Canadian Election

[PigOnTheWing]

Originally Posted by fumbrunner

*sigh* bin laden has nothing to do with the Palestinians eh? I suggest you do some reading. Perhaps then you would be ready to debate the issue rather than making uneducated and insulting comments.

bin laden hates the US because they staged their troops in saudi arabia during the first gulf war. you dont knowwhat your talking about. your a moron and an insult to all canadians.. admit it. your happy 9/11 happened. the US deserved it. your not even worth my time or worth arguing with cause you dont know what your talking about

[fumbrunner]

Originally Posted by PigOnTheWing

bin laden hates the US because they staged their troops in saudi arabia during the first gulf war. you dont knowwhat your talking about. your a moron and an insult to all canadians.. admit it. your happy 9/11 happened. the US deserved it. your not even worth my time or worth arguing with cause you dont know what your talking about

you're right, i dont know what I'm talking about. I didn't take european history in my undergrad. i dont have a masters degree in public admin with a specialization in international affairs. I have no idea what I am rambling about.

Here is some reading for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ns/default.stm

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm#down
Muslims/sympathisers on terrorists
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../usvetoes.html
http://www.merip.org/palestine-israe...sr-primer.html

and watch the name calling if you would like to stick around the forums. It is against the rules.

but, I made my point on previous threads. This is off topic.

[t_dot_porkchop]

Originally Posted by PigOnTheWing

bin laden hates the US because they staged their troops in saudi arabia during the first gulf war. you dont knowwhat your talking about. your a moron and an insult to all canadians.. admit it. your happy 9/11 happened. the US deserved it. your not even worth my time or worth arguing with cause you dont know what your talking about

so then shut up......this thread has been derailed enough from the original post.

[PigOnTheWing]

Originally Posted by fumbrunner

you're right, i dont know what I'm talking about. I didn't take european history in my undergrad. i dont have a masters degree in public admin with a specialization in international affairs. I have no idea what I am rambling about.

Here is some reading for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ns/default.stm

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm#down
Muslims/sympathisers on terrorists
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../usvetoes.html
http://www.merip.org/palestine-israe...sr-primer.html

and watch the name calling if you would like to stick around the forums. It is against the rules.

but, I made my point on previous threads. This is off topic.

the only point you made was that you love terrorists and make excuses for their actions.

[fumbrunner]

ok, enough of trying to educate the uneducated.

So, do you guys think the legislation to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage will pass?

[charby]

I think it will. The people that hate the gays outnumber the homosexuals. The rest of us who it doesn`t bother, won`t bother to be heard. Only the 2 extremists if you will. It`s too bad IMO. I don`t care who gets married. I don`t care who`s sleeping with who. Why should anyone else?

[fumbrunner]

Originally Posted by charby

I think it will. The people that hate the gays outnumber the homosexuals. The rest of us who it doesn`t bother, won`t bother to be heard. Only the 2 extremists if you will. It`s too bad IMO. I don`t care who gets married. I don`t care who`s sleeping with who. Why should anyone else?

Agreed, which is why they should have kept the traditional view of marriage while granting equal rights in the form of civil unions. That would probably have satisfied both sides.

[charby]

Alright, in spite of showing my ignorance, what`s the difference between civil unions and marriages?

[fumbrunner]

Originally Posted by charby

Alright, in spite of showing my ignorance, what`s the difference between civil unions and marriages?

I would argue that civil unions are more about a legal arrangement and ensuring legal equality, rather than marriage, which many believe has historical and religious significance.

[charby]

I think the people who have a problem with expanding the intentions of marriage should be fighting the divorce war. Also look at what translators argue over, and whether it`s truely accurate or not. Historical? You mean when we had prearranged weddings? 2 people who didn`t know each other getting married?

I`m not marrying my soon-to-be-wife for the legality of it, and I doubt it`ll fly in the gay community either. I also don`t feel that the bond and the vows I say to my wife will be any less significant just because 1 man said it to another. To me, the importance and the sanctity is not changed.

[fumbrunner]

Originally Posted by charby

I think the people who have a problem with expanding the intentions of marriage should be fighting the divorce war. Also look at what translators argue over, and whether it`s truely accurate or not. Historical? You mean when we had prearranged weddings? 2 people who didn`t know each other getting married?

I`m not marrying my soon-to-be-wife for the legality of it, and I doubt it`ll fly in the gay community either. I also don`t feel that the bond and the vows I say to my wife will be any less significant just because 1 man said it to another. To me, the importance and the sanctity is not changed.

Ok, so its your commitment to your wife that is the reason you want to get "married". Great. Why do it in a church? Or are you planning on going to city hall?

[charby]

Why do it in a church? Good question. I guess I`d have no probelm doing it outside, or at a nice hall, so long as it`s classy and fun.

As I read through my vows, I don`t see anything that a man can`t feel for another man. Is it normal to be gay? Natural? I won`t get into that. But I don`t doubt that homosexuals feel the same thing for their partners as I feel for my wife. That`s the big picture to me.

Marriage has changed so much to suit society. From arranged marriages, to not livivng together before hand, not having sex before hand. Since we all do that now, does that not reduce what marriage is supposed to be the same way?

Whether it`s allowed or not allowed, it won`t effect me much, I just hope our gov`t doesn`t get hung up on it.

[Y2Jversion1]

Folks, please watch the tempers..

this is a thread about the CANADIAN ELECTION.

If you want to discuss anything else, please start another thread.

Thanks for understanding.

[charby]

I thaught the tempers finally were being watched.

[Beatin Guts]

you better watch out canada because if you don't behave the U.S. will have to wage a war on ya! Democracy talk only please!!!!

[fumbrunner]

Originally Posted by charby

Why do it in a church? Good question. I guess I`d have no probelm doing it outside, or at a nice hall, so long as it`s classy and fun.

As I read through my vows, I don`t see anything that a man can`t feel for another man. Is it normal to be gay? Natural? I won`t get into that. But I don`t doubt that homosexuals feel the same thing for their partners as I feel for my wife. That`s the big picture to me.

Ok, so you made my point. If the focus is on vows, commitment, love, etc, then there is no reason why we need to call it marriage in the traditional sense (ie as a religious ceremony or sacrement).

Personally, I have no idea why governments define marriage in the first place. Governments should be looking at equality of all in the eyes in the law and hence have no business defining what marriage is.

[fumbrunner]

Originally Posted by charby

I thaught the tempers finally were being watched.

I think he was referring to pigboy, or whatever his name was.

[charby]

So if someone is going to make vows to each other, have legal status, and essentially have all the rights and obligations as a traditional married couple, is it really that hard to call them married? It`s just another wall seperating everyone. I`m married `cause I like chicks, you`re civily unionized `cause you like butts? If there no difference other than the fact that they`re gay, it`s still 2 gay people getting married. Call a spade a spade. Is it fair to say a Jew and a Catholic can`t get married? Give them ''civil staus'' too?

I don`t expect everyone will come together on this anytime soon. I`m just hoping our gov`t can move on to more important things than bringing up pot smoking and gay marriages all the time. There are more pressing issues and more important things to me than who the guy down the street decides to sleep with.

I agree that the gov`t should be meddling in religion too much, so make a decision, take a stand, and let`s move on.

[fumbrunner]

I think you missed my point. I dont think its a matter of being gay or straight. Most attribute marriage to a relegious event. In my religion, as a sacrement. I would argue that going to your local city hall is nothing more than a union, regardless of the sexes involved.

But I agree, there are more pressing issues that the government needs to address.

[charby]

So you would say that someone who gets married at the justice of the peace is not the same as someone who gets married at a church? Hmmmm. I could understand that beef more than a political one. At least duke it out with religious leaders instead of the gov`t.

So you would propose that they be allowd to get ''married, unionized'' whatever, just not through the church?