Gay Candians "Mounties" Marry

https://img127.imageshack.us/img127/...tieslol1rm.png

I call it...
"Loving Mounties with Purple Background"

Quote:

---

HALIFAX (CP) - A day before Canada marks its 139th birthday, a young couple will wed in a ceremony that is sure to cast one of the country's most iconic symbols in a whole new light.

Dressed in their distinctive scarlet coats, RCMP constables Jason Tree and David Connors will exchange vows before a justice of the peace and a troop of other Mounties in their fabled red serge.

---

http://www.cfrb.com/node/375702


Sorry, but I can't help but find this a tad bit amusing. What do our Maple-Leaf friends to the North think about this light-hearted event?

Edit: BTW, The Mountie is a HUGE part of American perception of Canadian culture. Americans have Mom, Apple Pie, and Baseball. When I think of Canada, I think of the Maple leaf flag, Caribou, Mounties, and Hockey. It kind of twists the image of the Mountie, ya know? Whether that is good or bad I leave to others to decide. It's kind of like the stigma Barry Bonds has put on America's favorite pastime, or what was done to Apple Pie in the movie "American Pie".

Well it is said that they always get their man. :laugh4:

Story is like a week and a half old. I just keep thinking about how they both got there man. And other assorted bad jokes, my personal favorite being brokeback mounties (:bounce:). It made the papers when there engagement was discovered in May. Then as the wedding approached all kinds of news outlets wanted to turn the wedding into a media circus and they refused (smart of them IMO).

Anyway I hope they have a long happy, and above all GAY life together.


P.S. I just hope the divorce act has been changed otherwise they won't be able to get a divorce. For a while there it was legal for gay/lesbians to marry but not divorce (:laugh4: :oops: ). Ahhh only in :canada:

They're lumberjacks and they're ok, they sleep all night and they work all day.

So it's all good :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Well it is said that they always get their man. :laugh4:

---

:laugh4:

gay mariages :2thumbsup:

I've never seen a mounti or a caribou (except in the zoo), but good for them. I hope these Brokeback kids enjoy their marriage.

Welllllllll...

I, uh....

"Ummm...."

In ten thousand different ways their lifestyle is none of my business. As long as they're happy and causing ho harm, who am I to tell them what to do?

Officialy, well, if J. Edgar Hoover could do his job while wearing purty pink panties... ~:flirt:

It's amusing how the people who wrote the article think this has earth-shaking ramifications :laugh4:

Who is it hurting? It's just not news.

Now, it might be news if, after a Gay Marriage-ban amendment were passed in the U.S., Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter needed to emigrate to Canada and get citizenship there so she could get married. That would be ironicly amusing. Think he'd attend? :grin:

feeewww first time i read the tittle i read Canadians instead of Candians. I got scared our brave police got infested by the homo mafia .....

*run away*


ps. Hasty have no problem at all with gays in general.....

If two people love eachother who am I to judge it, but I will never understand why they actually want to marry, marriage is between a man and a women period, or a man and a boat of course. Gay couples should of course have the same tax benefits and all, but there is something like asking too much recognision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

If two people love eachother who am I to judge it, but I will never understand why they actually want to marry, marriage is between a man and a women period, or a man and a boat of course. Gay couples should of course have the same tax benefits and all, but there is something like asking too much recognision.

---

Why ? Marriage is a sign 2 people love eachother and want the world to see. Why is it asking for recognision, why more so than a heterosexual couple ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Why ? Marriage is a sign 2 people love eachother and want the world to see. Why is it asking for recognision, why more so than a heterosexual couple ?

---

Well, they are allowed to let the world know allready, nobody stops them. If they get the same benefits, what's the problem? Asking recognision for gay marriage is too such because you are asking too much from too many people. I don't want to offend gay orgers, but I still think it's a mental condition (there was a thread about conditions in the womb, and it's also more common with people who have older brothers), if someone truely believes he's napoleon I still think that giving him an imperial guard is a bad thing.

Now, if only I were a mormon that lived in Canada by them.:burnout:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Why ? Marriage is a sign 2 people love eachother and want the world to see. Why is it asking for recognision, why more so than a heterosexual couple ?

---

:laugh4: What do you think love has to do with marriage? But more seriously: Marriage was not created because two people were in "love". Quite often it was forced or pressured when the guy got the girl pregnant. This decades old notion that love is the main reason for marriage is odd indeed. Marriage is a symbolic ritual that signifies the beginning of a family. Read Froggy's story if you want some background on marriage.

I'm reading it still & loving it.

But that's beside the point, keeping animals was to provide food, now I seriously doubt many people in the western world eat their dog, cat, or even goldfish.

Quote:

---

Well, they are allowed to let the world know allready, nobody stops them. If they get the same benefits, what's the problem? Asking recognision for gay marriage is too such because you are asking too much from too many people.

---

If you dont want to upset a large group of people, things will never improve. Organ donation wouldn't have been invented & there are probably better examples.

They allow for extreme-right groups to protest, even though this asks a lot from a lot of people as well, surely you don't object to that as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

But that's beside the point, keeping animals was to provide food, now I seriously doubt many people in the western world eat their dog, cat, or even goldfish....

---

Hmmm. Given the correct condiments.....:devilish:

I am completely against gay marriage of any kind.

I'm also against straight marriage. :jester:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

I'm reading it still & loving it.

But that's beside the point, keeping animals was to provide food, now I seriously doubt many people in the western world eat their dog, cat, or even goldfish.

---

I'de eat a goldfish:2thumbsup:

Have you seen how big goldfish can get? ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

In ten thousand different ways their lifestyle is none of my business. As long as they're happy and causing ho harm, who am I to tell them what to do?

---

This is expressed just so perfectly. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

In ten thousand different ways their lifestyle is none of my business. As long as they're happy and causing ho harm, who am I to tell them what to do?

---

This is expressed just so perfectly. :2thumbsup:

---

The problem is when this becomes mainstream. Then it becomes taught in school. Then it becames culturally equivalent to heterosexuality. Then are children are raised to be able to choose between men and wome for sexual parteners with no social stigma. Then the idea of what family means is reconsidered. Then family no longer exists as man +woman +children. Then multiple partners are included as acceptable. Then marriage is antiquated and archaic. Then our children are raised by a multitude of individuals with no clear parents. Then the foundations of family values collapse. Then social values and ethics are reconsidered. Then God is eliminated from humanity. Then "good and evil" does not exist. Then evil is an acceptable choice, because good is relative and nothing is absolute. Then "good" is eliminated and self-service dominates civilization. Then human life is no longer valued. Then civilization crumbles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

The problem is when this becomes mainstream. Then it becomes taught in school. Then it becames culturally equivalent to heterosexuality. Then are children are raised to be able to choose between men and wome for sexual parteners with no social stigma. Then the idea of what family means is reconsidered. Then family no longer exists as man +woman +children. Then multiple partners are included as acceptable. Then marriage is antiquated and archaic. Then our children are raised by a multitude of individuals with no clear parents. Then the foundations of family values collapse. Then social values and ethics are reconsidered. Then God is eliminated from humanity. Then "good and evil" does not exist. Then evil is an acceptable choice, because good is relative and nothing is absolute. Then "good" is eliminated and self-service dominates civilization. Then human life is no longer valued. Then civilization crumbles.

---

I'm tired right now, so I won't try to root all the logical fallacies that are in that post.

Anyway, I'm sure that's not your actual opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

The problem is when this becomes mainstream. Then it becomes taught in school. Then it becames culturally equivalent to heterosexuality. Then are children are raised to be able to choose between men and wome for sexual parteners with no social stigma.

---

Sounds good so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Then the idea of what family means is reconsidered. Then family no longer exists as man +woman +children. Then multiple partners are included as acceptable. Then marriage is antiquated and archaic. Then our children are raised by a multitude of individuals with no clear parents.

---

Hippies, Kibbutz, divorced parents who have remarried, single parent families, children raised by their grandparents, multigenerational traditional households...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Then the foundations of family values collapse.

---

What look after the needs of the child so that they can become an independent adult in society? These will disappear because both dads are a cop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Then social values and ethics are reconsidered.

---

War isn't the only time that strategys should change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Then God is eliminated from humanity.

---

And that is a bad thing because?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Then "good and evil" does not exist. Then evil is an acceptable choice, because good is relative and nothing is absolute.

---

So two cops marrying will redefine what is good and evil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Then "good" is eliminated and self-service dominates civilization. Then human life is no longer valued. Then civilization crumbles.

---

Bit of a stretch based on the idea that gay marriage will lead to a domino effect that destroys every the foundations the civilisation is based on. I don't think gay marriage is outside the idea that all are equal.

Civilisations are in constant edd and flow. When one crumbles another will take its niche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Sounds good so far.

---

Yay. Because eliminating social roles based on gender is a good idea. I dont see you demanding the beautiful mamawaio wear steel-toed boots, lift weights to get huge, and go do other manly stuff. We like our women to be women. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Quote:

---

Hippies, Kibbutz, divorced parents who have remarried, single parent families, children raised by their grandparents, multigenerational traditional households...

---

Obviously that is not what I am alluding to. If I was not clear, then allow me to explain. I'm talking about families like: daddy-daddy-daddy-daddy-mommy in one home. Hey, throw the frigging dog in there while you're at it? Who are you to say that beastiality and multi-male polygamy is bad for a child?

Quote:

---

What look after the needs of the child so that they can become an independent adult in society? These will disappear because both dads are a cop?

---

I'm talking not about both dads are a cop. I'm talking about the concept of "family" at all being eroded to include the whole freacking village porking each other with no actual lasting attachments. Hard to imagine just from homos, sure. But since when does homosexuality have a monopoly on persecuted sexual relationships? And why do they have an ethical advantage over beastiality or multi-partner multi-gender families (Such as 3 daddies and 2 mommies)?

Quote:

---

War isn't the only time that strategys should change.

---

To eliminate the family from soceity and encourage free social sex between everyone and no attachments. Like no such thing as marriage, and you sharing your wife with everyone 'cause that how society is now.

Quote:

---

And that is a bad thing because?

---

By eliminating God we eliminate ultimates. Without a God, we only have good and evil as defined by man. There are thus no ultimates. Everything becomes based on an individual decision of what is right and wrong. There are plenty that think global annihilation is right or that rape is right. Who are you to say that rape is not right? Or that molestation is not right? That is only your opinion.

Quote:

---

So two cops marrying will redefine what is good and evil?

---

I have a chain of logic here.

Quote:

---

Bit of a stretch based on the idea that gay marriage will lead to a domino effect that destroys every the foundations the civilisation is based on. I don't think gay marriage is outside the idea that all are equal.

---

Then man-boy love is equal. Then 3 mommies 2 daddies is right. Then daddy-mommy-dog is right. Then mommy-horsedaddy is right. Who are you to say that 12 year old girls are not okay to sleep with? Who is anyone to say that inter-family sexual relationships grandpa-granddaughter-doggy-daddy is not right? By your logic, there are no boundaries of love. Can you imagine our soceity broken down into this? Again, why do 2 gay men get to have a monopoly on persecuted love?

Quote:

---

Civilisations are in constant edd and flow. When one crumbles another will take its niche.

---

And that is also why I am a conservative. I happen to like this civilization and prefer it not to crumble at such a rapid rate. We have tradition in many cases because the generations before us have come to learn certain lessons. While we are not permanently bound to these lessons, we are certainly doomed to repeat their errors if we ignore them completely. This extends to everything. So while I do make the asinine assumption that I can prevent change, perhaps instead we can go slowly enough to prevent a calamitous collapse. Perhaps we can ease our way into the water and give our society time to adapt to the changes and integrate them into the braoder fabricate. You cannot force homosexuality on the religious, nor can you deny the religious their right to believe how they see fit. In turn, many of us make concessions where necessary to allow for the coming change. As I said before, this is a State issue to be decided by local democracy. What works for one region does not work for another. I have a problem with the Bush marriage amendment just as much as I have a problem with American leftist liberalist destruction of States rights and the consolidation of power into the claws of the federal government.

So let 'em pork their guys or dork their goats or whatever. But not where I live and don't try to force it on my children through the American liberal media as normal and acceptable because I have a right to find it unnatural. Ultimately, let Democracy decide. I will side with the people that prefer to keep homo-erotica goat-banging and multi-gender polygamy out of our local schools and away from my kids and their kids. I prefer to live in a society that has laws defined by what is good and what is evil and what we have learned in the past, not defined by what the permissive youth culture of the moment is.

I know some may find this offensive. I find the alternative to be offensive.

Now if you will excuse me, I have farm animal porn to attend to. Good Day Sir.

You cannot defeat us Divinus, liberalism is unstoppable :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

'm talking about the concept of "family" at all being eroded to include the whole freacking village porking each other with no actual lasting attachments.

---

I don't see how allowing more people to marry discourages marriage

Quote:

---

Yay. Because eliminating social roles based on gender is a good idea. I dont see you demanding the beautiful mamawaio wear steel-toed boots, lift weights to get huge, and go do other manly stuff. We like our women to be women. And there is nothing wrong with that.

---

Social roles based on gender are stereotypes...there is the assumption that because someone is _____ gender they are a certain way. Which isn't always true. People are way to finicky about it (see sex change threads).

Quote:

---

By eliminating God we eliminate ultimates. Without a God, we only have good and evil as defined by man. There are thus no ultimates. Everything becomes based on an individual decision of what is right and wrong. There are plenty that think global annihilation is right or that rape is right. Who are you to say that rape is not right? Or that molestation is not right? That is only your opinion.

---

20 years in jail is a much more effective ultimatum than "incomprehensible punishment in a fantastical place unless of course you repent".

Quote:

---

And that is also why I am a conservative. I happen to like this civilization and prefer it not to crumble at such a rapid rate. We have tradition in many cases because the generations before us have come to learn certain lessons. While we are not permanently bound to these lessons, we are certainly doomed to repeat their errors if we ignore them completely. This extends to everything. So while I do make the asinine assumption that I can prevent change, perhaps instead we can go slowly enough to prevent a calamitous collapse. Perhaps we can ease our way into the water and give our society time to adapt to the changes and integrate them into the braoder fabricate. You cannot force homosexuality on the religious, nor can you deny the religious their right to believe how they see fit. In turn, many of us make concessions where necessary to allow for the coming change.

---

Traditions are also based on ignorance. Personally I think this civilization could be much improved. What civilizations have been brought down by rampant sexual promiscuity, by the way?

Quote:

---

So let 'em pork their guys or dork their goats or whatever. But not where I live and don't try to force it on my children through the American liberal media as normal and acceptable because I have a right to find it unnatural. Ultimately, let Democracy decide. I will side with the people that prefer to keep homo-erotica goat-banging and multi-gender polygamy out of our local schools and away from my kids and their kids. I prefer to live in a society that has laws defined by what is good and what is evil and what we have learned in the past, not defined by what the permissive youth culture of the moment is.

I know some may find this offensive. I find the alternative to be offensive.

---

If you don't like American culture you don't have to take part in it...


As for polygamy no doubt it will be legalized someday, I fail to see your objection. Kids need parents after all, right? It has less of an interest group than homosexuality. Beastiality is quite rare, and no one wants to marry an animal anyway :juggle2: perhaps it will be legalized, though it conflicts with the animal rights movement...I don't see a problem there either, I'm not big on animal rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Yay. Because eliminating social roles based on gender is a good idea. I dont see you demanding the beautiful mamawaio wear steel-toed boots, lift weights to get huge, and go do other manly stuff. We like our women to be women. And there is nothing wrong with that.

---

Yeap that is because my genes and society gender defined role are in alignment. I would not like society to tell me which adult I can love and marry. I want freedom of choice and to be an adult who takes full responsibility for my choices. I don't want society to make my choices nor to force me to be responsible for someone elses. So I am not being altruistic, I am guarding my freedom by guarding theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Obviously that is not what I am alluding to. If I was not clear, then allow me to explain. I'm talking about families like: daddy-daddy-daddy-daddy-mommy in one home. Hey, throw the frigging dog in there while you're at it? Who are you to say that beastiality and multi-male polygamy is bad for a child?

---

There is a whole set of differences between emotionally able adults and children and animals. It is a matter of the ability to understand ones choices and being able to deal with them no matter the consequences. If you want to have sex you should be ready to deal with the outcomes, happiness and ecstatic partner to pregancy to complications to diseases. In other words you should be an adult of sound mind and body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

I'm talking not about both dads are a cop. I'm talking about the concept of "family" at all being eroded to include the whole freacking village porking each other with no actual lasting attachments. Hard to imagine just from homos, sure. But since when does homosexuality have a monopoly on persecuted sexual relationships? And why do they have an ethical advantage over beastiality or multi-partner multi-gender families (Such as 3 daddies and 2 mommies)?.

---

If that is the choice of the rest of the adults in the village they can go for it. As long as I get to keep my freedom of choices that is their buisness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

To eliminate the family from soceity and encourage free social sex between everyone and no attachments. Like no such thing as marriage, and you sharing your wife with everyone 'cause that how society is now.

---

Nope as noted. People already don't get married and choose to have multiple partners. Why not allow gay people to get married? Share the misery Gaddamit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

By eliminating God we eliminate ultimates. Without a God, we only have good and evil as defined by man. There are thus no ultimates. Everything becomes based on an individual decision of what is right and wrong. There are plenty that think global annihilation is right or that rape is right. Who are you to say that rape is not right? Or that molestation is not right? That is only your opinion.

---

So if there is no God there is no rulers, scales or any other form of measuring device?
Golden Rule.
Do No Harm To Others.
Do As You Please, Please As You Do.
No need for a God in the equation. Nor should we follow him out of fear of the now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

I have a chain of logic here.

---

And it was fun yanking it too. The chain that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclectic

Then man-boy love is equal. Then 3 mommies 2 daddies is right. Then daddy-mommy-dog is right. Then mommy-horsedaddy is right. Who are you to say that 12 year old girls are not okay to sleep with? Who is anyone to say that inter-family sexual relationships grandpa-granddaughter-doggy-daddy is not right? By your logic, there are no boundaries of love. Can you imagine our soceity broken down into this? Again, why do 2 gay men get to have a monopoly on persecuted love?

---

Nope only adult to adult interactions of a sound body and mind should be allowed as explained above. Same logic as raping someone who is drunk, drugged or otherwise unable to make a decision. You need to be able to take responsibility for your actions and as such need to be fully aware of the consequences and be able to function with those results. A child cannot be expected to remain unharmed from such a course of actions.

Quote:

---

Then are children are raised to be able to choose between men and wome for sexual parteners with no social stigma.

---

There is no choice really.

A gay person may choose to not pursue someone of the same sex because it is frowned upon, but (s)he cannot choose who (s)he is attracted to. Just like you cannot choose to be attracted to men.

Even if homosexuality was just as accepted in our society as heterosexuality, there would be little change. Even if kids are taught that there is nothing wrong with it, the vast majority of people will be straight, a small percentage will be gay, and there will be small percentages of all types of other sexual deviations. People will act on their attractions, not who they are told to be attracted to.

The only difference would be that millions of gay people wouldnt feel so hated and miserable, or feel the need to force their lifestyle on others in an effort to be accepted by society.

There are some really bad people in this world - im not allowed to say who they are anymore - however, gays certainly arent the ones taking out trains and skyscrapers. This issue belongs on the way back burner. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Even if homosexuality was just as accepted in our society as heterosexuality, there would be little change. Even if kids are taught that there is nothing wrong with it, the vast majority of people will be straight, a small percentage will be gay, and there will be small percentages of all types of other sexual deviations. People will act on their attractions, not who they are told to be attracted to.

---

Well! He hath spoken a great social truth.

I grew up with a gay brother, there were always gay guys around, we had gay parties in the house (you'll never drink a better Tom Collins than at a gay party), gay people always seemed a normal part of life to me.

Yet, if given the choice between not buckling up on purpose just to see Ecletic in my rear view mirror, or having Jessica Alba over for breakfast...

Hold it, DA.
Gay atheist men have defined what's good and wrong for people with common sense. Plato was gay, the City of Sparta is the most famous gay state in history as it's population was split between lesbians and gays. There ware no straight men at Thermopyle. Athens was also a famous gay city yet it managed social utopia.Many famous Japanease daimyio ware bisexual.
Then an idiotic Saint Paul, boloved of a Sadomasochistic Arrogant God wrote some letters to the Corinthians about the wrongness of Gay Marriage. Than the world plunged into religious wars, inquisitions, the banning of mathematics and science, despotism....blablabla