[ANTHONYD]

^^^Oh shoot, now we're onto politics????

[scoobasteve]

darkpuppet,Mar 22 2006, 04:10 PM Wrote:

OAC_Sparky,Mar 22 2006, 04:08 PM Wrote:Well said.

I'm no more comfortable with the notion of gay sex than many Muslims or Jamaicans I know are about performing oral sex on a woman (cultural taboo). To some, they feel that it is a deviant sexual behaviour; yet here it is an accepted (tolerated, encouraged :lol: ) practise.

interesting side annecdote to this effect.. remind me to bring it up at some time.
[right][snapback]176414[/snapback][/right]

Haha, i'm jamaican and i have no problem.... B)

[meford4u]

NOS2Go4Me,Mar 22 2006, 02:09 PM Wrote:

darkpuppet,Mar 22 2006, 01:51 PM Wrote:[quote=NOS2Go4Me,Mar 22 2006, 01:29 PM]

I refuse to support anything that aggressively attacks the institution of marriage to the best of my knowledge.
Does that quench everyone's thirst for knowledge?
[right][snapback]176376[/snapback][/right]

Tell me what happens then to your beliefs if your marriage ends in divorce? I am not wishing that upon you, but it could happen. And the beliefs that you are so emphatical about simply disappear because your Christian idealogy clearly has no room for divorce. In the past, it was a trip to the back woods and a shotgun. And that's not meant to be funny.

History changes and so does society. So why are your beiefs so engrained that you can't change with the times?

[ZTWsquared]

Nothing like a subject combining sex, politics and religion to get everyone excited.

A position against homosexual marriage on the basis of religious dogma has no standing when discussing the term “marriage” as it defines an instrument or instution of government. By definition an institution of government in Canada must not only be free of religious bias, it must be constituted without regard whatsoever to any religion and totally devoid of any consideration other than the rights of the citizen.

So it really doesn’t matter how long marriage has been around, or how many different definitions of marriage there might be (religious or otherwise) marriage is first and foremost an instrument of government and should be available equally to all citizens.

IMO arguing your case based solely on your religious beliefs automatically negates your argument.

As for the boycott – I think it is ridiculous and it will become nothing more than the publicity stunt that it is. It is IMO just another way that religious extremists in the States are attempting to influence a society that is for the most part immune to their direct control.

Ford has long had a policy of recognizing and fostering the acceptance of diversity in its workforce; and although I think the current situation could have been handled much better from a PR point of view, I believe Ford in this case is merely walking the talk in terms of its customers.

And by the way, the Ford definition of diversity is the much broader term that includes gender, race, culture, religion, and yes, sexual orientation. IMO to suggest that Ford should stop its support of the homosexual community is tantamount to saying they should also stop supporting the causes of women, minority races and minority religions.

As much as the religious fervent would like everyone to be the same and believe in the same things, the truth of our world is that we are a really diverse lot and the sooner we start thinking in terms of acceptance and inclusion the better off we all will be.

[habmann]

ZTWsquared,Mar 22 2006, 06:30 PM Wrote:Nothing like a subject combining sex, politics and religion to get everyone excited.

A position against homosexual marriage on the basis of religious dogma has no standing when discussing the term “marriage” as it defines an instrument or instution of government. By definition an institution of government in Canada must not only be free of religious bias, it must be constituted without regard whatsoever to any religion and totally devoid of any consideration other than the rights of the citizen.

So it really doesn’t matter how long marriage has been around, or how many different definitions of marriage there might be (religious or otherwise) marriage is first and foremost an instrument of government and should be available equally to all citizens.

IMO arguing your case based solely on your religious beliefs automatically negates your argument.

As for the boycott – I think it is ridiculous and it will become nothing more than the publicity stunt that it is. It is IMO just another way that religious extremists in the States are attempting to influence a society that is for the most part immune to their direct control.

Ford has long had a policy of recognizing and fostering the acceptance of diversity in its workforce; and although I think the current situation could have been handled much better from a PR point of view, I believe Ford in this case is merely walking the talk in terms of its customers.

And by the way, the Ford definition of diversity is the much broader term that includes gender, race, culture, religion, and yes, sexual orientation. IMO to suggest that Ford should stop its support of the homosexual community is tantamount to saying they should also stop supporting the causes of women, minority races and minority religions.

As much as the religious fervent would like everyone to be the same and believe in the same things, the truth of our world is that we are a really diverse lot and the sooner we start thinking in terms of acceptance and inclusion the better off we all will be.
[right][snapback]176465[/snapback][/right]

Well put.

As much as i recognize a person's right to believe in a religion of their choice, forcing me to and the rest of society to conform to the views of that religion are wrong. Drawing on lessons i learned while in catholic shool, i was always lead to believe that we as a people were supposed to be understanding and accepting of other people. So which is it? We should accept other cultures and people and their differences or shun anyone that doesn't believe what your religion of choice believes?

[ANTHONYD]

habmann,Mar 22 2006, 07:48 PM Wrote:

ZTWsquared,Mar 22 2006, 06:30 PM Wrote:Nothing like a subject combining sex, politics and religion to get everyone excited.

A position against homosexual marriage on the basis of religious dogma has no standing when discussing the term “marriage” as it defines an instrument or instution of government. By definition an institution of government in Canada must not only be free of religious bias, it must be constituted without regard whatsoever to any religion and totally devoid of any consideration other than the rights of the citizen.

So it really doesn’t matter how long marriage has been around, or how many different definitions of marriage there might be (religious or otherwise) marriage is first and foremost an instrument of government and should be available equally to all citizens.

IMO arguing your case based solely on your religious beliefs automatically negates your argument.

As for the boycott – I think it is ridiculous and it will become nothing more than the publicity stunt that it is. It is IMO just another way that religious extremists in the States are attempting to influence a society that is for the most part immune to their direct control.

Ford has long had a policy of recognizing and fostering the acceptance of diversity in its workforce; and although I think the current situation could have been handled much better from a PR point of view, I believe Ford in this case is merely walking the talk in terms of its customers.

And by the way, the Ford definition of diversity is the much broader term that includes gender, race, culture, religion, and yes, sexual orientation. IMO to suggest that Ford should stop its support of the homosexual community is tantamount to saying they should also stop supporting the causes of women, minority races and minority religions.

As much as the religious fervent would like everyone to be the same and believe in the same things, the truth of our world is that we are a really diverse lot and the sooner we start thinking in terms of acceptance and inclusion the better off we all will be.
[right][snapback]176465[/snapback][/right]

Well put.

As much as i recognize a person's right to believe in a religion of their choice, forcing me to and the rest of society to conform to the views of that religion are wrong. Drawing on lessons i learned while in catholic shool, i was always lead to believe that we as a people were supposed to be understanding and accepting of other people. So which is it? We should accept other cultures and people and their differences or shun anyone that doesn't believe what your religion of choice believes?
[right][snapback]176470[/snapback][/right]

A perfectly good question that I think most of us could answer quiete easily. ;)

[darkpuppet]

ZTWsquared,Mar 22 2006, 06:30 PM Wrote:Nothing like a subject combining sex, politics and religion to get everyone excited.

A position against homosexual marriage on the basis of religious dogma has no standing when discussing the term “marriage” as it defines an instrument or instution of government. By definition an institution of government in Canada must not only be free of religious bias, it must be constituted without regard whatsoever to any religion and totally devoid of any consideration other than the rights of the citizen.

So it really doesn’t matter how long marriage has been around, or how many different definitions of marriage there might be (religious or otherwise) marriage is first and foremost an instrument of government and should be available equally to all citizens.

IMO arguing your case based solely on your religious beliefs automatically negates your argument.

As for the boycott – I think it is ridiculous and it will become nothing more than the publicity stunt that it is. It is IMO just another way that religious extremists in the States are attempting to influence a society that is for the most part immune to their direct control.

Ford has long had a policy of recognizing and fostering the acceptance of diversity in its workforce; and although I think the current situation could have been handled much better from a PR point of view, I believe Ford in this case is merely walking the talk in terms of its customers.

And by the way, the Ford definition of diversity is the much broader term that includes gender, race, culture, religion, and yes, sexual orientation. IMO to suggest that Ford should stop its support of the homosexual community is tantamount to saying they should also stop supporting the causes of women, minority races and minority religions.

As much as the religious fervent would like everyone to be the same and believe in the same things, the truth of our world is that we are a really diverse lot and the sooner we start thinking in terms of acceptance and inclusion the better off we all will be.
[right][snapback]176465[/snapback][/right]

:wub:

damn you're good.

[meford4u]

That was my classic example of s***disturbing 101

Class dismissed

[habmann]

Where did Nos go? He didn't leave the site again did he?

[OAC_Sparky]

scoobasteve,Mar 22 2006, 05:00 PM Wrote:Haha, i'm jamaican and i have no problem....  B)
[right][snapback]176436[/snapback][/right]

:lol:

Personally, I always get a chuckle when I think of a friend of mine asking once,

"Waccha wanna do dat fer mon? Juss giv'er da reeeeel ting....."

:rofl:

[focusracer]

Wow, popular topic. Checked it out this am, at 1 page, now at 5. Just my 2 cents coming up here. I was raised extremely religously, anti homosexual, anti abortion, anti f***ing everything. Eventually I decided to get my own view. Didn't know any gays, knew of a few, didn't know them. So I got to know them, two guys who live down the street from me. Know what, they're 2 of the coolest people I know. They know I'm not gay and they have never tried to push it on me (no pun intended :P ).

I met a girl 2 summers ago, got to know her a little, a couple months later , find out she's a stripper. You know what, they are PEOPLE. PEOPLE FOR f*** SAKES!!!!!!!! Yet they get treated like absolute garbage. My best friend of over 10yrs told me that he couldn't be my friend anymore if I was going to be friends with the "likes of that whore". Yet previous to finding out, he and his wife both thought she was a great girl, "marriage material", now she's a 2 bit whore to them. You know who I'm friends with? Her, and a few of her coworkers. Haven't talked to him in a year and a half, he won't return my calls and he blocked my email address. I feel sorry for his children.

People in this society need to grow the hell up, let's boycott ford because they supposedly support gays and their desires for marriage. Why don't we boycott cadillac because they make the escalade, which is one of the most desired vehicles for "gangsta's" to drive, or how about harley davidson motorcycles because the hells angels ride them. How about banning music!!! How much "negativity" is in music.

Some would like us to believe that the civil rights movement was damaging to our society, that it should have stayed the way it was. Some would like to rewrite american history to see to it that the South won the civil war. They say it would have been a better way.

I went and saw the V for Vendetta, the other day. Good action flick, but what a scary thought ocurred to me as I was watching it. Gays, lesbians, art collectors, historians, criminals, people out after a state set curfew, people who had other faiths than christianity, were persecuted, imprisoned, torture and had scientific experiments peorformed on them until one man who had been a victim stood up for what he believed and caused changed. What if this were to happen, what if a simple boycott could cause something like that to happen again in our society. I say again because of history, look at the Nazi regime in the 30's and 40's during the 2nd world war. Adolf Hitler felt inferior of Jews and decided to persecute them, convinced the Nazi party of this, they boycotted Jewish businesses, look what that led to. Should we just ship people who don't think, dress, act, etc. the way that "normal people" do off to the tundra to be put to death. I don't think so.

We need to change the way we live, the way we treat eachother. The most anti gay marriage, anti abortion, anti sexual freedom etc. group are undeniably the "christians" of society, well you know what, I'd rather be in a room full of (no insults meant here) fags, dikes, strippers and whores, than be in a room with one "christian". So if that means I just got another letter stamped on the curb in front of my parking spot in hell, well, so be it.

Well that's my rant... ;)

[Frost__2001]

Ok where to start after wasting 30+ minutes reading every comment and shot here, I might be able to help maybe clear this up for some people to get the idea, but I have to say there have been really good comments from ZTWsugared on Ford's policys and quite a few by both Anthony, and puppet. I'll try to really explain what I know read, and reasurched when I came out and explain it the best as I can, I hope this clears the air for some, and answers questions for others. I had help in writing up this responce so I have to say thanks to my boyfriend Richard for helping me.

Pride Parade History - It was Orginally started in the 1970's after the Stone wall riots in New York City, after the government and police stepped in to "enforce" public behavior and moral laws they started in the 1950's to really stop the "spread" of homosexual behavior then, but then became a civil rights matter later on and the laws were repealed shortly there after the Riots in NYC.

One Year later the Riot was marked by a very public display, From the Bar to where the Riot started was a very quite parade that followed the route of the police and went from the the bar in the Gay Village in NYC to the City Hall. Over 255 people were arrested in the riot and 15 people died, the parade was more or less to honer the people that had died and the people that were arrested for standing up for their rights.

Following the 1 year anniversary of the riots the story spread throughout the world it was marked on October 15 on the day the original riot took place. However as it slowly evolved into the fun fair it is today, the dates of the annual celebration changed over time to suit the city they are held in today. Toronto, Berlin, and Sydney are the only three cities in world to celebrate for a full month, with the parades marking the end of the celebration.

Toronto's Pride is marked with two Parades, one being the Dyke March the Day before the actual Pride Parade. The Dyke march is to celebrate all things lesbien and is a girl only celebration to wemen of any part of the community to join in. Pride has changed every year and grown every year, last year it theme was about love, I'm not sure as to what this years will be, but there is expected to be over 1.2 Million people coming to see the event.

Pride Week / Day / Month
It's more about showing people that we are here, we are different and there is nothing wrong with it. It's about showing people they are not alone, and that there is help for everyone out there. Pride events often have any number of groups and info sessions covering topics like HIV/AIDS research, aging homes, gay-friendly travel locations, lifestyle trends, or fetishes. There are also many community groups and out-reach centres have presentations as well.

Gay History 101
Gays have been around as long as civilization has existed, dating back to the Roman and Greek civilizations. With the Greeks it was not uncommon for older men to take younger men and teach them or develop relationships with them, something that has been well supported by research.

Also in the ancient Greek military they had special forces of same-sex couples that were the most violent in battle and had the most success. Additionally, recent research has been been finding links to Alexander the Great and another unnamed male soldier.

Just think about in this sense, if you were in battle and someone killed your spouse, you'd go insane in grief and try to kill as much as you could to avenge their death. And that's what the greeks did for their units.

The Romans on the other hand had more or less left it to the side, until it occurred to them that it could be used as a natural population control method in Rome when the city reached its high point in history of 1.5 million people. At that time housing was limited, so same-sex relationships were encouraged to help moderate population growth.

And of course, Christianity became more influential and resulted in the moral view that followed over time. The Bible never mentioned the term homosexual until 1951, and was introduced by the Southern Baptist Faith, and it slowly moved into all versions of the Bible in 1952, this is also Proven Fact.

Marriage / Gay Marriage - Documented marriage has only been practiced for the last 1500 years or so, it was more or less adapted by Heads of State and Kings as a political tool to help develop closer relations with other States or internal groups. It is now no longer a solely religious function but is now regulated by governments.

Gay marriage is required because certain states in the US do not honour gay relationships. As a result, same-sex partners are often not able to see their significant other in the hospital, nor are enabled to make decisions on behalf of their partner (i.e. withdrawing life support). This level of equality is not pending in the US, however it is likely that the UK and Australia will soon be following Canada's path in this issue.

Pride Today - Pride is more less a celebration of who you are regardless of where you are, what you are, or what your interest is. It is a celebration of life, and having the freedom to do what you want, when you want. It's more or less about your civil rights to choose your path and to be happy with that choice. It is no longer a gay thing anymore, it's about everyone and everything and to take pride in what your doing in your own life. It's why everyone is welcome to join in the celebration, regardless of your sexual orientation or status. It's just to celebrate your own pride.

Homosexuality is Natural
Other then the points I made earlier about the Greek and Roman civilizations, homosexuality is not just confined to homo sapiens, but has also been documented in animals as well. It has been observed in elks, whales, birds, and even butterflies just to name a few. Therefore, the assertion that homosexuality is not 'natural' is entirely incorrect as it is something that does happen naturally.

My Opinion - Well in Closing, I'll comment I did take a gay history course offered by the Communty 519 centre in Toronto, and a Sexuality course in College. Think what you want about the GLBT community but their are many differences today more so then there were 10 years ago, there have been many strives for equal rights in Canada and so far equal marrage is a good one because it means that I'll have the same rights as everyone else when I do decided to marry.

I know for many people a topic like this can make some people angry, upset or squeemish, but reality is everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how misguided it might be, but it's their right as it is for me to write this, Thank you.

[OAC_Sparky]

Frost__2001,Mar 23 2006, 02:12 AM Wrote:Thank you.
[right][snapback]176533[/snapback][/right]

Thanks for posting.

[meford4u]

very interesting frost.

and what happened to my s***disturbing post.

I know it was a good one, but I can't remember what I wrote.

[ANTHONYD]

Thanks Frost.

It's unfortunate that people still llok at things in a singl-minded matter. I guess if everyone thought the same way... the world be boring.

Thanks!

[darkpuppet]

I gots bad news... the majority of the world is coming around...

Quote:Mar 23, 6:51 AM (ET)

By WILL LESTER

WASHINGTON (AP) - The public backlash over gay marriage has receded since a controversial decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003 to legalize those marriages stirred strong opposition, says a poll released Wednesday.

Gay marriage remains a divisive issue, with 51 percent opposing it, the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found. But almost two-thirds, 63 percent, opposed gay marriage in February 2004.

[ANTHONYD]

I guess Nos took a hike....again?

>_>

[habmann]

I think he did.

[darkpuppet]

ANTHONYD,Mar 23 2006, 09:24 AM Wrote:I guess Nos took a hike....again?

>_>
[right][snapback]176557[/snapback][/right]

well, you did say he could leave if he didn't like it... coupled with rational discourse unfit for his style of arguing, well, I'd run away too.

then again, I'd run away if I ever faced an argument from ZTWsquared, hell with going back for prized posessions, just run!

[OAC_Sparky]

scoobasteve,Mar 23 2006, 04:31 PM Wrote:A parting gift for Nos...
[right][snapback]176621[/snapback][/right]

Oh! The debauchery!! :o