Hot off The Press !

[chockalicious]

In all honesty Kip I believe that she will be in Playboy within a year to get her "modelling" career back on track and keep her name in the news. I will even offer a friendly wager if you are a betting man.

My comment has less to do with her views than the fact that she is a model. She has already had work done and taken what some might consider risque pics. I was not being sarcastic and I fail to see how it is a personal attack.

We are all celebrating her right to free speech. What about my right to say that I look forward to seeing if the results of her breast enhancement surgery are good or bad?

I am more than happy to send the link via PM if you want to see the "before" shots in the privacy of your own computer.

[BoomerPete]

The traditional meaning of marriage has served mankind well over the centuries and there is no need to change it.

Timothy,

I think you should reflect and reconsider this statement.

The traditional meaning of marriage (as you conceive it) has served those who share your perspective on sexual morality well. It has not served that portion of mankind whose sexual orientation doesn't match with your beliefs in the slightest. Whether one believes it has served mankind as a whole well is strictly a matter of perspective and not a matter of fact. Simply put, you have no way of proving how mankind may have evolved in adherence to any different meaning of the concept of marriage.

Over the course of history the various cultures that make up mankind have made a fine art of persecuting those minorities whose beliefs or natures have run contrary to that which is considered as "right" by the majority. This in turn has lead to a great many tragedies on both the grand and the individual scales. And, behind each of those tragedies there were zealots who exhorted to the masses that the persecution, banishment, demonization or death of those in the minority was necessary for the good of mankind. They have rarely, if ever, been right, and we have plenty of modern examples to show where such thinking has perverted segments of mankind to the extreme.

It is only recently that some of our cultures and societies have evolved sufficiently that many individuals within these societies feel that they have sufficient personal freedom to loudly voice opinions in opposition to the discrimination of themselves or others on the basis of individual characteristics and beliefs such as race, language, culture, religion and sexuality. Many are now doing so, often to the displeasure of those who feel that such intolerances are acceptable practices.

Most of us now look back on such, at one time societally accepted, acts as the slavery of blacks in the Americas, aparthied in South Africa, or the forced religious and cultural "conversion" of aboriginal peoples and recognize that those beliefs and the actions they provoked did not in fact serve mankind at all well but rather stunted mankind's growth and denied both the individuals affected and mankind as a whole the opportunity to reach their full potentials.

This is how many in our society now view this bias against permitting those among us whose natures don't conform with the "traditional" heterosexual concept of sexuality from fully partaking in all of the rights available to the rest of us within the society. It is not a good thing, there is no proof that it's existence has served our society or mankind well in the least, and there is abundant evidence that the intolerance for others that underlies it has damaged both individuals and our society as a whole.

Personally, I respect the right of those who do not believe in same sex marriage to not practice something which they don't believe in within their own lives. I don't, however, believe that their beliefs confer upon them a right to dictate to others which of the freedoms and institutions of our society they may or may not partake in.

Pete

[Kip Powick]

What about my right to say that I look forward to seeing if the results of her breast enhancement surgery are good or bad?

Personally I would rather you wrote what I quoted above, out of respect for the young lady...and not

look forward to seeing her in Playboy to see if it was money well spent on her fake boobs 

Fraid I'm from the old school where I still use the anatomically correct words when referring to vibrant young women, any women for that matter....yeh old school....different strokes for different folks...and No, I don't need to see the young lady with "before" and "after" shots..... but thanks for asking

[DEFCON]

Pete

With respect, where do we draw the line?

Homosexuality was a crime not so long ago.

It's coarse, but for example, why not take a "if they're old enough to breed, they're old enough to.... attitude with females?

[chockalicious]

Pete

With respect, where do we draw the line?

Homosexuality was a crime not so long ago.

It's coarse, but for example, why not take a "if they're old enough to breed, they're old enough to.... attitude with females?

Are you equating homosexuality with rape?

[Mitch Cronin]

That'll go over well.

[Canus Chinookus]

I'm all for gay marriage; I want them to be as miserable as the rest of us!

[Timothy]

Good morning Pete.

Your post was well written but I think you overlooked two important points: a gay marriage cannot produce offspring, and homosexual practices are contrary to the teaching in the Bible.

As a Catholic I believe in the Bible. I have read it from Genesis to Revelation twice and read some of it every day. I would accept these teachings any day over the messages of today's society.

I certainly do not advocate punishing those who do not see things as I do. If the gay community wants to do its thing that's their business, but as far s I'm concerned marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. End of story.

Happy to extend the offer of a coffee or a beer to you as well.

Timothy

[DEFCON]

“Are you equating homosexuality with rape?”

Uh no?

I was making an example. You’ve made a good point though. “Statutory Rape” is a crime...today.

Certain religious groups apparently don’t share a similar societal value with the western world in that regard. There’s actually been quite a bit about that issue on the news lately.

When and if this groups belief & value system comes to control our Country’s legislative agenda, Statutory Rape may no longer be seen as a “crime”.

Homosexuality was once a crime. Apparently, the value system of the western world changed and it no longer is?

What’s next? Are we following the lead of the "Roman Empire"?

[Guest rattler]

What’s next? Are we following the lead of the "Roman Empire"?

Only if we start using "Lead [Pb]" the way they did.

[boestar]

I certainly do not advocate punishing those who do not see things as I do. If the gay community wants to do its thing that's their business,

Then why even involve ones self in the discussion. If they choose to behave in a certain way and that behaviour does no harm to another person then what is the problem. You do not have to like it, watch it, hear it, or anything else. No one is forcing their beliefs on you or any one else. All they are asking for is acceptance under law to join into a recognized union. period. This hurts me in no way so therefore I do not care. If it betters their existence then so be it.

Is that not one of the main teachings of christianity that one should do unto others, as one would hve done to you.

Happiness is the ultimate goal no matter what path you follow.

[cp fa]

“Are you equating homosexuality with rape?”

Uh no?

I was making an example. You’ve made a good point though. “Statutory Rape” is a crime...today.

Are you equating a consensual relationship between two adults with an adult having sexual relations with a person who has not yet reached the age of consent?

Interracial marriage used to be a crime.

Owning slaves used to be legal.

Laws need to change as society evolves and becomes more enlightened. The bible and organized religion have nothing to do with that process - separation of church and state.

[Steam Driven]

I think you are making his point Cp Fa... What once was illegal is now commonplace. What once was taboo is now accepted. Where do we draw the line?

Having sex with someone underage is considered distasteful to you, but who is to say that the next generation or the majority in this generation, considers a change in the legislation? How about polygamy?

That looking back at this point in time historians might look at societies mores as "quaint" as we do now with Slavery, the Women's right to vote, and now gay relationships and marriage?

It is indeed a slippery slope and one that we as a populace will need to be conscious of as more and more challenges to our "morals and character" are made by groups that may or may not be "special interests"...

[Kip Powick]

Two cents worth.

I think that some who do not want gays to be legally married object to the word "marriage" being used in this union.

I'm sure that if the terminology was changed to "partnership" or "permanent partnership" and the fact that those that decided to have a "partner ship" were allowed the same rights as "married" couple this broohaha would fade away.

I think much of the argument stems from terminology.

[handyman]

I don't have an issue with a person voicing their convictions.

It is when those people seek to deny others rights that they become bigots.

I realize some people have a religous arguement against gay marriage which while I find it idiotic, I can respect that they feel it is against gods word (never mind all of the other contradictions in the bible)

Now the dingbat in question is associating with groups that seek to deny marriage to same sex couples. This makes her a bigot.

Well apparently you do have an issue with someone voicing their convictions.

How did her statement deny anyone's rights?

As Trump said...70% of Americans agree with her so it really doesn't matter why someone believes in something, it's their right to do so. Attacking them because it may be based on Religious beliefs is hypocritical to your own argument.

Rights are what people decide they are. If 70% are against it then possibly they don't have the right to oppose the majority. You don't have the right to do what ever you want in life...thank God for that!

[handyman]

Are you equating a consensual relationship between two adults with an adult having sexual relations with a person who has not yet reached the age of consent?

Interracial marriage used to be a crime.

Owning slaves used to be legal.

Laws need to change as society evolves and becomes more enlightened. The bible and organized religion have nothing to do with that process - separation of church and state.

I agree with you cp fa, but the tail doesn't wag the dog either!

When a majority of citizens change their beliefs then a change in law can occur. Until then, people must obey the laws and the will of society.

[J.O.]

Except that when that same society sets a general premise that one's own business is one's own business when there is no harm done to anyone else (i.e. the military's don't ask, don't tell policy), the door has already been opened to challenging statutes which would try to legislate against the right to one's own business.

[Timothy]

Boestar.

Kip made an excellent point concerning terminology. I think one of the main issues is equating the two very different types of union.

As far as benefits, etc. are concerned that's a matter for the employers and governments to sort out and I have no concern about that. This is not a matter of "rights".

However, this forum is home to a wide variety of opinions, many completely unrelated to aviation, and I'll continue to voice mine in a respectful manner. One has to stand up and be counted even if one's opinion goes counter to that of some others. I certainly hope that the discussions here don't drop to the level of that found in "Question Period".

Timothy

[cp fa]

Except that when that same society sets a general premise that one's own business is one's own business when there is no harm done to anyone else (i.e. the military's don't ask, don't tell policy), the door has already been opened to challenging statutes which would try to legislate against the right to one's own business.

And further to that, even in a democracy, human rights should not be put to a vote.

Where do we draw the line?

Consenting adults.

[chockalicious]

Well apparently you do have an issue with someone voicing their convictions.

How did her statement deny anyone's rights?

As Trump said...70% of Americans agree with her so it really doesn't matter why someone believes in something, it's their right to do so. Attacking them because it may be based on Religious beliefs is hypocritical to your own argument.

Rights are what people decide they are. If 70% are against it then possibly they don't have the right to oppose the majority. You don't have the right to do what ever you want in life...thank God for that!

Where exactly did I say I had problems with her voicing her convictions?

I said I had a problem with her when she seeks to deny someone equal rights based on her beliefs.

Are you being deliberately obtuse to argue or just not reading what was wrote?

[chockalicious]

The whole "majority rules" arguement has nothing to do with this IMO.

It took court action to integrate some schools in the US, the majority did not want it. Should schools have not been integrated until the "majority" wants it.

I think that all airline employees should be restricted to living by the airport because their industry causes noise pollution. The majority of people agree with me.

Now do airline employees have the same rights as everyone else or should they be subjected to the will of the "majority"?

[BoomerPete]

Pete

With respect, where do we draw the line?

Homosexuality was a crime not so long ago.

It's coarse, but for example, why not take a "if they're old enough to breed, they're old enough to.... attitude with females?

DEFCON,

Really, these are false analogies. Where I see you trying to head is towards the slippery slope arguement of "If we allow gays to marry, who knows what's next? Someone's gonna want to marry their houshold pet!". It doesn't follow.

Yes, homosexuality was a crime here not so long ago. In other places it still is, but neither circumstance makes for a valid arguement as to why we should accept any form of discrimination on the basis of sexual preference within our own contemporary society. As a society we have chosen to entrench certain rights and liberties both informally within our national ethos (the "moral" aspect if you will) and formally within our constitution (the legal aspect).

Where we have seen people demonstrating in favour of same-sex marriage rights and where we have seen courts (both in Canada and the U.S.) striking down prohibitions against same-sex marriage what we are witnessing is not a proverbial slide down the degenerative slippery slope. Rather, it is the power of a civil society engaging itself and weeding out statutes within its system of laws that are inconsistent with the basic concepts of an individual's rights and freedoms that we have chosen to accept as a society and which we have chosen to enshrine within the documents that define our nation and its responsibilities towards its citizens.

With respect to the "coarse example" that you've alluded to, whether it's taken to suggest rape, statutory rape or pedophilia, none of these has any correlation to same-sex marriage. Each of the above acts is prohibited by law because they involve one individual causing harm to another against their will or without their legal consent. Our society may evolve over time, but based on our form to date our evolution has been entirely away from condoning any of these forms of violence (which, ironically, have been nowhere more practiced than within the bounds of "traditional" marriages), not towards permitting them. Accepting same-sex marriage is not going to result in a sudden shift in that societal ethos.

In fact, you might wish to consider that same-sex marriage is itself just a small part in a greater evolution of the concept of marriage, hopefully away from a past that has included many forced and bitterly undesired unions that were consumated not for the sake of love but because they were demanded by family, culture or religion. More prosaically, when it comes to same-sex marriage, we can at least be reasonably certain that there will be no "shotgun weddings" and that both parties will be at the alter becuase that is where they truly wish to be. We can only hope that the day follows when the same can become true of "traditional" marriages.

Pete

[Kip Powick]

NO disrespect intended....I just thought this was pretty funny

[BoomerPete]

Good morning Pete.

Your post was well written but I think you overlooked two important points: a gay marriage cannot produce offspring, and homosexual practices are contrary to the teaching in the Bible.

As a Catholic I believe in the Bible.  I have read it from Genesis to Revelation twice and read some of it every day.  I would accept these teachings any day over the messages of today's society.

I certainly do not advocate punishing those who do not see things as I do.  If the gay community wants to do its thing that's their business, but as far s I'm concerned marriage is a contract between a man and a woman.  End of story.

Happy to extend the offer of a coffee or a beer to you as well.

Timothy

Good afternoon Timothy,

Thanks for your thoughts in response.

I have not overlooked the two points you mentioned, but I consider them to be irrelevant to either the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legal in Canada or whether "traditional" marriage has served mankind well.

If marriage was an entitlement to be preserved only for those who can produce offspring, then logically the same standard would have to be applied to all who desire to be married. This would then seem to preclude any woman past the age of menopause from marrying, as well as anyone who is infertile. To be fair we'd also have to expand that to include those who have voluntarily chosen to become infertile through vasectomies and tubal ligation procedures as well. Added to that there might be the occasional eunuch and those few remaining vets who "had 'em shot off during the war" . And, what about those who simply are in love with each other, but haven't the slightest intention of ever having a child? Do they get a free pass to "traditional" marriage because they could procreate but choose not to, or should they be denied as well?

Obviously, none of the above examples of when marriage might or might not be allowed has or would ever be permitted to have standing either in our society or within our laws, and yet in terms of the potential to "go forth and multiply" there is no practical difference in what those marriages might achieve versus a same-sex marriage. So, really, where's the beef in this arguement? In Canada, marriage and reproduction are two completely seperate matters, regardless of the sexual orientation of the individuals involved.

And then there's the Bible.

Perhaps we might also want to add in some other noteworthy volumes such as the Qur'an, the Torah, Ramayana, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Agamas, the Kitab-i-Aqdas, and why not, Dianetics. All of them are volumes of scripture (a debatable point with L. Ron's tome I grant you) which profess to pass along teachings for the adherence of the faithful. Many of them have passages regarding homosexuality that are similar to those found in the Bible. But do any of them have standing under our constitution as the basis upon which a modern law of any sort can be constructed? No, of course they don't, and neither does the Bible despite Christianity's predominant position in our nation's religious history.

Regardless of what religion one cares to practice, the notion that you can impose the injunctions of that religion upon society as a whole for no other reason than that they exist within your own set of Holy Scriptures is an anaethma to our concept of civil liberty. So again, to quote Clara: "Where's the beef?"

Just so we're clear on this point, I don't wish to mock or denigrate your religious beliefs in any way, but to paraphrase your own statement: "I certainly do not advocate punishing those who do not see things as I do. If the gay Christian community wants to do its thing that's their business " ... just so long as they don't expect that the rest of us will be forced to practice along with them.

Pete

PS - Coffee could be fun.

[Fester]

Having moved away to work in warmer climes, I love coming back to this forum now and then for a nostalgic and refreshing immersion into things Canadian.

And this tread is sooo Canadian! What started out as potentially saucy topic about a beauty queen has quickly moved to the really important issue: gay marriage! And everyone is so polite! Posters dance around, careful not to step on anyone's toes, just making their points in a charming, civilized fashion. So nice.

No wonder the world loves us!

BTW, Timothy, I'm like totally with you.