 50% against....I'm obviously talking about supporting the law to legalize same sex marriage.

So let me get this straight. You say in one paragraph that 50% of Canadians opposed gay marriage. Then you say in the very next paragraph that you're "obviously" talking about those who opposed parliament making a law on the subject, which of course is a completely different thing. And you wonder why I'd group you with the home-grown idiots?

Must really be something to get up in the morning and arrogantly look at yourself in the mirror and say "my opinions are intellectually superior to all those who may disagree.... I am right....therefore they must be....idiots."

I wouldn't know. But if somebody can't hold a coherent thought from one sentence to the next... yeah, I feel pretty safe considering that person an idiot, and I feel superior to such folks. I suspect I'm not alone in that. There are actually a few people who make reasonably coherent points in their opposition to gay marriage. You are not one of them. You might consider leaving the debate to those who can make their points without contradicting themselves or making major factual errors.

[Guest]

pwned