<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Brokeback Parliament</title>
	<link>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Spiklos</title>
		<link>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-798</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:46:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-798</guid>
					<description>well I do believe I said I am not against gay marriage. I was just stating how historically and religiously marriage started, and how if we were to change the definition of marriage, it shouldn't be because we feel gays have been left out of it.. it should be changed to include all types of long term relationships.

I just don't see gay marriage has a huge deal. If love is the tying bond between two people then marriage should have nothing to do with it.. in fact I don't believe in marriage period... why? because people are fickle. all the legality of "loving" someone is crap. Marriage should actually be done with... screw it entirely.. and I'm saying this because divorce is on increase.. pre-nuptual agreements provide a distrust with partners in the begininning of the marriage. and if marriage is till death do you partt then you should honor that.. and not many people do. with marriage dying. I don't see a reason for it..

If you can provide me with a reason why gay marriages are allowed other than love. maybe I would change my mind. But it seems to me that gay marriage is a bandwagon idea set forth by liberals to gain favor in parliament, the same as decriminalising marijuana. it serves no real purpose, (although I am glad that possession will only net me a fine... to a certain point.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well I do believe I said I am not against gay marriage. I was just stating how historically and religiously marriage started, and how if we were to change the definition of marriage, it shouldn&#8217;t be because we feel gays have been left out of it.. it should be changed to include all types of long term relationships.</p>
<p>I just don&#8217;t see gay marriage has a huge deal. If love is the tying bond between two people then marriage should have nothing to do with it.. in fact I don&#8217;t believe in marriage period&#8230; why? because people are fickle. all the legality of &#8220;loving&#8221; someone is crap. Marriage should actually be done with&#8230; screw it entirely.. and I&#8217;m saying this because divorce is on increase.. pre-nuptual agreements provide a distrust with partners in the begininning of the marriage. and if marriage is till death do you partt then you should honor that.. and not many people do. with marriage dying. I don&#8217;t see a reason for it..</p>
<p>If you can provide me with a reason why gay marriages are allowed other than love. maybe I would change my mind. But it seems to me that gay marriage is a bandwagon idea set forth by liberals to gain favor in parliament, the same as decriminalising marijuana. it serves no real purpose, (although I am glad that possession will only net me a fine&#8230; to a certain point.)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Brian Mattews</title>
		<link>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-770</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2006 08:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-770</guid>
					<description>Excuse the obvious response but:

Spiklos,

So you think that committed relationships do not have value to society inherently.  Your point is that only procreation is of interest .

Therefore you would abolish marriage of couples that are infertile and couples past child bearing age.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excuse the obvious response but:</p>
<p>Spiklos,</p>
<p>So you think that committed relationships do not have value to society inherently.  Your point is that only procreation is of interest .</p>
<p>Therefore you would abolish marriage of couples that are infertile and couples past child bearing age.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Kitka</title>
		<link>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-764</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:48:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-764</guid>
					<description>Spiklos- So why do we allow old people and infertile people to get married?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Spiklos- So why do we allow old people and infertile people to get married?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Spiklos</title>
		<link>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-763</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2006 19:27:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-763</guid>
					<description>Now... I for one am not against gay marriage... but Marriage has historically been a religious thing... and the purose for marriage has been for procreation.. and correct me if I'm wrong but gay couples cannot concieve children through natural methods.. sure there is artificial insemination for lesbian couples... but then they need a donor.. and adopting is always an option.

If they are marrying for financial benefits.. then by the same rights shouldn't two people regardless of "love" who live together be able to share those same rights? 

So to me there is really no reason to get married... except to have that big bash... and have everyone acknowldge their love..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now&#8230; I for one am not against gay marriage&#8230; but Marriage has historically been a religious thing&#8230; and the purose for marriage has been for procreation.. and correct me if I&#8217;m wrong but gay couples cannot concieve children through natural methods.. sure there is artificial insemination for lesbian couples&#8230; but then they need a donor.. and adopting is always an option.</p>
<p>If they are marrying for financial benefits.. then by the same rights shouldn&#8217;t two people regardless of &#8220;love&#8221; who live together be able to share those same rights? </p>
<p>So to me there is really no reason to get married&#8230; except to have that big bash&#8230; and have everyone acknowldge their love..
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Devlon</title>
		<link>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-761</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:46:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-761</guid>
					<description>He's Bush's Mini-me.  

My political knowledge/awareness is lacking but one thing I do know is that we're truly fucked :(</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He&#8217;s Bush&#8217;s Mini-me.  </p>
<p>My political knowledge/awareness is lacking but one thing I do know is that we&#8217;re truly fucked <img src='http://www.mskitka.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Luigi Zavatini</title>
		<link>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-760</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2006 16:21:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mskitka.com/2006/01/27/brokeback-parliament/#comment-760</guid>
					<description>Hi dear
I simply can't see you as a conservative, as hard as I try ...
and I'm quite hard for that matters ...
Love from Sweden, keep up the good work!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi dear<br />
I simply can&#8217;t see you as a conservative, as hard as I try &#8230;<br />
and I&#8217;m quite hard for that matters &#8230;<br />
Love from Sweden, keep up the good work!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
