• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Canada has now legalized same-sex marriages

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: DennyD
Originally posted by: 91TTZ

You sound like a Bible-thumping zealot who wants to legislate your version of morality so all citizens must abide by it.

Being a Christian is not the same as a bible thumper. But look at what you say to me... they want to force thier version of morality on us, so your point has no validity.

So they're forcing you to get married to a gay guy? How will this law change *your* life in any way? It won't.

On the other hand, if you prohibit them from getting married, once again it will have no impact on your life, but it will directly affect their life.

My point has validity, you just can't understand it.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Stefan
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

St. Paul was one fvcked up guy, who really, really needed to get laid more. The world would have been so much better a place...

How is that view wrong or fscked up? In a marriage you dedicate your life to the person you are marrying.

Jesus dedicated his life God.

Priests and Nuns dedicate their life to God as well, which is why that can't have sex or marry.

The concept of marriage existed just fine before the Church, so any meaning that the Church ascribes to marriage is artificial.

Interesting take on Christian sexual morality: here

St. Paul knew that celibacy means suppressing human nature but human nature cannot be suppressed. He knew that if marriage is totally forbidden, then people will still indulge in sexual gratification unlawfully. So he says, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband."(Corinthians I, 7:2) Then as if to prevent the people from forgetting the holiness of celibacy, he continues: "I say this by way of concession, not of command. For I wish that all men were as I myself am...Therefore, I say to the unmarried and the widows that it is good for them to remain singles as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (Corinthians I, 7:6-9) So marriage, when compared to fornication, is the lesser of two evils!

(bold emphasis mine)

Like I said, Paul was one seriously fvcked up and repressed guy.

Well, I'm not going to get into a full-out religious dabate, especially when quoting passages from the bible, because it would completely hijack the thread 🙂

From what I have read in the bible, God told us to marry and be fruitful within the confines of that marriage and only of that marriage until death breaks the contract, where after you are free to enter into another contract or stay celibate.

I won't deny that some people have added / changed things that have made the church worse, but you also have to see that these people are only mortals and carry sin and push for their own beliefs just like anyone else, so don't lose the deeper meaning of what the church stands for by getting too involved in all the political technicalities.
 
Originally posted by: DennyD
Originally posted by: 91TTZ

You sound like a Bible-thumping zealot who wants to legislate your version of morality so all citizens must abide by it.

Being a Christian is not the same as a bible thumper. But look at what you say to me... they want to force thier version of morality on us, so your point has no validity.

Your complaining about them forcing their morals onto you but what gives you the right to set the standard for morals? Does everyone have to have Christian morals now? I for one am not a homophobe and do not oppose gay rights/marriage.
 
Originally posted by: DennyD
Yep... pretty sad state of affairs. Soon we will also have the right to marry more than one partner... if we love them, why not? Morals have gone right out the window now, why stop there? Hell, lets give all those sick animal lovers rights too. I know a horse can't talk, but if he has that twinkle in his eye, who's to say it's not love and that they can't get married? Sound insane and stupid, eh? Well so does a man getting married to another man. It's gonna open the doors for so many other forms of legalized perversion.

Pretty soon we're going to be legalizing weed and cocaine because it should be our right to use drugs.

(sigh) This old fallacious, slippery slope argument again...

Marriage, in the eyes of the law, is an equal partnership between consenting adults. Homosexual marriage meets this criteria. The following do not:

bigamy: not an equal partnership
bestiality: neither an equal nor a consensual partnership
incest: extremely unlikely to be both an equal and consensual partnership
pedophilia: not an equal or consensual partnership; one member is not an adult
 
Originally posted by: jer0608
Originally posted by: DennyD
Yep... pretty sad state of affairs. Soon we will also have the right to marry more than one partner... if we love them, why not? Morals have gone right out the window now, why stop there? Hell, lets give all those sick animal lovers rights too. I know a horse can't talk, but if he has that twinkle in his eye, who's to say it's not love and that they can't get married? Sound insane and stupid, eh? Well so does a man getting married to another man. It's gonna open the doors for so many other forms of legalized perversion.

Pretty soon we're going to be legalizing weed and cocaine because it should be our right to use drugs.

(sigh) This old fallacious, slippery slope argument again...

Marriage, in the eyes of the law, is an equal partnership between consenting adults. Homosexual marriage meets this criteria. The following do not:

bigamy: not an equal partnership
bestiality: neither an equal nor a consensual partnership
incest: extremely unlikely to be both an equal and consensual partnership
pedophilia: not an equal or consensual partnership; one member is not an adult

Marriage is not the only possible equal partnership between consenting adults. Polyamory is another possible arrangement.
 
Didn't read the thread (oh yeah, yea for Canada) but at first glance I thought the title was "Canada legalizes sex-less marriage" 😱
 
Originally posted by: Stefan
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Stefan
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

St. Paul was one fvcked up guy, who really, really needed to get laid more. The world would have been so much better a place...

How is that view wrong or fscked up? In a marriage you dedicate your life to the person you are marrying.

Jesus dedicated his life God.

Priests and Nuns dedicate their life to God as well, which is why that can't have sex or marry.

The concept of marriage existed just fine before the Church, so any meaning that the Church ascribes to marriage is artificial.

Interesting take on Christian sexual morality: here

St. Paul knew that celibacy means suppressing human nature but human nature cannot be suppressed. He knew that if marriage is totally forbidden, then people will still indulge in sexual gratification unlawfully. So he says, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband."(Corinthians I, 7:2) Then as if to prevent the people from forgetting the holiness of celibacy, he continues: "I say this by way of concession, not of command. For I wish that all men were as I myself am...Therefore, I say to the unmarried and the widows that it is good for them to remain singles as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (Corinthians I, 7:6-9) So marriage, when compared to fornication, is the lesser of two evils!

(bold emphasis mine)

Like I said, Paul was one seriously fvcked up and repressed guy.

Well, I'm not going to get into a full-out religious dabate, especially when quoting passages from the bible, because it would completely hijack the thread 🙂

From what I have read in the bible, God told us to marry and be fruitful within the confines of that marriage and only of that marriage until death breaks the contract, where after you are free to enter into another contract or stay celibate.

I won't deny that some people have added / changed things that have made the church worse, but you also have to see that these people are only mortals and carry sin and push for their own beliefs just like anyone else, so don't lose the deeper meaning of what the church stands for by getting too involved in all the political technicalities.

Don't look at it from a religious point of view, but rather, a psychological one. Paul was celibate, and chose to remain celibate for whatever reason. He wanted everyone else to be celibate as well, but grudgingly agreed that it's against human nature, and thus considered marriage a necessary evil.

This is not a healthy, well-adjusted human being.
 
Originally posted by: Stefan
Originally posted by: meltdown75
so, what's up next for legalization? :evil:

Flame-throwers for civilians! That's what I call packing heat :evil:

I say Timmy Ho's should start selling cigarettes :evil:

so should beer stores. and all convenience stores should sell booze, just like in Quebec. some convenience stores are actually licensed to sell booze now though, which is VERY convenient! 🙂

edit: oops, threadjack not intended. Gay it up everyone.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Don't look at it from a religious point of view, but rather, a psychological one. Paul was celibate, and chose to remain celibate for whatever reason. He wanted everyone else to be celibate as well, but grudgingly agreed that it's against human nature, and thus considered marriage a necessary evil.

This is not a healthy, well-adjusted human being.

Well, I don't know much about St. Paul. My first thought would be that if he was celibate it was because he dedicated his life to God. I can't understand why he would tell others to all do the same because the life of a priest is not for everyone. He certainly would have been in the minority with this belief, considering that God said to get married and multiply.

Anyway, this is getting off track. St. Paul didn't create the idea of marriage. Marriage existed long before his time. The bible mearly says what a marriage is, and what should and should not be done within the confines of marriage. St. Paul and his views, wether he was disturbed or not really doesn't matter.
 
Originally posted by: DennyD
No invisible magic man told me anything... biology did. Is it a fluke that the male and female organs are designed to reproduce? That's what they're for... Not for two guys to play Alien Abduction and get anal probed with the other's penis... hehehehe...
Please, don't pretend your reasoning is based on science, because it is definitely not. If you were to take the scientific approach, you'd be wondering why this is even an issue.
And damn your leprechauns... my bigfoots have been at war with them for centuries... (or would that be bigfeet? bigfi? Oh hell... sasquatch!)
It wouldn't surprise me you believe in leprechauns and bigfoot as your book of tales (The Bible) makes several mentions of unicorns, dragons and talking donkeys. Hey, might as well throw in an invisible guy in the clouds too. Good book to base your decisions in life on. :roll:


 
Originally posted by: ifesfor
Now i live in a fvckin i love you country :|

---

Enjoy yourself there for a month because you will not be here.

AnandTech Moderator

You should move to texas, you should fit right in with their homophobia.
 
I'm canadian, and I disagree with this, Fvck same sex marraige, unions fine, but it's not marraige.
 
Back
Top