Actually, we don’t need to answer that at all since it was never a part of our rhetoric. Nice try.

Two dude marriage is a radical break with any previous conception of marriage; so radical in fact that it makes the qualifier of “marriage” incoherent.

Gay marriage is as legitimate as polygamy and polygamy isn’t legitimate; but at least polygamy appreciates that marriage is heterosexual.

Now that gay marriage is legal in Canada, the question gay marriage proponents need to answer is, why not polygamy?

If you want to keep marriage traditional then we should be legalizing polygamy, arranged marriages, dowries, the trading of daughters for sheep, the slaughtering of wives to make way for new, better wives who will bear male heirs…

Making same sex marriage legal in Canada has not led the hell-fire fundamentaists warned of, and I have yet to see one example of how the fabric of our society is tearing apart at the seams.

Good thing we have legal gay marriage, then.

Exactly what IS the legal difference between a civil union and a gay marriage?

I don’t think there’s a family that didn’t have relatives or friends who were homosexual, or a church to which gay individuals and couples were regular congregants, back in the days before we were all told, in no uncertain terms by the Supreme Court and our Parliament, that we’d BETTER make way in our lives for these arrangements–and if we didn’t, we would be fined, discomfitted, and/or forced to be “re-educated” if we had problems with the new dispensation.

Astoundingly, many gay activists have accused the church of being discriminatory towards gays, when, in fact, the Christian Church has always had more than its share of homosexuals in both the clergy and the laity.

In my experience, gay people were/are not only accepted but valued for the many gifts–liturgical and musical–they brought/bring to their communities.

Differences need to be acknowledged and are not, to our common peril. But differences shoved down people’s throats in undemocratic coups do no favours to either side of a debate.

But it’s important to acknowledge differences, as opposed to ignoring them.

He’s right. Once you start tinkering with societal conventions–which are important because, over millennia, THEY WORK–you open a Pandora’s Box. You never know, then, what’s going to be charging around the next corner.

Western democratic freedoms allow gay couples to live in relative peace and harmony, even if many people aren’t comfortable with these arrangements. When you begin to legislate what most people know in their heart of hearts, deep in the recesses of their thought processes, is simply not compatible with reason or social conventions which have served us well for thousands of years, and all Hell can break loose.

I suspect that gay couples are in more danger now that society has loosened its moral and ethical codes than they were when the policy was, basically, in live and let live, don’t ask/don’t tell mode.

The reason I say that is because as soon as we have no common bonds, no common moral or ethical codes, to act as glue to keep Western Civilization together, we’re all at much greater risk of being infiltrated and overwhelmed by “the enemy,” which at the moment seems to be radical Islam. They’re have a great advantage over us, in that they are in agreement about what is right and what is wrong and they don’t hesitate to act on their convictions.

The West is losing its convictions and it is going to be, or already is, a huge Achilles Heel.