[NumsAmenniams]

canada is going to burn in eternity!

[secondmortgages]

Originally posted by Odin
I head on MPR last night that Catholic priests are telling their congegations to oppose this, time for you canucks to take the RCC's tax-exempt status away (you guys have that, I am assuming)... Yeah, the vast majority of religious organizations out there are actively opposing this, even though the proposed bill puts, in writing, religious protections in place...

[duawLauff]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I presume this will make Ben happy. He's been harping for a long time that it should be put to a vote in parliament. If it passes, he'll have nothing to complain about. He'll want a referendum when it passes in parliament.

[bWn4h8QD]

"Canada is a homo-fascist state."
- Rev. Fred Phelps

OMG OMG OMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE TURNED INTO PILLARS OF SALT OMG OMG OMG.

[pageup85]

Homo-fascist? What's the SA got to do with Canada?

[HawksBurnDown]

Yes will be interesting.. I mean we can take liberal countries and all that, but a bill of this sort will be tough everywhere. There will be hard opposion. We will see. I predict, it will get leveled. Sorry Asher.

[GarryPaterson]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Only the lucky of you. The rest will be forced to participitate in gay orgies and wear purple clothes. Purple!!! That's disgusting!!!

[chuecafressds]

Originally posted by Odin


American footbal fans in Minnesota wear it all the time. I bet next Phelps is going to call MN Viking fans gay. You guys should give a new nickname to Randy Moss : reverend Moon. That'd make Phelps day!

[Haibundadam]

Originally posted by Richelieu


You guys should give a new nickname to Randy Moss : reverend Moon. That'd make Phelps day!

[Rffkwfct]

Too bad. It'll all change when I declare sole rule over the Canadian Empire.

[kilibry]

Asher

[abubycera]

I presume this will make Ben happy. He's been harping for a long time that it should be put to a vote in parliament. If it passes, he'll have nothing to complain about. Free vote in parliament.

I don't like this BS about the cabinet.

Hopefully some will have the cohones to vote even if they lose their cabinet positions.

[OShellszz]

Yeah, the vast majority of religious organizations out there are actively opposing this, even though the proposed bill puts, in writing, religious protections in place... What about organisations like say, the Knights of Columbus? Would they also be protected?

[goctorsurger]

Because we also protect the rights of women, where they are usually exploited in polygamous relationships.

That whole argument is bullshit. We already have polygamy here in Canada. This will only serve to futher entrench their legitimacy. Why, if marriage is merely a contract between two people, should said contract be restricted to only two people?

[AbraxiaAsus]

"Canada is a country where minorities are protected."

[DoterForeva]

Originally posted by Voltaire
This is one of the strange thing I find in regards to the debate about gay marriage, the whole slippery-slope argument. Why, if we allow gay marriage, what's next, polygamy? And the answer is an unabashed yes. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with either, supporting one and not the other seems unjustified. It would be good if people started to recognize this, and if the government did as well.

But this whole mess can easily be avoided by simply getting rid of the legal status of marriage altogether. Allow people to do whatever they want, live with whoever they want, etc. but keep the government out of it. Poligamy is supported by the state through welfare.

How is gay marriage?

ACK!

[jeraveike]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski

Who is considered a minority there. I have worked with a few canadian nurses and all seem to have a severe distaste for native american indians Don't question them! They're better than us.

[slarceSelia]

Originally posted by Voltaire
This is one of the strange thing I find in regards to the debate about gay marriage, the whole slippery-slope argument. Why, if we allow gay marriage, what's next, polygamy? And the answer is an unabashed yes. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with either, supporting one and not the other seems unjustified. It would be good if people started to recognize this, and if the government did as well.

But this whole mess can easily be avoided by simply getting rid of the legal status of marriage altogether. Allow people to do whatever they want, live with whoever they want, etc. but keep the government out of it. Maybe you can explain that there is no harm to the girls that are married off at 15 and 16 to lechers in closed communities where the nubiles are raised for the explicit purpose.

Do you have a clue about the shoes other people walk in, or does it have to be represented in a computer game before you can visualise it?

[Flikemommoilt]

But this whole mess can easily be avoided by simply getting rid of the legal status of marriage altogether. Allow people to do whatever they want, live with whoever they want, etc. but keep the government out of it. You will probably get your wish, the way things are going right now.

Why, if we allow gay marriage, what's next, polygamy? And the answer is an unabashed yes. Thank you. So the slippery slope argument is very valid, despite Asher's protestations to the contrary.

[FuXA8nQM]

I dont see what the fuss is about as far as two people that love each other be allowed to be married. Just because I love someone doesn't mean I should marry them. Marriage is much more than just love, and while love is a big part, that's not all there is to it.