Quote:

Pariah said:


"Assumed"? They're "assumed"? I read it from a fucking National Geographic magazine.



What issue?

Quote:

Where do you pull your info from? It's not like you've provided anything to prove that 'anal sex isn't harmful', so stones in a glass house.



The guide books I have on hand from my stint at the CBCA (information about which can be found at the Government of Canada website), and confirmed by a quick poll on the internet tonight.


Quote:

Spoucal(sp) financial rights isn't the issues. It's family extensions that's the issue.



And this excludes me how? My family, my children, don't deserve the security? My legacy is less important somehow?

Quote:

And yes, you are asking for special rights in lieu not only of the controversey surrounding whether or not homosexuality should be views as a mental disease, but also in your chosen ignorance of civil unions. I don't where the hell you're getting this 'you're the one who wants special rights bullshit.



By whom? That is such an archaic argument, it can only come from your church. It was officially dropped as such in 1973 in your country. The only ones who still cling to the concept are religious biggots.

And I'm not ignorant of civil unions...I just want to know why you insist we are not entitled to the same status as a hetero's. It's just a word...'marriage'. If your argument is not based on your religion, then tell give me something concrete as a reason.

And no. It is you that is seeking 'special' rights. You are seeking to impose your beliefs on a law that makes no (legal) concession for them (until Bush amended it). Marriage was never defined as a heterosexual union...until now.

If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!