| Author |
 Topic  |
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
 Posted - 07/20/2004 : 11:32:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Malax
Lets play:
Homosexuality isn't normal its just plain wrong. Its imoral, and to allow such laws and make homosexuals equal to heterosexual people (how god intended) makes it look like its ok to children. The way things are many people grow up rightfully believeing that its wrong, to alter the laws would make it seem like its a natural commonplace, when it definately shouldn't. For example a man marrying a dog.
Or a box turtle:
"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."
-- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a speech Thursday to the Heritage Foundation. |
 |
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 11:34:29
|
Things to consider:
1) the Tom/Harry situation is rectified everyday via living wills, wills and power of attorney. No change to existing law necessary.
2) there are a lot of tough questions yet to be answered by the pro-gay marriage crowd. First off, whats love got to do with it? Can 2 roommates get 'married' for economic benefit? Gay/straight who cares. Lets say its Chandler and Joey from friends. Should they have been able to get married say for the length of their apartment lease? Is this going down the path of foreigners marrying citizens to achieve citizenship and then some government agency has to question them to see if they are really a loving couple?
3) Do US citizens get to determine the laws of their land or is it to be determined by unelected Judges? That is what happened in Mass.
I am still doing as much reading and research as I can on this subject. I dont have a solution that I can embrace yet. It used to be the old 'let the states handle it' that Cheney used to have and Kerry has today. But, with judges writing law from the bench, the 'states rights' tact is rendered moot.
My gay friends are kind of on the sidelines on this. They are more interested in social acceptance and overcoming the gay stereotype that hits the news whenever there is a flamboyant 'pride' parade. The gay people who go to work, have monogomous relationships, dont hang out in bath houses or top off every ensemble with a boa resent that image. By the way I think I described the VAST majority of gays, but, the media is addicted to the other imagery.
I do not consider this a Civil Rights issue. Gays have the exact same rights as non-gays. Freedom to associate, cohabitate, earn a living and pursue happiness. The 'marriage' issue becomes a problem for me mostly for the 'whats love got to do with it' unanswered question. I think bigamy also becomes impossible to prohibit if marriage is not defined by the state. Or 3 guys or 3 gals or 2 guys and 3 girls...if thats what they want and it makes them happy, why not?
As usual, the devil is in the details. This has to be fixed by legislation that can answer all of the outstanding questions. The problem for the gay-rights lobby is that they can't get a majority of Americans to support their cause here. That may change in time. |
|
|
|
Homers_pet_monkey
= Official forum monkey =
United Kingdom
17125 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 12:33:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by GypsyDeath
Didnt we have this topic before, and it caused some quite heated arguements?
Just thought I'd throw that in there...
Yes we did and yes it did. Unfortunately the more serious topics are the ones that often descend into all out war. You know what they say about discussing politics, religion etc amongst friends, so what chance have we all got of not ending up in a heated argument? Not much i'm afraid. Unfortunately this is the reason I often tend to stay away from these serious topics, 'cos I know they often turn into chaos. Sad really.
I tend to discuss these issues by myself.
_________________________________________________________
Live every day as if it were your last. Eventually you'll be right
|
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 12:59:37
|
quote:
Too bad religion is what marrige is based on
Last time I checked, marriage was based on the love between two people who wish to spend the rest of their lives together. I'm atheist/agnostic...are you saying I can't get married?
I guess I just wasn't made for these times. |
|
|
|
Daisy Girl
~ Abstract Brain ~
Belize
5305 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 13:22:43
|
Well... here are my two cents...even though I might disagree I respect your opinions.
The goverment should allow official unions between GLBT couples. The marriage thing should be left to religious institutions to decide becuase until recently marraige was a religious institution. This also helps limit the argument and focus on the real issue that any couple in a committed relationship has rights to healthcare, seeing their partner in the hospital, tax advantages etc. regaless of sexual orientation.
Sexuality has nothing to do with how loving, supportive and monogomous a relationship can be...it only has to do with love which trascends all sexual, racial, economic, cultural and educational boundries.
My personal opinion is that GLBT are created by a higher power to love each other just as straight couples are. My belief is that a higher power would not have created GLBT individuals and couples if they weren't made to love and partner with each other. We are all puzzle pieces made to love each other regardless of sexual orientation.
A great musical/movie that expresses this sentiment is Hedwig and the Angry Inch.http://www.finelinefeatures.com/sites/hedwig/ |
Edited by - Daisy Girl on 07/20/2004 13:25:27 |
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 13:26:25
|
i don't see how anyone can rationally oppose gay marraiges outside of their own religion. these people claim they are trying to protect the "sanctity" or whatever of marraige, but that's a religious argument. "protect" your own religion's ceremony then. but marraige is a secular thing and religious arguments have no place and no meaning. |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 13:41:21
|
I think the sanctity of marriage has been shattered with the allowance of divorce. My bible beating former boss got married for the third time right before I moved and left that job...nuff said.
I guess I just wasn't made for these times. |
|
|
|
The Calistanian
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1342 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 13:59:00
|
I used to have a good formulated opinion on why it was stupid that government tried to stop gay marriages, but I can't remember it. It was like 4 months ago...I can't remember all of my opinions.
Just thought I'd throw that in there.
1. I am a fsh with no i's.
2. You must be wearing Zubaz, 'cause you're daring to be different.
3. I am a man with 3 fingers...but that doesn't count my index finger nor my thumb. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 14:01:49
|
At the risk of sounding ignorant...
Does the institution of marriage span all (major) religions?
What about pre-christianity? |
|
|
|
Dallas
= Cult of Ray =
USA
725 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 14:02:51
|
Come on Calistinian, the world needs a solution to this...THINK!
So close to harmony, yet so far... |
|
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 14:05:04
|
http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/ancientweddings2.html
Interesting article about greek weddings and the like. Just for you, Carolynanna.
"Freedom is a state of mind and the condition and position of your ass. Free your mind and your ass will follow." - Funkadelic |
Edited by - TheCroutonFuton on 07/20/2004 14:05:50 |
|
|
|
The Calistanian
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1342 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 14:09:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
At the risk of sounding ignorant...
Does the institution of marriage span all (major) religions?
What about pre-christianity?
Well, Adam and Eve were assumed to be in a marriage alliance, though I believe it doesn't specifically say. However, their son Cain married one of his sisters, and it does say that I believe. So, it was instituted before Christianity. So, Jews should then have a basis for marriage institution as well. So, any religions using the Bible would have a pre-Christianity basis for marriage.
1. I am a fsh with no i's.
2. You must be wearing Zubaz, 'cause you're daring to be different.
3. I am a man with 3 fingers...but that doesn't count my index finger nor my thumb. |
|
|
|
glacial906
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1738 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 14:10:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Champ
Too bad religion is what marrige is based on, so no they should not be married, what would u like to rewrite the bible or something? Its all fine and dandy that u say "well if they love eachother then they should be married." No its not that simple, and i go back to religion. I really dont care about marriage at all and it would not take away from my possible future marriage, but im conserned about the rights of the church and quite frankly the church has every right to deny gays being married.
1. Religion is one thing that some people take into consideration when they get married. There are plenty of married atheists. I think some people today look at it as the ultimate expression of love for their partner, (because, when you get married, ideally your intention is to spend the rest of your life with someone, to commit to them through the good and the bad) rather than as a way in which to sanction their relationship through God.
2. I think that many gay people look at marriage as a civil, not a religious union anyway, and to say that it is the church's 'right' to tell them they can't marry doesn't hold water to me. Maybe ideally to you, the church should have that right, but it doesn't. They don't have the power to tell people how to live their lives unless the people let them. So it doesn't make sense to use the religion argument against someone who doesn't hold the same religious ideals as you do.
3. This is not directed at you, Champ, but I am getting so sick of "religion" being brought into play when some politician (*cough cough Bush cough*) wants to pass legislation, and for no other purpose. It's a double-edged sword; it can be used for anything. Like the justice who had to take the monument of the Ten Commandments down. Can't have that; separation of church and state, remember..? Now the prospect of gay marriages? Oh, well, that's against the will of God!
Take me, break me, tell me a good one and maybe I'll cry
|
|
|
|
The Calistanian
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1342 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 14:11:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dallas
Come on Calistinian, the world needs a solution to this...THINK!
So close to harmony, yet so far...
I'M THINKING, I'M THINKING!!
1. I am a fsh with no i's.
2. You must be wearing Zubaz, 'cause you're daring to be different.
3. I am a man with 3 fingers...but that doesn't count my index finger nor my thumb. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 14:14:22
|
Thanks Crouty, interesting stuff.
Concubines always get the shaft hey ;) |
|
|
|
Cheeseman1000
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Iceland
8201 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 15:13:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Barto
quote:
Too bad religion is what marrige is based on
Last time I checked, marriage was based on the love between two people who wish to spend the rest of their lives together. I'm atheist/agnostic...are you saying I can't get married?
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
Good point. People need to take into account the difference between religious marriage and legal marriage.
It always used to confuse me why gays (whose lifestyle goes against biblical principles) would want to get married in a religious ceremony, but I should have taken into account that most people view marriage less as a religious issue than an economic/convenient/romantic issue now. Also, I have since met some gay Christians, which threw me even more. Nothing's ever black and white is it?
I think Christians are going to have to deal with it, gay marriage is going to happen sooner or later. Whether churches should allow religious marriages should certainly be up to them, but marriage for legal purposes is almost a completely separate entity, so why not?
Kind regards,
Dr. Simon
Specialist In Broken Hearts |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 15:37:43
|
More ignorance, laziness...
So where exactly is that biblical quote
Thou shall not lie with a man blah blah blah
who said it, and how credible is it?
And is that the only basis Christians use? |
|
|
|
misleadtheworld
* Dog in the Sand *
United Kingdom
1222 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 15:51:59
|
The religious front makes me titter sometimes. I think people who claim to be religious but then bash people such as homosexuals really need think about what they're doing. I do believe christians are not supposed to judge. It's the same with people who supposedly 'war for their religion'. They're doing what they've been told not to do. For most people I guess it's hard to distinguish between these people and people who actually do practice whatever they believe properly.
 |
Edited by - misleadtheworld on 07/20/2004 15:53:14 |
|
|
|
soundofataris
= Cult of Ray =
USA
715 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 16:39:15
|
This was once pointed out to me, and I think its important to remember:
When this country was founded, women did not have legal rights, they were at the will of either thier husbands or fathers. Blacks had no real rights at the time, so in 1776, marriage was the scared bond between a white man and his property.
A few decades later, the woman's sufferage movement began and marriage became the scared bond between a white man and a white woman.
During the civil war, Lincoln freed some of the slaves in the rebel states, and mariiage became a scared bond between a white man and a white woman or between a black man and a black woman.
In the sixties the civil rights movement scored some major victories and interracial unions were allowed. Marriage became a scared bond between any man and any woman.
Maybe the next step is a scared union between two person in love.
This battle can't really be over the tradition view of marriage, because there never has been one. Like all things, it is constantly changing. I feel it would suck a great deal for history to view our generation as bigots. I fear that.
Kerry in a landslide! |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 16:53:50
|
The debate that I was watching which inspired this thread took calls from people, one of which was a Rabbi who I believe was in support of gay marriage, talking about the Bible and what it says...He talked about having to go through the Bible with a fine toothed comb and pick out the line or two that talked about homosexuality versus the hundreds of lines which talk about loving your neighbor as yourself and treating others equally and such...and if you're going to use the Bible as a defence for such insane ideas, you should be following everything else that the Bible talks about, such as stoning non-believers to death, etc.
This quote was greatly butchered due to trying to remember what was said, but this was pretty much the gist of it. How can anyone use the Bible today for such defensive arguments when the Bible has all sorts of rules and laws that we've recognized that no longer apply to today's society? Sure, it might be far-fetched to say "all or nothing," but I believe any other way would be hypocritical.
I guess I just wasn't made for these times. |
|
|
|
Jefery With One F
- FB Fan -
Canada
184 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 17:13:29
|
Call it a civil union, don't force it on unwilling churches, and you've got my support.
I don't think it's right (please note: there is a huge difference between disagreeing and "gay bashing"). I have gay friends. I would be honoured to attend the ceremony for their civil union. In this case, it's two people making decisions for themselves. Quite different from abortion, where one person is allowed to make the decision for two (or more, depending on whether or not you care about the father).
As for the original question, I don't think a constitutional amendment was necessary. Making it illegal without touching the constitution would have made more sense.
Vote Bush in 2004 |
Edited by - Jefery With One F on 07/20/2004 17:15:45 |
|
|
|
shineoftheever
> Teenager of the Year <
Canada
4307 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 17:18:40
|
Yeah, tell the gays and female-gays to go get gay-married at city hall, and if a justice of the peace won't do it, that's gay! not that there's anything wrong with that.
 "Too cool for Cults" |
|
|
|
soundofataris
= Cult of Ray =
USA
715 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 18:32:04
|
quote:
As for the original question, I don't think a constitutional amendment was necessary. Making it illegal without touching the constitution would have made more sense.
Vote Bush in 2004
it kind of would be necessary, because otherwise any such law would violate the equal protection that all citizens are granted under the law, as affirmed by the united states supreme court, and would thus be unconstitutional and illegal.
some people's problem may be that when they think of marriage, they think only of one thing, the chuch cerimony. There actually seems to exist two forms of marriage in this country. One is the sacrament, a spiritual union which the governemnt does not, and cannot, interfer with. It's a religious-type thing that can be degreed solely by the faith organization to which a person belongs. This is the so-called 'scared spiritual union between a man and a woman'.
The other is a social contract sanctioned by the state, a union under the law. A person may get married in a church, but the governemnt won't recongze the union and grant it the rights and priviledges involved without a marriage lincence. I'm sure most everyone agrees that there is a difference between being wed in a church and getting hitched down at city hall.
Laws that apply to married couples recongize the state marriage and not spiritual marriage. They can't, cause that would violate chuch and state seperation. Gays aren't asking for churches to re-write their catechisms and change their dogmas, but rather for the governemnt to recongize their sworn loving committments.
Kerry in a landslide! |
Edited by - soundofataris on 07/20/2004 18:33:17 |
|
|
|
GypsyDeath
Zapped Profile
3575 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 06:45:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeseman1000
quote:
Originally posted by El Barto
quote:
Too bad religion is what marrige is based on
Last time I checked, marriage was based on the love between two people who wish to spend the rest of their lives together. I'm atheist/agnostic...are you saying I can't get married?
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
Good point. People need to take into account the difference between religious marriage and legal marriage.
It always used to confuse me why gays (whose lifestyle goes against biblical principles) would want to get married in a religious ceremony, but I should have taken into account that most people view marriage less as a religious issue than an economic/convenient/romantic issue now. Also, I have since met some gay Christians, which threw me even more. Nothing's ever black and white is it?
I think Christians are going to have to deal with it, gay marriage is going to happen sooner or later. Whether churches should allow religious marriages should certainly be up to them, but marriage for legal purposes is almost a completely separate entity, so why not?
Kind regards,
Dr. Simon
Specialist In Broken Hearts
I dont understand why you would be surprised at their being gay christians?
there are many different forms of christianity, just beacuse you happen to be gay does nto mean you are automatically disqualified from having faith....
Also, on the adma and eve thing, - a religious story, correct? And in this part of the bible, the pages on sex before marriage and things like that exist, correct? sooo...how did adma and eve get married? Who married them??
Just thought I'd throw that in there... |
|
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 06:47:03
|
Well, supposedly Adam and Eve were just there to populate the earth. They ate the apple, fell from grace, etc. But I'm quite sure the story of Adam and Eve is before anything talking about marriage. Not sure, though. I'd have to dig up my bible..wherever it is...heh.
"Freedom is a state of mind and the condition and position of your ass. Free your mind and your ass will follow." - Funkadelic |
|
|
|
GypsyDeath
Zapped Profile
3575 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 06:48:23
|
yeah, its before the talk of marriage, but it IS in the same section. Im certain of it. Ive read the bible three bloody times! admittedly a long time ago...and I do have a bad memory...hmm, ok , i could be wrong.
Just thought I'd throw that in there... |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 10:44:57
|
| I believe they should have their own ceremony so that religion does not come into play, and of course they would have the same rights as married couples, it would make things simple. And yes marriage is between a man and a women, nothing else is marriage, its as simple as that. Having their own ceremony would be perfect so that everyone gets what they want. I mean being gay is pretty much a culture now anyway, ie gay televison, gay pride parades, gay clubs..etc, c what i mean, how much of a stretch would it be to have their own ceremony. |
|
|
|
Cheeseman1000
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Iceland
8201 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 12:46:58
|
quote:
I dont understand why you would be surprised at their being gay christians?
there are many different forms of christianity, just beacuse you happen to be gay does nto mean you are automatically disqualified from having faith....
Hence the past tense and the 'its not black and white' comment.
Kind regards,
Dr. Simon
Specialist In Broken Hearts |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 12:52:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Barto
The debate that I was watching which inspired this thread took calls from people, one of which was a Rabbi who I believe was in support of gay marriage, talking about the Bible and what it says...He talked about having to go through the Bible with a fine toothed comb and pick out the line or two that talked about homosexuality versus the hundreds of lines which talk about loving your neighbor as yourself and treating others equally and such...
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
I'd like to know what those lines were and who said them. |
|
|
|
Homers_pet_monkey
= Official forum monkey =
United Kingdom
17125 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 13:23:35
|
Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, who cares?
_________________________________________________________
Live every day as if it were your last. Eventually you'll be right
|
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 14:12:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
quote:
Originally posted by El Barto
The debate that I was watching which inspired this thread took calls from people, one of which was a Rabbi who I believe was in support of gay marriage, talking about the Bible and what it says...He talked about having to go through the Bible with a fine toothed comb and pick out the line or two that talked about homosexuality versus the hundreds of lines which talk about loving your neighbor as yourself and treating others equally and such...
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
I'd like to know what those lines were and who said them.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
Not to mention Sodom and Gammorah...
I guess I just wasn't made for these times. |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 16:10:59
|
Thanks Jimbo.
That's it hey.
Just those 3 lines?
and I don't even understand what the third has to do with anything.
The reason I ask who said it is I'd like to know
if it was just someone's opinion or if it
was supposed to be 'God's word' or something.
How credible was the person who said it,
and what was the motivation?
Something like how my mom told me
not eating meat on fridays but yes to fish
had to do with selling more fish or something like that.
|
Edited by - Carolynanna on 07/21/2004 16:13:06 |
|
|
|
hammerhands
* Dog in the Sand *
Canada
1594 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2004 : 04:59:47
|
We have recently had an election in Canada, my friend was espousing the values of the Conservative Party for which he was going to vote, the only group that coupled his views on abortion and gay marriage. I am never interested in a lecture, but it was the impetus for crystallizing my own thoughts.
Since gay marriage is legal in Canada, the rhetoric has changed to preserving the definition of the word marriage. I asked my friend if he was interested in legislating the meaning of words, he said it was very important because arguments are won and lost by the meaning of words. Try googling Philology.
Will we no longer be able to say that there could be a corporate marriage between Molson and Coors, no marriages of principles, technologies or thoughts? It is ludicrous. A marriage ceremony, as depicted in popular culture at least, uses the term Holy Matrimony, which suggests that there is Unholy Matrimony or possibly just Regular Matrimony. A legal document has a lexicon to avoid ambiguity.
As for the unchanging definition of marriage, Mormons were practicing marriage between a man and women until very recently. Anyone willing to question the piousness or moral rectitude of Brigham Young can be my guest. In the six-thousand years of Earth, I'm sure there are many more examples.
Satanists, Wiccans, Klingons, Communists, Buddhists, Hindus, even my pet rock's doing it (but not me). I suspect there is or will be a gay church or possibly even a religion worshipping a married gay deity, if they call something marriage there isn't much the state can do. Will the state dictate which groups can marry and which can't (I know England has tried).
As has been stated previously the question is about the conference of legal rights to gay couples. Which reminds me, as we have been discussing this for a few years in Canada we have many different ways of identifying groupings of people, Legal-Unions, Same-Sex Unions, Non-Traditional Families (very wide open), Significant Others, Common-Law Partners, Same-As-Married (on tax forms). There are more, I'm sure some of our litigious FBNetters can fill that out.
Another friend said that he didn't care what gay people did, call it marriage or whatever, he did not want gay couples adopting children. I think this is the true nature of this debate, to me it is a question of equality. You can say that a same-sex marriage is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman, but not everyone will agree with you. As is legal in Canada, people will continue to use the word marriage as they see fit.
Either you want equality or you want the state to treat gay people differently. I don’t like bullshit arguments that skirt the core issue. Saving the courts from ruling on whether two straight men can be legally married is a matter for the courts. Protecting the sanctity of the institution of marriage is legislating religious bias.
Now my modest proposal.
With inspiration from the separation of the church and state, the only way to make everyone truly and equally unhappy is to replace the quasi-religious term marriage in the legal text. This would allow same-sex partners to hold the same legal rights as a married man and woman (which is what they say they want), and no congregation has to believe that they are married (which is what they say they want).
But that’s not what anybody really wants is it? |
Edited by - hammerhands on 07/22/2004 10:16:57 |
|
|
|
The Champ
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
736 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2004 : 10:09:31
|
| Exactly what im saying. Now about homo's adopting children i am strongly against that. The best way to raise a child is with a man and a women, and when divorces happen u can see the results all over the place. Alot of the time they are not pretty. U need both sex's in the house for healthy development in my opinion. An example of this would be having too many women teachers which is the case in canada. Studies have shown that alot of male students just can't relate to the teachers because they are female. Why their isnt some sort of program underway to get more male teachers in the class room excapes me.. well i know why and we all know why. |
|
|
|
hammerhands
* Dog in the Sand *
Canada
1594 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2004 : 10:32:33
|
Why is that Champ?
It would be very difficult to stop a gay couple from adopting children if they had the same legal rights as a married couple.
Did you see that study that suggested that gay people may be only 2% of the population of Canada? |
Edited by - hammerhands on 07/22/2004 10:33:31 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Gay Marriage
