Posted on 05/15/2008 6:47:29 PM PDT by newbie2008
* It is significant to note that 18 months after same-sex “marriage” arrived in Canada (principally as a result of court decisions in Ontario and British Columbia), more than 95% of adult Canadian gays have chosen to ignore their new legal rig
(Excerpt) Read more at powdertracks.blogtownhall.com ...
I find this very interesting. There are similar low numbers getting married in Massachusetts. If they push so hard for the right to get married, why do so few homosexuals actually go ahead and get married?
Technically, 100% of gays can marry. It is who they marry that has restrictions, just like for strait people.
Perhaps they have counted the cost of divorce and found it wanting.
‘Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?’”
“Technically, 100% of gays can marry.”
No, technically, any adult can marry anyone they so choose. The law just doesn’t always recognize it. The legal fight for “gay marriage” isnt’ really about marriage, at all.
As for why they aren’t:
1) Most gay relationships are based on little more than sex. Having been to dozens of gay venues with a gay roommate, I think I can say this pretty definitively. A gay relationship that last 2 months without infidelity is an anciet one.
2) They’re keeping it on the backburner in case they ever decide to get serious.
3) They want to be seen as equals.
4) They wish to fight the Judeo-Christian culture that makes them feel incredibly insecure.
Five percent are in love. The rest just want something else from their “relationship”.
The word “gays” should have also been in quotation marks.
I shouldn’t have said no in my post. I knew exactly where you were going with it. And I see and agree with your point. Any man can marry any woman, and any woman can marry any man, provided all are of legal age and not related. The laws apply equally to all.
The point I was making is that any two people can come together and call their bond a marriage. The law might not recognize it, others might not recognize it, but they do, and that’s what ultimately counts.
Funny, you almost never saw the bond formed in the gay community, even with much older couples.
Because it was never about "marriage" in the first place. It was about "being in your face" to traditional Christians, nothing more, nothing less...
the infowarrior
I do see what you are saying. I have several gay acquaintances who have a personal bond they call marriage, but isn't legal marriage. It is simply a vow among themselves. They aren't fighting for special legal rights and aren't out there trying to be activists, they just live their lives.
They can legally marry under the law. The same laws apply to everyone. They are just restricted on who they marry, the same restrictions strait people have.
Please, show me a purely legal spot where one man marrying another impacts your rights. Otherwise there should be no such “restriction” under the law.
To go further on your statement. In this, I am not referring to the homosexual who quietly wishes to carry on their private lives as such. For the militant and spiteful homosexual who uses the vagaries of the law and it's activist judges, this.
The ordinary family of one man and one woman and their children, is an affront to their conscience. The homosexual of that ilk, seeks to destroy. Normal relationships are a glaring contradiction of who they are. Witness the squits who have ruined prominent political figures. They knew what they were in for. They consented to a clandestine encounter.
Suddenly they unload on the individual. Go public.
If it works for heterosexuals, it should work for homosexuals.
The govt should stay outa this stuff.
On a more personal note,
More gay dudes = more women for me to choose from. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
It forces the public schools to propagandize in favor of this sicko perversion to children. That’s a violation of the most basic family rights. We’re also now seeing dating services hauled into court in an effort to force them to provide same-sex match-ups. Recently in New Mexico, a photographer was fined for refusing to film a lesbian commitment ceremony, and they don’t even yet have pervert “marriage” there.
Homosexual acts are unnatural. There’s no reason why these deviant, sick “relationships” should be honored with the term “marriage”. A man can’t marry another man any more than he can marry a water buffalo or a folding chair.
Marriage is one of the ways society celebrates and legally sanctions the natural, healthy, and normal bonding of the opposite sexes. Two boys pretending to be a boy and girl don’t count. It cheapens and demeans the very idea of marriage to treat these unnatural relationships as normal.
They don’t WANT to really get married. They wanted to upset the apple cart by claiming the RIGHT to get married.
Just like ‘Loretta’ in Monty Python’s Life Of Brian is a man who, through no fault of the Romans, wants the RIGHT to have a baby even though there is no uterus.
What are two gay men going to do, get married so they aren’t “living in sin” in the eyes of God and the world?
An adult CANNOT marry anyone he or she chooses. Close relations are prohibited by law (even for consenting adults) as are multiple marriages (bigamy).
If your “soulmate” is already taken, then you’ll just have to find ANOTHER soulmate. There are 6billion people in this world. If the love of your life is 1 in a million, there are 6,000 people just right for you.
Hunting for pairing up with your friends’ girlfriends, while not married, isn’t a nice thing to do either.
So, plenty of people every day rule out encounters and relationships with people that they are “attracted” to for any of a number of societal reasons.
Can’t show you really love someone without the sexual aspect? Then I guess they cannot honestly love their parents, siblings, God, or dog.
With the change in the law that they CAN get married, do employers still give unmarried homosexual couple medical benefits?
That’s the deal, it’s not that they want to get “married” - they just want to destroy the special status that our society gives to the basic unit of civilized society.
So can two celebate roommates of the same sex (say old folks) marry to share medical retirement benefits?
And why can’t two elderly brothers do the same?
See how ridiculous this all gets?
Such marriages become nothing more than business partnerships for roommates. Might even be able to make your sublet of your apartment worth more. Just get a prenup signed before the wedding.
after more than 10 years Holland have less than 3% Homosexual Marriages when in the USA a Homosexual male has More than 125 Partners... not much time to settle down!
They would continue to rush the battering ram against society’s rules.
Once “married”, they would push for adoption by same sex married couples (something that was harder to argue as an unmarried couple).
Once “married”, no employer could deny the same sex partner benefits.
Could a church legally (especially in Canada which does NOT have our constitution) refuse the church membership of a same sex “married” couple? Could the church refuse to perform a same sex wedding ceremony? Can the church be required to celebrate sin?
Except feminists pushing the sex positive agenda have taught women to be Lesbians Until Graduation when they are in college. Some never leave the life.
A Monogamous Relationship defined By GLADD is 3 or fewer partners at one time.
Homosexuals hope to destroy institution of Marriage not embrace it.. Read Humane Vitae of 1968 By Pope Paul VI
Point well taken here. A brutal anti-global warming spring here in Northern Ontario. Suddenly it got warm. What happened? Numerous female persons throwing off winter wear. The female form divine and it seems they could not wait to prove their attributes. Walking around like it was like mid-summer. ( saucy me- laughs).
I had thought that the numbers from Europe would be similar, and you just demonstrated it. This, after a decade!! It's been a couple of years for Canada, and a year since Massachusetts, at least...
These low numbers are very telling. They indicate that it wasn't actually getting "married" which was the primary interest all along, but something else, which as I stated, was an "in your face" assault on traditional Christianity...
the infowarrior
Once you start the understand the big picture of the battle of the worldviews, the culture war, and yes, Good vs Evil in the world,
you start looking at these microissues in a different way.
Traditional values are what got us to where we are today (or were, several decades ago), starting with Abraham & Moses.
Then, under various feel good, sound good, egalitarian intended policies, instituted by force on a public that inherently resisted, these values are getting eroded.
Every human has the set of 6 right values written into his very being. These are on the second tablet. Those who seek to undermine those values with the end goal of moral depravity and moral anarchy, find various avenues of attack - mostly under some beautiful, high minded patina.
Evil seldom appears to be ugly - remember that. And the left never does anything openly, always under some cover or with some shield.
becasuse they want to push their disgusting perverted way of life on to others
because they want to push their disgusting perverted way of life on to others
exactly
then after they went for adoption to catholic charities
there were so many places those homo’s could have gone but no they went to a place knowing they would be refused.
they now are doing it again in the schools, making it law that parents do not have a right to know that teachers can tell kids about gays, that lifestyle etc, even going as far as saying boys it’s OK to be dressing as girls.
They went to court to be allowed to go in the paddies day parade in Boston year after year until they were allowed
Now that parade is about irish heritage not saying your gay but of course gays can’t help themselves to get in peoples face and then they say in the next breath hey what I do is my business
Of course the media won’t report on this in this way
the media should get to these gay parades and let the public see their disgusting ways and you can bet a higher 5 will vote against this marriage
by that logic trhen let me have 4 wives
not going to hurt you isn it
There was a man in Massachusetts last year who got caught having sex with an animal , he loved it
let him marry it not going to hurt you is it
No restrictions at all on marriage let anyone and everyone marry each other, why not hey
No govt laws then might as well in the 1500’s or something
correct
This is not just baout marriage which some liberterians seem to think
though one liberterian said he thinks the govt shouldn’t get involved even if a man marries a sheep
this about where do we go after this, adoption, then benefits, teaching at school
alreadt having an impact by some schools now saying that they will not do mothers day or fathers day as some children might have two mums or two dads
so what’s next do we get rid of those days too in the future
the gays will not stop and ignoring this problem or saying so what will have a huge impact on this country
ah a little more
they then the original gays who forced this issue in massachusetts wen to other states and said they want a divorce
those states said hey we don’t recognise this marriage
hence the other states are now in disarray
I suspect they never wanted to marry as half of them infact over half of them went and got divorces in other states
A lot of malcontent agitators aren't seeking an isolated change. They want to upset the apple cart. They don't always have something to “replace” it with but their fellow travelers do and they are as restrictive in human thought as those they claim to oppose.
This is why they side with the Islamists who ALSO seek to destroy our culture.
The short-sighted punks, however, don’t understand the restrictions they’d live under if Islam dominated the West.
“An adult CANNOT marry anyone he or she chooses. Close relations are prohibited by law (even for consenting adults) as are multiple marriages (bigamy).”
Sure they can. You hold your nice little private wedding ceremony, you file no official documents, you make a vow to one another. You’re married, even if no one else recognizes it but the two involved parties. Or even three involved parties.
That’s what I was getting at. Even if society did away with all official mores of marriage, I’d still go through as much. It’s about making a commitment to another person—one that really isn’t but a private agreement between two people and their God.
I own a business. If two men want to marry, the cost of providing them health benefits just went through the roof. I already can’t discriminate against hiring them on the basis of ‘gender’.
You want me to continue? They would, as married ‘couples’ compete for adoptions, since homosexuality is at least a reproductive disorder.
Married, for the purposes of the state and feds, is a powerful legal status. All conferring this right on to homosexuals would do is create another massive legal loophole for another ‘oppressed’ minority to drive a truck through.
It couldn’t have a larger impact on every taxpayer.
The latter don't actually care about gay people any more than they do any people who don't live according to their progressive precepts. That can be a real problem for gay people who really would prefer just to be left alone. They aren't being left alone. It isn't conservatives who are prodding them, outing them, blackmailing and threatening them if they don't toe the line.
The good news in this is that a change in policy isn't really going to result in mass gay marriages (and ensuing mass gay divorces). The bad news is that this is far from the end of it.
“Yes, but none of that is an impact of your rights as outlined in the constitution”
Hogwash. Homosexuality is either one of two things: disease or a bad choice. It could also be both.
In either case, we should find a cure for it, or we should keep doing what we did before, which is to socially isolate it, because it is killing a lot of innocent people.
If it is a disease, then the problem is solved, because you have the American’s with Disabilities Act, which will allow gays to have what they need to compensate for their illness.
It will be up to a court to decide on whether allowing them to marry is a measure of compensatory aid homosexuals should be granted under the act.
Allowing them to marry, and worse, granting them some sort of exclusive legal status, is inapropriate.
Cure it, control it with medication, or ban it.
We shouldn’t be passing laws like this until we know for sure what causes homosexuality.
Follow the money. In the U.S., the fight is really for spousal job benefits like health care. In Canada that is not a factor.
“Then do the same thing to every choice you’ve ever made.”
You could have fallen asleep on your keyboard and compiled a more comprehensible response.
If homosexuality is a choice, it’s a bad one that puts us all at risk, and it should be shunned. If it’s a disease, it should be cured.
Not a single major religion or philosophy considers homosexuality moral. Even the Dalai Lama says it’s not proper. Islam’s against it. Christianity, et. al. Not a single school of philosophical thought considers it normal.
There is nothing in human physiology that accommodates homosexual behavior.
Homosexual rights is an arrogance on the order of believing women should be the sole arbiter of who lives and who dies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.