# Same-sex marriage and the Roman Catholic church



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The Roman Catholic church seems to have launched a concerted attack on gay marriage. I have two thoughts about their action. My first is that although they should stick to preaching to their members, they have every right to espouse their beliefs. Personally, I have no interest in what they have to say (especially given the hipocrisy of the very same organization over the various scandals involving sexual abuse). But secondly, this may be a last-ditch effort which may well hasten the demise of influence of organized religion in the laws of modern Canadian society.

These clergy are not being ordered to conduct same-sex marriages in their churches. Rather, they see this as societal recognition of moral corruption of the fabric of the family. This is complete and utter bull. Some people may be uncomfortable about the idea of gay marriage, but that is their problem.

This is 2005.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey jwoodget,

I think you're missing the point... the church is "preaching to (its) members". The government certainly won't respond, except to say something along the lines of "While we respect the views of the Cardinal , we are a secular government blah, blah, blah, we will govern according to the will of the majority and the charter blah, blah, blah." Actually I see some progress here; rather than fighting the idea completely the Cardinal has adopted a conservative, wait-and-see attitude. That's quite bold... what will the Cardinal say in five years time when the countries that have permitted same sex marriage (likely most of western Europe) have failed to collapse from their depravity?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Star response today - :clap: 



> Editorial: *A bishop goes too far*
> 
> Religious leaders are within their rights to weigh in on the same-sex marriage debate on faith grounds. Freedom of religion is a given in our society.
> 
> ...


I've said it before - nail one of these idiots on hate crime legislation and maybe they'll put a cork in it.
They present themselves as above the law. Time to get taken down a notch.

I'm sure the gov could use the tax revenue on church property as well........THAT's over due too.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

They can preach to their members, in church, every Sunday. Why is there a need to preach from the pages of a secular newspaper to secular readers in a secular society? In addition tot he front page article (with picture) there is an open letter from the bishop on the inside back page.

"Both Dr. Buckingham and Cardinal Ambrozic expressed concern about the impact a legal redefinition of marriage would have on public education. If same-sex marriage were to become law, they said, public schools would in all likelihood feel obligated to present heterosexual and homosexual activity as morally equivalent — which would be totally unacceptable to parents from several faith groups."

They have their own separate school system (in Ontario). They feel they have the right to teach their kids that homosexuality is morally wrong. Oh the pathetic and tragic irony...... The Roman Catholic church clearly has no scruples about the morality of hypocrisy.

The Letters to the Editor will no doubt point out the double-standards of this organization and the irony of its stance.

The wait-and-see attitude is a ploy. That principle does not and should not apply to human rights.


----------



## stand_1998 (Aug 13, 2003)

"Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good."

Agreed.

"This is 2005"

Agreed as well, which is why the first statement must be taken serious. Enough is enough already - my philosophy has always been "love the sinner - hate the sin" and I still feel that way, but it's time to stop the decay of society.

Flame away.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Megalomania comes to mind.....hey they can't even sort out pediophilia in their own ranks, they ask celibates ( in theory ) to counsel couples and debate transubstantiation ad nauseum.....they're on a roll why change the program to anything like rationality.

Spread enough nonsense long enough somebody will bite.
Fortunately in Canada those numbers are in a nose dive.

They don't pay taxes - THEY HAVE NO PUBLIC VOICE!!


----------



## GORDOOM (Jan 15, 2004)

I have a few things to say on this matter, but first:


MacDoc said:


> They don't pay taxes - THEY HAVE NO PUBLIC VOICE!!


The institution of the Church does not pay taxes as an institution. However, we Catholics *do* pay taxes, just as everyone else.
Besides, do you intend to argue next that someone who does not pay taxes because he is too poor to be required to do so has no right to speak up on matters of public policy? Last time I checked, citizenship and the rights thereof had nothing to do with how much one pays in taxes.

As Canadian citizens, both Frederick Henry and Aloysius Ambrozic have the right to voice their thoughts and opinions and concerns in this matter. This right has nothing to do with their positions within the institution of the Church. If the major papers and such find what they say important enough that it merits a wider dissemination, then that's their decision.

Now, as for what they actually said:

I agree that parts of Bp. Henry's letter were needlessly inflammatory in tone; in particular, his reference to using the state's "coercive power" is sufficiently vague to be ominous in its implications. Further, he seems to me to be trying to shift things too far the other way - among other things, by suggesting that homoerotic acts in particular should be outlawed - and I'm don't think that this is justified. However, his statements about the erosion of the family and the effects of such erosion on society as a whole are simply echoing the same things that we Catholics have been saying for the last fifty years. And his statements about the nature of marriage and the nature and purposes of sex are simply the Church's perennial teachings, teachings with which I agree.

As for Card. Ambrozic's letter, I think he's absolutely right about this: *the entire process is happening too fast and being pushed too hard.* There was no attempt to discuss what effects doing this would have on society as a whole. There was no attempt made even to consider the question of whether marriage has implications outside of the couple themselves. Now, I'm not calling for a nationwide referendum on the subject - in a matter where people have argued that there are human-rights implications on both sides, the "tyranny of the majority" is not the way to solve this, one way or the other. However, this is a matter that needs to be considered at some length, and that needs to be considered in the context of its broader societal implications.

There are times when action needs to be taken quickly; there are also times when quick action, taken without adequate thought, can lead to disaster. I agree with the Cardinal: this is one of the latter times.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

stand_1998, please explain why homosexuality undermines the foundations of the family and how same sex marriage exacerbates this? Gays and lesbians are not proposing to marry heterosexuals or cause their marriages to dissolve (they seem to be quite capable of achieving that themselves).

Homosexuality has no more to do with adultery, prostitution or pornography that heterosexuality.

Has "marriage" been devalued over the years? Perhaps - but again, that has nothing to do with the same-sex debate in which homosexuals actually wish to embrace the positive aspects of the institution - love and commitment.


----------



## drehleierguy (Aug 8, 2004)

*Bravo, MacDoc!*



MacDoc said:


> Megalomania comes to mind.....hey they can't even sort out pediophilia in their own ranks, they ask celibates ( in theory ) to counsel couples and debate transubstantiation ad nauseum.....they're on a roll why change the program to anything like rationality.
> 
> Spread enough nonsense long enough somebody will bite.
> Fortunately in Canada those numbers are in a nose dive.
> ...


In fact, why don't we start taxing religion heavily in the order of any other 'indulgence': smoking, drinking, fossil fuels etc. 

One has only to look (even briefly) at history to see that religion (especially various forms of Christianity) is really to blame for most of society's ills. How's that for flame-baitin' hyperbole?!?! :yikes:

Oh, forgot to add evil laugh: Bwaaahahahahahaha....


----------



## stand_1998 (Aug 13, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> stand_1998, please explain why homosexuality undermines the foundations of the family and how same sex marriage exacerbates this? Gays and lesbians are not proposing to marry heterosexuals or cause their marriages to dissolve (they seem to be quite capable of achieving that themselves).
> 
> Homosexuality has no more to do with adultery, prostitution or pornography that heterosexuality.
> 
> Has "marriage" been devalued over the years? Perhaps - but again, that has nothing to do with the same-sex debate in which homosexuals actually wish to embrace the positive aspects of the institution - love and commitment.


Marriage was designed to be between one woman and one man. Homosexuality is a sin just like adultery, prostitution or pornography. Heterosexuality is not a sin.

If you need further explanation then please read a Bible.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

stand_1998 said:


> Marriage was designed to be between one woman and one man. Homosexuality is a sin just like adultery, prostitution or pornography. Heterosexuality is not a sin.


Was marriage actually DESIGNED by the church?

Pornography is a sin ??? 

What is 'a sin'? What is your definition of 'sin' I guess is a better question. 

Cheers
Bo.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> They can preach to their members, in church, every Sunday. Why is there a need to preach from the pages of a secular newspaper to secular readers in a secular society?


So the church doesn't deserve freedom of speech just like anyone else? Noone is saying you have to listen to them.



stand_1998 said:


> Heterosexuality is not a sin.


Hmmm, I think you have to clarify that... isn't adultery and bigamy also heterosexuality? And both of those are sins. Heck one's illegal - although I'm not sure why. And isn't it a sin to have hetero sex before marriage? I think you better add to that definition of a non-sin.

Which brings me to why are we so accepting of homosexuality lately and bigamy is such a big no-no?


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

Stand_1998, perhaps YOU should go and do some reading before posting such offensive rubbish. About the only interesting thing you wrote was "... please read *A* bible" - emphasis added - if you need further explanation of THAT please ask.

Mike McHugh


----------



## skinnyman (Oct 25, 2003)

drehleierguy said:


> One has only to look (even briefly) at history to see that religion (especially various forms of Christianity) is really to blame for most of society's ills. How's that for flame-baitin' hyperbole?!?! :yikes:



What kind of values would we have today if religion didn't exist? I think we'd be far worse off. Sure, people have done some terrible things in the name of religion, but I think those were a result of people adding on their own things to what their religion said. People would do what they wanted to do instead of what God wanted.

Would you blame today's Germans for WWII? Then why blame today's Christians for past events?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Stand_1998 said:


> Marriage was designed to be between one woman and one man.


Marriage was designed to be between one man and one woman, but only to facilitate reproduction, and not by the church. 

It's the same reason that when you read about great battles in history you see that they sent the women into the hills, but even boys as young as 10 were called to fight. reason being it's a hell of a lot harder to repopulate with 10 men and 1 woman than vice versa.

Out of curiosity, have you had a pork dinner lately? As I recall, in the same area that the Bible says "don't be gay" it also says "don't eat pork."


----------



## stand_1998 (Aug 13, 2003)

Out of respect for this community, I am only offering my opinion in my comments, and value every human being with that same amount of respect regardless of life choices.

So with that said, I guess I need to clarify my comments:

1. Marriage was designed by God.
2. Pornography is a sin.
3. My personal definition of a sin is something that we do to which God hates.
4. Any sexual act between a husband and wife is not a sin, and is what I was referring to about the heterosexuality comment. Sex before marriage is a sin, sex with someone other than your husband/wife is a sin.
5. Marriage was designed for those men and women who could not control their sexual desires and for reproduction. If you want to reproduce, then get married. If you cannot control your sexual desires then get married (man to woman, woman to man).
6. Yes I do eat pork, I don't believe that eating pork is a sin.
7. I refer only to the NIV version of the Bible.
8. As a bonus: yes I am a sinner and believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins. This is not an excuse to keep sinning, and I try very hard to correct my mistakes.

Thank you for reading, and please read my "disclaimer" at the top of this post.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

stand_1998 said:


> Marriage was designed to be between one woman and one man. Homosexuality is a sin just like adultery, prostitution or pornography. Heterosexuality is not a sin.
> 
> If you need further explanation then please read a Bible.


My moral compass is based on multiple parameters which happen to include the rights of others. In my country, homosexuality is not against the law. Bar gays from heaven if you like, but don't tell them what they can and can't do here on earth. No one is telling the church to marry same sex couples. Their defence of the institution of marriage betrays ideology over humananity. Equality has no conditions.

Must be nice to have someone else make all your decisions.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Blanket statement on churches charitable organization status*



MacDoc said:


> I'm sure the gov could use the tax revenue on church property as well........THAT's over due too.


A few churches do operate as true *charitable* organizations and really aim to help out in the community in a positive, practical way. The new church I'm involved with did a community scan where they met with various existing charitable organizations, the mayor and other leaders and basically asked how we could best help and where the greatest need was in the community. 

What was interesting, and yet sort of sad, was that most organizations were floored that a church came to them in that manner (they never had that before). 

I think if most churches spent 1/100th their energy on truly helping "the social fabric" of society in practical ways as they did worrying about two people of the same sex getting married, and their effect on society, then well....


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Out of curiosity, have you had a pork dinner lately? As I recall, in the same area that the Bible says "don't be gay" it also says "don't eat pork."


Keep reading. The New testament is clear that no food is unclean, while homosexuality remains a sin.

Anyway, the real point is that if we disagree with someone's holy book then it's perfectly fine to say so. By the same token, they have the right to believe those words and values and share them with others.

Perhaps there is no difference between rabid secularists and rabid religionists. 

I am quite comfortable for a priest to declare homosexuality (or any other activity) a sin for the practitioners of that faith. I am not comfortable with anyone (either side of the argument) not recognizing that it is OK for a person not to accept either argument.

The press really seem to enjoy manipulating sections of the public with this stuff. 

From what I gather it seems that millions of Canadians regard their religion as important to them, to varying degrees. It also seems clear that most canadians are happy to accept the personal practices of others as being a matter of personal choice.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I think if most churches spent 1/100th their energy on truly helping "the social fabric" of society in practical ways as they did worrying about two people of the same sex getting married, and their effect on society, then well....


er...Amen


----------



## stand_1998 (Aug 13, 2003)

"Must be nice to have someone else make all your decisions."

It is nice to have a God that I believe in and that I love. A God that provides choices for me to make my own decisions.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

On what basis does the church claim "ownership" of marriage? What percentage of marriage services are conducted as civil ceremonies? It seems to me that if we, as a society, ever accept that the church "owns" marriage, then the only recognized form of marriage should be that which is ordained by a minister. Why should we have double standards with civil marriages?

Put that to a referendum.....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I suppose, if someone wants to live by the rules of bronze-age mystics, one might choose to follow the Christian bible, but why should anyone else suffer for your irrational beliefs?

You think homosexuality is a sin. Bully for you. Hope you're not gay or you're going to have a tough time dealing with it. Why should anyone else care what you or others suffering from your mental illness think? The bible says that eating shell fish is an abomination too. Should we allow you to pressure the government to pass laws against eating clams?!?

The fact is we live in a pluralistic society governed by an explicitly secular government. This is a very good thing...otherwise we might have the same sectarian violence we see in the middle east here in Canada. Everything we can do to bolster the separation of church and state is good for civilization.

Every citizen is free to believe as they choose, but none of us have any right to inflict our beliefs on our fellows. If Mary and Janet want to participate in a legal process that is governed by civil law, it is unconstitutional for anyone to interfere. If you have a private club that wants to have ceremonies for business deals that take place exclusively between men and women, that's your kink and you're free to enjoy it, but don't expect the rest of us to put much stock in it.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*The other thing that suprises me about this is...*

Why do homosexuals even want to get married? It really surprises me that the homosexual community, which is usually so far ahead of the straight community on social issues, want any part of this antiquated, paternalistic ritual. Obviously, if they want to, they should be allowed to, but it surprises me that they even want them.

I'd rather see legal changes made that obviated the need for 'marriages,' allowing for the flexibility needed to deal with the diversity of modern relationships.

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

stand_1998 said:


> It is nice to have a God that I believe in and that I love. A God that provides choices for me to make my own decisions.


I respect that but don't throw the Bible at people for explanations.

Homosexuality is not a threat to society, it is an aspect of society. It isn't a disease and is not contagious. Celebrate life and be happy for those who are committed to each other, no matter what their sexual orientation.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Just an interesting note. At one point in my life, I was in the loop of hardcore, old school, religious dogma. It wasn't until a person from a different point of view, gave me their point of view in a friendly, personal and caring way that my pov changed. 

IMO, people from various sides of the spectrum need to try to keep the dialogue and discussion positive if they truly want others to accept, or at least respect their point of view. The alternative only serves to polarize and harden view points.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Maybe that's why I tend to be such a hard-ass on this topic, eh mister Mayor?

You're absolutely right, of course, but having had a bunch of Baptists try to brain wash me (literally...it was at a summer camp when I was a kid, and they fed us nothing but rice-krispy squares, kept us up all night, and segregated us if we didn't 'accept Jesus as our saviour'...was a real nightmare) I'm not particularly sympathetic to the evangelical Christians.

Now, having studied evolution, genetic algorithms, memetics and economics sufficiently to understand how & why religions form and flourish, I'm even more concerned about the insidious spread of sectarianism into politics.

Cheers


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Why do homosexuals even want to get married? It really surprises me that the homosexual community, which is usually so far ahead of the straight community on social issues, want any part of this antiquated, paternalistic ritual.


Partially to enjoy the same legal rights that any heterosexual couple enjoys - regardless of whether they are legally married or not. Financial, legal, etc. 
Partially because it's time to eliminate homophobia once and for all. 



bryanc said:


> I'd rather see legal changes made that obviated the need for 'marriages,' allowing for the flexibility needed to deal with the diversity of modern relationships.


Well, if marriage was designed by god - shouldn't the whole separation of church and state thing apply? 

Stand_1998 - I try to be accepting of other peoples viewpoints and opinions, but you are surely wrong regarding pornography. 
Pornography is not a sin. It cannot possibly be a sin. If a married couple films their sexual encounters with one another then that would be pornography [however rudimentary], but you have also said that any sexual activity between a married couple [two people one man and one woman who can't control their sexual desires] is not a sin. 

Perhaps the CONSUMPTION of pornography could be a sin, but pornography itself cannot be a sin. 

Obviously you are a creationist. How do you explain the existence of homosexuality in other species? It has been documented in birds and canines [that I am aware of, there may be more]. 

I am all for people having faith and religion, but blind faith is really becoming a thing of the past.

Bo


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

> If you need further explanation then please read a Bible


The Bible is a book that can't be verified as being fact or fiction,
So in my opinion it can't be used as the basis of correct human conduct.

Just words...Written and rewritten by demigods and men.

Dave


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

I think it's wonderful that some "Christians" on this board (I use that term loosely) think that someone like me being gay is a sin. Absolutely wonderful. Then perhaps you can explain to me why this 'sin' has been with me since I was about 5, when I had my first crush on a woman. No, actually, don't try. You'll probably vilify me with further dogmatic rubbish that you've pulled from your precious 'Word of God', without any real knowledge or 
understanding on Biblical scriptures.

Oh, and the whole 'marriage is used for reproduction' argument doesn't fly. What about heterosexual couples that can't reproduce? Are you going to stop them from getting married too? 

The Catholic Church has a long history of scandal and lies. Maybe they should own up to their own child abuse scandals before they dare point the fingers at gays and lesbians. Jesus had a word for self righteous religious types. They were 'hypocrites'.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

stand_1998 said:


> It is nice to have a God that I believe in and that I love. A God that provides choices for me to make my own decisions.


Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo



Dave


----------



## drehleierguy (Aug 8, 2004)

razz said:


> The Catholic Church has a long history of scandal and lies. Maybe they should own up to their own child abuse scandals before they dare point the fingers at gays and lesbians. Jesus had a word for self righteous religious types. They were 'hypocrites'.


Oh yes, let's not forget great, concentrated campaigns of death for those unlucky enought for be 'infidels', Jews, heretics, etc.etc. ad NAUSEUM!!! Let's be clear here. 

Let's also be clear that, regardless of any 'veritability' of any version of the bible, all versions that we know today were translated, edited, re-translated, edited etc etc by scores of men with various agendas. Plus all of the modern layers of interpretation.

Yes, I think that we do owe something to relgion for the development of morality, ethics, philosophy, arts etc. We also owe something to our ancestors for the development of, for example, agriculture. Does that mean the we should still be living in caves, wattle-and-daub huts or what have you? And pouring libations to the gods? Hmmmm....not a bad idea. Libation anyone?

Goodnight to all!


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

drehleierguy said:


> Oh yes, let's not forget great, concentrated campaigns of death for those unlucky enought for be 'infidels', Jews, heretics, etc.etc. ad NAUSEUM!!! Let's be clear here.
> 
> Let's also be clear that, regardless of any 'veritability' of any version of the bible, all versions that we know today were translated, edited, re-translated, edited etc etc by scores of men with various agendas. Plus all of the modern layers of interpretation.
> 
> ...


Well put, my friend. Especially the part about years and years of translation. It should also be known that the Bible has more than likely gone through years of MIStranslation as well.


----------



## skinnyman (Oct 25, 2003)

razz said:


> Well put, my friend. Especially the part about years and years of translation. It should also be known that the Bible has more than likely gone through years of MIStranslation as well.


To be fair, the NIV bible was based on the original hebrew and greek texts. In addition, it is not a literal translation but focusses rather on conveying the meanings behind the words.


----------



## stand_1998 (Aug 13, 2003)

dolawren said:


> Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo
> 
> 
> 
> Dave



Hi Dave,

I'm not sure why you typed this, but I will say that I don't believe in Buddahism.

It's interesting to read all the comments that are coming my way about this topic. I clearly don't enjoy debating hence the short comments. I just wanted to display my feelings towards the subject and that's all. If you don't like my comment then please ask the Mayor to ban me from this community.

For the record: I don't have all the answers, but I am 100% sure of my faith. I don't know why certain people are homosexuals, the same with animals, or any of the other details that people are picking at.

If you sin, then you need Jesus, and you need to believe that He died for our sins. If you don't believe then I hope that you like your weather extremely hot!


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

You know, this is EXACTLY why this stuff (i.e. religion) gets up my nose :



> If you sin, then you need Jesus, and you need to believe that He died for our sins. If you don't believe then I hope that you like your weather extremely hot!


I really do not care what your religious beliefs are, stand_1988, but DO NOT IMPOSE THEM ON ME ! You might believe that you will burn in hell if you sin (and I, personally, know no-one who hasn't; so, unless you're the Second Coming then you too will burn), but I don't; so don't tell me that I'm going to burn.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I don't think anyone will ban you for your belief Stand and they are many that love to engage in debate. Some are quite adept at it. 

Part of the problem or distaste that some may have with the debate are represented nicely in your last statement


> If you sin, then you need Jesus, and you need to believe that He died for our sins.


The way that sentence reads to me is that 'I' need to be religious and there is no choice. Perhaps a more appropriate presentation would be "I believe, that if I sin, then I need Jesus, and I need to believe that He died for my sins."

Presented the original way it comes across as crusading. I personally don't care about the beliefs of others. They can be Christain, Muslim, Agnostic, Buddhist or worship mudbugs. That is their own personal business. As soon as I start getting preached to however, it becomes distasteful. If I wanted to be preached to, I would go to a church.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

"Maybe they should own up to their own child abuse scandals before they dare point the fingers at gays and lesbians."

Thats a great idea.

With 81% of the abuse being committed by homosexual priests in the Catholic church, what do you suggest they do about this?  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## skinnyman (Oct 25, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I suppose, if someone wants to live by the rules of bronze-age mystics, one might choose to follow the Christian bible, but why should anyone else suffer for your irrational beliefs?
> 
> You think homosexuality is a sin. Bully for you. Hope you're not gay or you're going to have a tough time dealing with it. Why should anyone else care what you or others suffering from your mental illness think?



Thank you for reducing my beliefs to a "mental illness." I can see why it's hard to accept the Christian viewpoint on this issue, but have you ever really sat down with a Christian to talk, ask questions, try to _understand_ where they are coming from before throwing your stones?

To be honest, I don't quite know where I stand on this issue myself. I definitely have no problem with a gay couple's desire to have legal recognization. They have every right. At the same time however, I cannot condone it because a marriage is a sexual relationship, and God made it clear several times in the bible that the act of laying with someone of your gender is a sin. To be brief, God cannot be with sin, and so anyone with sin cannot be with God in heaven. He still loves the sin_ner_ though, which is why the whole gospel story took place. Which brings up the scenario of if a gay couple believes in God and acknowledges their sin, they must be going to heaven too, even if they continue to have sex, right? See Christians have questions too. 

I guess I want to make the point that Christians don't want to see anybody miss out on heaven, which is why we can't keep quiet about this.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

stand_1998 - I wouldn't worry about enjoying debating. If your life is governed by dogma, then there is no debate. I seriously do not think it was the intent of God that His followers would be unquestioning and that He will provide all of the answers. Personally, I think any god worth his salt would actually want his/her followers to have an open mind and to consider their lives through their experiences and to learn what is just and what is unjust by consideration of each case - not to use the Bible as a LUT.

"If you sin, then you need Jesus, and you need to believe that He died for our sins. If you don't believe then I hope that you like your weather extremely hot!"

I don't believe in anything that threatens me with a horrible fate if I choose not to believe in it. Rather crude marketing tactic. I do hope, for your sake, that if there is a Heaven that the pearly gate-keeper isn't gay.  

There are some great letters in the Globe today....


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

worship mudbugs... I want that one! That's the religion I choose.! where do I sign up? 



> For the record: I don't have all the answers, but I am 100% sure of my faith. I don't know why certain people are homosexuals, the same with animals, or any of the other details that people are picking at.


How can it be said that homosexuality is a sin when god created it? [assuming god created all the critters] 



> If you sin, then you need Jesus, and you need to believe that He died for our sins.


You say you don't want to debate, but in the next breath tell us how we NEED to live our lives, what we NEED to believe. That is preaching. I for one, refuse to believe something just because someone says I should believe it. I will require proof, one way or the other. 



> If you don't believe then I hope that you like your weather extremely hot!


I do.


----------



## stand_1998 (Aug 13, 2003)

Carex,

Thank you for your comment, and I can see exactly what you are saying. In my mind I already put out a "disclaimer" the clarified my comments as opinion only, but I will try to stress that these are my beliefs.

I believe that if you(I) sin, then you(I) need Jesus, and you(I) need to believe that He died for our sins. If you(I) don't believe then you(I) will not go to Heaven.


----------



## stand_1998 (Aug 13, 2003)

skinnyman said:


> I guess I want to make the point that Christians don't want to see anybody miss out on heaven, which is why we can't keep quiet about this.


I 100% agree.

I'm not out to pick a fight with anybody, nor do I want to get into a debate where I must provide evidence.

I started my comments by saying that I love the sinner, but hate the sin. And I still feel this way. BUT, I also wanted to share my beliefs as I felt that they were related to the original topic.

People...please. I'm not threatening anybody. I'm not being disgusting, nor am I trying to insult people. If you do not agree with my opinion then shrug it off. If you have questions about my opinion then talk to a Christian, or read the NIV Bible (the source of my beliefs).

I will only appologise for one thing, and that is my communication. It is very hard to discuss such sensitive topics with text. I'm a computer science graduate so this should explain why my communication through writing is not up to par with others.

Peace.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

stand_1998 said:


> Hi Dave,
> I'm not sure why you typed this, but I will say that I don't believe in Buddahism.


I don't believe in "Buddahism" either...BTW what is "Buddahism"?

I had hoped that you'd have done a search on the words that I wrote out for you,
Sometimes I think it's good to read something that isn't based on fiction.

Dave


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

skinnyman said:


> Thank you for reducing my beliefs to a "mental illness."


I'm not 'reducing' them, I'm explaining them (at least to myself...if you, or others don't buy my explanation, that's fine). But I ask you, how are your beliefs in an invisible magical sky-daddy better explained?



> I can see why it's hard to accept the Christian viewpoint on this issue, but have you ever really sat down with a Christian to talk, ask questions, try to _understand_ where they are coming from before throwing your stones?


I'm not throwing stones...I'm simply trying to explain a perplexing phenomenon (that apparently intelligent people believe these bizarre myths without any evidence whatsoever). And yes, I've spent a lot of time talking with and reading the writings of people of various religions. Many of my best friends are Christians (mostly Catholics, as I played trumpet with the Catholic Schools Band when I was in highschool...they didn't care that I was an atheist, as long as I played well  ). I did a minor in philosophy as an undergrad, and studied religion very intensely...I've always been curious about religions as it has always seemed to me that they should long since have disappeared from our society, yet they continue to thrive.

My current theory on the emergence, persistence and diversity of religions relies heavily on modern meme theory , neurotheology , economics and cultural anthropology. In a nutshell, I (and many more serious researchers in this area) propose that modern religions are well-adapted memetic viruses (conceptually similar to, but much more complex than, computer viruses).

Therefore, while I do see your beliefs as both false and harmful to both you and society, I don't fault you for them any more than I fault someone for having a cold. However, I would ask you not to sneeze in my face (i.e. don't proselytize).

Cheers


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> "Maybe they should own up to their own child abuse scandals before they dare point the fingers at gays and lesbians."
> 
> Thats a great idea.
> 
> ...


I hate to burst your bubble, sunshine! But 99% of pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL.

Did you hear that? Let me spell it out for you.

HETERO
SEXUAL

It doesn't take much to see that many men of the cloth aren't doing well being chaste, and their closest targets are choir boys. Let me repeat this for you:

PEDOPHILES ARE HETEROSEXUAL.

Thank you and good night.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No one has posted a link that would make me believe one theory or another on the subject.

The only thing I know for sure is that it is all theory.

Two sides to the question and no definitive answer.

I am left with the same view I have had since I knew there were "different" people out there.

Learned behaviour being the most likely.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

*comments*

Ahh!….this topic has come to light again. I had my fun with the last debate on whether marriage should retain its “heterosexual identity” and an alternative, but socially equal terminology be given to same-sex unions. Having read this thread, it’s good to see representation from both sides of the discussion. 
I’d like just to add some knee-jerk comments on some assertions I found interesting:

Macdoc said, “They (churches) don't pay taxes - THEY HAVE NO PUBLIC VOICE!!)"

Public voice should be proportional to how much taxes we pay? C’mon! Let’s all lay down our last five tax returns and see who has weighted validity of opinion.

--------------------------------- 

utbj said, “Every citizen is free to believe as they choose, but none of us have any right to inflict our beliefs on our fellows.”

I agree with that. It has to work in both directions, though. The arrogance and tone of comments of some comments, regardless of person stand is counter-productive to opening mindsets.

-----------------------------

mikemchugh said, “I really do not care what your religious beliefs are, stand_1988, but DO NOT IMPOSE THEM ON ME !”

See above comment…it works both ways.

-------------------------------

bryanc said, “one might choose to follow the Christian bible, but why should anyone else suffer for your irrational beliefs?”

See 2 comments above. What makes you so rational that you must be insolent of those polarized from your perspective?

bryanc also said, “ Every citizen is free to believe as they choose, but none of us have any right to inflict our beliefs on our fellows.”


Agreed!…again. it works both ways.
---------------------------------------------

EhMax said, “IMO, people from various sides of the spectrum need to try to keep the dialogue and discussion positive if they truly want others to accept, or at least respect their point of view. The alternative only serves to polarize and harden view points.”

Amen to the mayor!
--------------------------------------------------

Razz said, “The Catholic Church has a long history of scandal and lies. Maybe they should own up to their own child abuse scandals before they dare point the fingers at gays and lesbians. Jesus had a word for self righteous religious types. They were 'hypocrites'.”

I have a Catholic background and I can’t argue much with that. The problem with the Catholic Church lies not with the faith, but with the failed human element. There is no excuse for the behavior of the fallen priests. The priesthood as a great hiding place for some deviants. The Church’s poor public apology has been disappointing.


---------------------------------------
Bopeep asked, “How can it be said that homosexuality is a sin when god created it? [assuming god created all the critters]”

Good, bad, evil, pain, pleasure, beauty, ugliness, hate, charity, deviance, etc. are all part of our world. Because something exists doesn’t make it good. Even “good” people will be “sinners”


Bopeep also said, ”I for one, refuse to believe something just because someone says I should believe it. I will require proof, one way or the other.”

Believers in the Bible are required to have faith. Some things just can’t be proven…you believe (have faith) or you don’t…it’s anyone’s choice. I don’t think anyone can “prove” there was a creator, but looking at nature, I personally find it really hard to believe that the incredible complexity and intertwining of all things marvelous could have been serendipitously the result of the “big bang”. It’s all too well designed, even with evolutionary considerations.

---------------------------------------------

Razz stated, “I hate to burst your bubble, sunshine! But 99% of pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL.
PEDOPHILES ARE HETEROSEXUAL”

I suspect that’s a bit of an overstatement, but the point is correct. A majority of pedophiles ARE heterosexual (or a deviant thereof). The referred to post I don’t think was meant to be a barb at homosexuals, but rather at deviant priests.
-----------------------------------

My 2 cents worth (if that) for tonight. No offenses intended!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> It’s all too well designed, even with evolutionary considerations.


Please, let's not start that again.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Carex said:


> [QUOTE


Please, let's not start that again.[/QUOTE]


I know....let's not. :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I have a problem with any religion that has shown (historically speaking) varying degrees of hypocrisy and intolerance to others outside it's way of thinking. Christianity (generally speaking) has show no tolerance to others outside of it's faith -- join us, or die; be it rotting in hell, or through some sort of crusade to convert.

There's a great deal of historical fact where the Church has tried to wipe out anything and everything that doesn't share their moral and religious beliefs -- in the Catholic Inquistion, millions of women (witches) were tortured and killed because they were a little too "at one with nature" to the Church's liking.

Ironically, things that were considered a sin in the eyes of God are becoming accepted as time passes -- Astrology, Science, and even "new age" medicine.

The Bible, to me IMHO, is nothing more than a mishmash of beliefs and borrowed mythology that contorts, twists and bastardizes a philosopher's ideas in how we should live; a philosopher who was crucified because people were threatened by his royal lineage (bloodline) and new ideas, rather than being a true son of God born of a virgin. How can anyone follow a religion that portrays women as a lesser being than men? Eve creates the original sin, Mary Magdalen* [sic?] was a whore, and the list goes on.

Well... that may have come out a little rough, but you get my meaning.  I guess what I am saying is if a religion that shows Jesus forgiving and loving people who have partaken in all sorts of sins, why is it so hard to accept those people who happen to love members of the same sex?

Why is it such a threat to the Church? There's more to it than a case of defining "marriage" and semantics. Religious leaders feel threatened by gay people... what is there to fear?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I have a problem with any religion that has shown (historically speaking) varying degrees of hypocrisy and intolerance to others outside it's way of thinking. Christianity (generally speaking) has show no tolerance to others outside of it's faith -- join us, or die; be it rotting in hell, or through some sort of crusade to convert.


Hi Manny,

Do you have a problem with socialism? We have an entire thread hear extolling its virtues yet nobody seems to have a problem with an ideology that has shown (historically speaking) various degrees of hypocrisy and intolerance to others outside it's way of thinking resulting in the persecution and deaths of millions? If you want to go back in history to justify your hatred for Christians I suggest you take a look at the bloody history and current events of countries that embraced socialism as well. Former USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea.

The very ideology that a good number of members on this board are extolling the virtues of makes the oppression of Christianity look pale in comparison and you don't have to go back hundreds of years in history to see its deadly toll. 

I think your millions of women killed number is pure BS as well. If not, educate me.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I think your millions of women killed number is pure BS as well. If not, educate me.


http://www.reformation.org/inquisit.html

Dave


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> Do you have a problem with socialism?


Now that is called diverting the argument. When in doubt eh?


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

"And his statements about the nature of marriage and the nature and purposes of sex are simply the Church's perennial teachings, teachings with which I agree."

I was raised Catholic and practised for many years and always took issue with "the nature and purposes of sex". It's always stated as sex is for procreation and implied that recreational sex is too base, too much like an animal. Nothing could be further from the truth. With rare exceptions such as chimpanzees our nearest genetic relatives (we share 97% of our DNA), humans are virtually the only species to indulge in recreational sex. ANIMALS engage in sex ONLY for procreation. Ergo, it's quite the opposite of the teachings both explicit and implicit. The fundamental basis of said teachings has far more to do with Catholic repression and denial than with logic or true morality.

What I don't understand is the vociferous arguments against same-sex marriage especially from the fundamentalist right (and I'm dismayed that Fred Henry seems to be moving closer to that camp). No one has explained to my satisfaction how and why same-sex marriage erodes the foundations of the family. How does same-sex marriage affect your day to day rights, values, morals and ethics? How does a loving, caring, sharing same-sex couple affect you either day to day or in the long run? How come same-sex marriage gets the blame for the erosion of the family while rampant consumerism, self-centredness, unmitigated acquisitiveness, personal and corporate greed and a twenty plus year attack by the political right on the social safety net that Canadians from all walks of life built together are completely ignored as a cause for the so-called undermining of the family? Do they suggest we go back to the "perceived" good old days when husbands beat their wives with impunity? When wives stayed at home? When society was far more patriarchal? When rights were dispensed like so much candy and NOT guaranteed under the Charter (Thank you Pierre). When discrimination was common? When racism was not just tolerated but accepted? I think not.

It's all about social evolution folks. Bury your fears. Accept that we are evolving into a much more sophisticated less prejudicial more open and, I believe ultimately, a more accepting and honest society. If a small minority of people (and it is a small minority) choose to live their lives with a same sex partner and CHOOSE to cement that relationship with a civil statement of marriage then we all benefit in the long run as we as a society mature.

When one brings any religion into the equation, keep in mind that, as most religions preach, we're all God's children - that INCLUDES gays and lesbians. Also, there are many gays and lesbians that have been in long term and life long relationships that outlasted MY Church-approved, heterosexual marriages.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

*Wow... I hate Christians!*



MacGuiver said:


> Hi Manny,
> 
> Do you have a problem with socialism? We have an entire thread hear extolling its virtues yet nobody seems to have a problem with an ideology that has shown (historically speaking) various degrees of hypocrisy and intolerance to others outside it's way of thinking resulting in the persecution and deaths of millions? *If you want to go back in history to justify your hatred for Christians* I suggest you take a look at the bloody history and current events of countries that embraced socialism as well. Former USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea.
> 
> ...


Way to dodge the topic. Bavo. :rofl:

And thanks for putting words in my mouth -- I don't, in fact, hate Christians. I've said it before on other forums (to quote Kevin Smith): _I just think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. People die fir it, people kill for it._ Socialism has some nice ideas, but like with anything, politics get in the way. The same goes for Democracy.

Anyway, back on topic: I'll do you one better -- here's a link to a google search: Catholic Inquisition. There's more than enough historical data for you to read in the first 5-10 links.

Educate yourself. :heybaby:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> humans are virtually the only species to indulge in recreational sex.


Not to derail this topic any further, but I believe Dolphins share in a similar indulges for recreational sex as well... but don't quote me on it, I believe it's something I've read before.

Anyway, back to the topic

Game on...


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

I did write "virtually", not literally.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Gotcha, boss.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

"... but I believe Dolphins share in a similar indulges for recreational sex as well... "

Additionally, like humans and chimps, they too are a more advanced, evolved and intelligent species.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

daBoss said:


> "... but I believe Dolphins share in a similar indulges for recreational sex as well... "
> 
> Additionally, like humans and chimps, they too are a more advanced, evolved and intelligent species.


And they can do neat tricks... you know... that thing where they do a moonwalk in water while standing upright, going _clic, clic, clic, clic, clic_ and stuff... like Flipper, only less pretentious.


Okay, I'll go away now.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

And they can do neat tricks... you know... that thing where they do a moonwalk in water while standing upright, going clic, clic, clic, clic, clic and stuff... like Flipper, only less pretentious.

Agreed, but do you know who invented the Moonwalk (or at least the first taping of it)? You'll be surprised.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

dolawren said:


> http://www.reformation.org/inquisit.html
> 
> Dave


Wow thats a credible source Dave! :blackeye: 
The editorial cartoons were especially compelling evidence. They may want to add this picture to their stinging photo collage of the evil Catholic Empire. Pope meets evil dictator 

Manny 
Sorry for derailing the thread from its religiophobic course. I just see blatant hypocrisy in this forum when so many embrace socialism and claim the high moral ground while bashing the Catholic Church. The injustices in the name of socialism far outweigh that of Christianity and we don't have to drag up stories from hundreds of years ago to see it.

On second thought I haven't derailed this topic anymore than you. The Catholic Church is opposed to gay marriage while socialist (many Liberals, all NDP, Greens and Marijuana Party) are the driving force behind it. If its fair game to smear the Catholic Churches based on history (and fiction) then the same measure should be applied to socialism. Socialists are the driving force for gay marriage so to bring up its ugly past and present is totally relevant to the topic.

Now I'll let you get back on course and we can talk more about dolphins and chimps.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Do you have a problem with socialism? We have an entire thread hear extolling its virtues yet nobody seems to have a problem with an ideology that has shown (historically speaking) various degrees of hypocrisy and intolerance to others outside it's way of thinking resulting in the persecution and deaths of millions? If you want to go back in history to justify your hatred for Christians I suggest you take a look at the bloody history and current events of countries that embraced socialism as well. Former USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea.


Good grief, MacGuiver! Don't you know the difference between Comunism and Socialism?!? [hint: none of the totalitarian states you have referred to have/had socialist governments] (all communists are socialists, but not socialists are communists).

This bugs me almost as much as the confusion between atheism and agnosticism. (all agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic)

But more to the point, even if it were true that socialism was an ideology that had motivated loads of historical bloodshed and modern intolerance, would that make the fact that Christianity _is_ such an ideology any less disgusting? I know that Christianity purports to be a religion of love and tolerance, but one cannot ignore the historical and modern facts of the matter. Christianity (and other Abrahamic religions) have been and continue to be powerful tools by which 'us' and 'them' are defined, and the usual atrocities therefore justified. Certainly, Christiatity is not alone in this unfortuante characteristic of religions, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Cheers


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

daBoss said:


> Agreed, but do you know who invented the Moonwalk (or at least the first taping of it)? You'll be surprised.


http://www.dancespirit.com/backissues/sep03/specialty.shtml

Dave


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> Do they suggest we go back to the "perceived" good old days when husbands beat their wives with impunity? When wives stayed at home? When society was far more patriarchal? When rights were dispensed like so much candy and NOT guaranteed under the Charter (Thank you Pierre). When discrimination was common? When racism was not just tolerated but accepted?


That sounds eerily like the Promise Keepers movement.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

*The Reign in Spain falls mainly on the plain*

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1320722/posts

Dave


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

*Vatican's position and explanation*

The Vatican's official stance is available here.http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I wonder, aloud, whether the same types of documents could be dug up from a century (or less) ago that would address the social changes of those times. Things like dealing with evolution and the equality of non-white people. I'll bet there would be some interesting parallels. In 20 years, our children will look back at this an chuckle at how naive we were. Let's just hope they aren't smoking cigarettes and eating a McDonalds hamburger with a Coke while doing so.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

And the answer is ... none other than Ronnie Hawkins. The CBC showed a young and lanky Ronnie Hawkins from around 1957 doing the Moonwalk, although Ronnie called it something else.

Whodathunkit?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

*The views from the top to the bottom*

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index.html

Dave


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacGuiver, I think you are confusing way too many issues. While many Conservatives seem to be opposed to same-sex marriage (and keen to use it as a political gambit), that is not true of all (check out MacNutt....). Likewise many liberals are uncomfortable with the governments position. This is simply a human rights issue. Political leaning and religion should be irrelevant unless you believe that not all humans are equal.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacGuiver said:


> I think your millions of women killed number is pure BS as well. If not, educate me.


Have you ever heard of the Malleus Maleficarium?



> The Malleus Maleficarum (The Witch Hammer), first published in 1486, is arguably one of the most infamous books ever written, due primarily to its position and regard during the Middle Ages. It served as a guidebook for Inquisitors during the Inquisition, and was designed to aid them in the identification, prosecution, and dispatching of Witches. It set forth, as well, many of the modern misconceptions and fears concerning witches and the influence of witchcraft. The questions, definitions, and accusations it set forth in regard to witches, which were reinforced by its use during the Inquisition, came to be widely regarded as irrefutable truth. Those beliefs are held even today by a majority of Christians in regard to practitioners of the modern “revived” religion of Witchcraft, or Wicca. And while the Malleus itself is largely unknown in modern times, its effects have proved long lasting.
> 
> At the time of the writing of The Malleus Maleficarum, there were many voices within the Christian community (scholars and theologians) who doubted the existence of witches and largely regarded such belief as mere superstition. The authors of the Malleus addressed those voices in no uncertain terms, stating: “Whether the Belief that there are such Beings as Witches is so Essential a Part of the Catholic Faith that Obstinacy to maintain the Opposite Opinion manifestly savours of Heresy.” The immediate, and lasting, popularity of the Malleus essentially silenced those voices. It made very real the threat of one being branded a heretic, simply by virtue of one's questioning of the existence of witches and, thus, the validity of the Inquisition. It set into the general Christian consciousness, for all time, a belief in the existence of witches as a real and valid threat to the Christian world. It is a belief which is held to this day.
> 
> It must be noted that during the Inquisition, few, if any, real, verifiable, witches were ever discovered or tried. Often the very accusation was enough to see one branded a witch, tried by the Inquisitors' Court, and burned alive at the stake. *Estimates of the death toll during the Inquisition worldwide range from 600,000 to as high as 9,000,000 (over its 250 year long course)*; either is a chilling number when one realizes that nearly all of the accused were women, and consisted primarily of outcasts and other suspicious persons. Old women. Midwives. Jews. Poets. Gypsies. Anyone who did not fit within the contemporary view of pieous Christians were suspect, and easily branded "Witch". Usually to devastating effect.


Consider yourself educated.


----------



## NetMinder (Dec 15, 2003)

*One More thought*

Holy Molely

I just read this thread from beginning to end and am intrigued with the energy around this.

When I think of marriage an essence of it is that - and this going to sound a little romantic - we are making a commitment to someone else. We are doing something that in it's better moments transcends our own needs and we give of ourself to something and someone beyond ourselves. For those of you into memes will know this is a self sacrificing stance to be found in every second level of the evolutionary model 

What supports a civil secular society is that we as individuals consider the needs of others (a secular society is not an amoral society) and the most common experience most of us can have towards this is that which we can personally express and experience through being married. I believe that gay people want to express these same beliefs and values.

What gay people want by being allowed to marry and be recognised by all of us is to express the same values that those of us who marry who are straight. 

As far as I am concerned the more of us who are able to get married and not only be accepted but also be respected by the rest of us, the better off we are. To me a good marriage is about caring for some one other than yourself and whether you are straight or gay matters very little. It the values expressed that are important and the value of caring for another as expressed in a healthy marriage is a cornerstone for most of us to then contributing to creating a good community (and world) to live in. Whether your straight or gay is just getting fussed with form and has nothing to do with the substance of what is going on here.

End of speech. Highly idealistic I know. It's 1:30 in the morning. Glad i got that off my chest. Going to a warm bed.

PS On the other hand what really gets my dander up.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*I don't think so . . .*



used to be jwoodget said:


> This is simply a human rights issue.


Not at all. The "issue" is changing the definition of the word "marriage". 

Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No it's eliminating gender from LEGAL definitions.
A child or minor is gender neutral. A criminal is gender netural. A police officer is gender neutral. A driver is gender neutral. A judge is gender neutral. So is marriage.

You may not LIKE a woman driver, or woman judge or woman police officer.....that's a social issue. You may not LIKE gay marriage...that's also a social issue.

The court ruling was about the law.....it IS the law. Deal with it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The court ruling was about the law.....it IS the law. Deal with it.


Many opponents intend to do just that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Change the Charter????...........yeah right.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Change the Charter????...........yeah right.


Nope. Just defend the definition.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> MacGuiver, I think you are confusing way too many issues. While many Conservatives seem to be opposed to same-sex marriage (and keen to use it as a political gambit), that is not true of all (check out MacNutt....). Likewise many liberals are uncomfortable with the governments position. This is simply a human rights issue. Political leaning and religion should be irrelevant unless you believe that not all humans are equal.


Hi UTBJ

I understand that. There are people with different beliefs in all parties but generally speaking most people are attracted to the party that share their values, beliefs, etc.. You'd be hard pressed to find an anti-abortion member in the NDP (although its not impossible) but you'll easily find many in the Conservatives while the Liberals will likely fall somewhere in between.

Anyhow. You brought up a point that many who oppose changing the traditional definition of marriage are afraid of. Steven Harper is bang on stating his concerns that polygamy will be next. If you don't agree please explain to me on what grounds you are going to deny them marriage? Polygamists have a double edge sword in this argument. Freedom of religion and the fact that they where created equal too. Bisexuals can make the same arguments as homosexuals for having 2 partners in the marriage. 

If Paul Martin thinks this is so absurd, I challenge him to tell us why polygamist and bisexuals should be denied marriage. I'd bet the farm he can't.  

Also, why do people have a problem with granting the same rights and privileges but recognizing the union under another name? If its simply an issue of rights what would be the problem with that?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## NetMinder (Dec 15, 2003)

To your point about polygamy being next, here is an excerpt from letter for a request for proposal from the Feds that went out january 10.

January 10, 2005



Dear Colleague:



I am writing to invite you to submit a research proposal to Status of Women Canada's (SWC) Policy Research Fund on the subject of Polygamy .



This subject has been identified as an urgent issue requiring immediate policy research. Successful projects are expected to start in early March and should be completed by June 1, 2005.



Researchers whose proposals are selected for funding will be offered a research contract (not a grant), which will be signed by the individual researcher(s) or their non-governmental organization. University-based researchers are urged to read the section on researcher eligibility with respect to the signing of the contract.



Attached to this letter is the call for proposals containing information on:

Polygamy theme;
selection process;
submission requirements;
evaluation criteria;
budget guidelines;
self-identification form.

"Canada is not the first or only nation to deal with polygamy. A comparative analysis of marriage definitions, and recognition of multiple conjugal relationships could enrich the debate and broaden the understanding of the issue. How is the issue of polygamy addressed in other nations and why? How can Canadian public policy benefit from the international best practices/case studies of addressing polygamy?"


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

> Macguiver: You brought up a point that many who oppose changing the traditional definition of marriage are afraid of. Steven Harper is bang on stating his concerns that polygamy will be next. If you don't agree please explain to me on what grounds you are going to deny them marriage? Polygamists have a double edge sword in this argument. Freedom of religion and the fact that they where created equal too. Bisexuals can make the same arguments as homosexuals for having 2 partners in the marriage.


I think it says a lot that those opposed to same-sex marriage keep bringing up ridiculous arguments about how this is a slippery slope. That churches will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, that legal ages for marriage will drop, and that polygamy is next. 

Polygamy is only practised by "religious" sects and is not recognized in Canada - anywhere. Freedom of religion is one of the rights of our Charter. No court can impose any action on a religion as long no criminal law is being broken (hence the lack of female priests in the Roman Catholic church....). This is simply scare-mongering.

You ask how we can deny polygamists their right to marry multiple partners. Simple. The courts will not allow it. Polygamists are not being denied the right to marry - unlike homosexual people, they have the right to marry - one person at a time. They have the right to divorce that person. Hence, it is also within their rights to marry multiple people, but not at the same time. No basic human rights are being denied them. Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Charter except if it breaks criminal law. Polygamists have no legal case since their right to marry is not being violated.

I can understand why people may be uncomfortable about this topic - but get over it. Same-sex marriage is about equality towards the individual. It is not threatening anyone. By contrast, denying this right is decidedly unfair.

SINC - like it or not, this is a human rights issue. That's the basis for the decisions of various provinces to date. Constitutionally, the only way to deny the right to marry to same-sex couples is for provinces to invoke the Nothwithstanding Clause. That will not happen in Ontario, BC or Quebec.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Quote:

"SINC - like it or not, this is a human rights issue."

There are those of you who believe that they are right on every issue that comes along here. 

One day you will find you are wrong on one issue and this just might be the issue.

I for one do not want to be one of only a handful of nations in the world out of step on the definition of marriage.

That is not leadership, but rather grossly misinformed Liberal policy.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

macguiver asked, *Also, why do people have a problem with granting the same rights and privileges but recognizing the union under another name? If its simply an issue of rights what would be the problem with that?*

I tried asking that question in the previous thread dealing with this topic. The best answer I could get was, "It's about equality...get used to it!"



:baby: :baby:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Peter, or like I get, "deal with it."


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> You ask how we can deny polygamists their right to marry multiple partners. Simple. The courts will not allow it. Polygamists are not being denied the right to marry - unlike homosexual people, they have the right to marry - one person at a time.


UTBJ

Thanks for your response but its raises more questions than it answered:

1. Does a minority have a minimum size? The Charter is about protecting minority rights is it not? How many polygamists must there be to constitute a minority and on what grounds will the court deny multiple partner marriages as you say they will?

2. Based on the widely held belief that homosexuality is innate we must change the definition of marriage to accommodate them, would it not be an injustice to exclude bisexuals who also claim to be born that way? Is it not discriminatory to expect a bisexual to live the lie and marry a single sex partner while denying their natural sexual orientation?

3. You mentioned that a polygamist has the right to marry now but to one spouse. That is true but Is that any different than saying a homosexual also has a right to marry if he or she chooses but to a member of the opposite sex? Technically, marriage is available to them just as well.

4. In this country, if you want to saw down a tree or move a culvert the government demands environmental impact studies, community consultations, permits, inspections etc. etc.
Has the government done anything to investigate the possible ramifications of changing the definition of marriage as it has stood for thousands of years? 
Have their been any studies on how children do growing up with same-sex parents? 
What will happen if a devout Muslim, Catholic, Jew, Pentecostal or someone of no faith at all should put a child up for adoption but not want to have that child raised in a gay home? 
Have they studied the legal precedent this may set for other minority groups as discussed above? 
Would someone that adheres to a religion yet performs civil marriage ceremonies be forced to perform gay marriages if his or her religious convictions say otherwise or would they be allowed to decline based on freedom of religion?
Will our children be forced to take instruction on homosexual sex in our schools despite their deeply held religious convictions that such practices are immoral? What would happen if a parent refuses to subject their child to this?

With these and other questions looming on this issue, "Get over it" is something I'm not willing to do. We're running with the scissors and the lights are off. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

MacGuiver, your argument is interesting and raises some thought about the unanswered questions that aren't being asked by most. I haven't see "children" brought into the discussion very often. The current family structure, of which marriage is the cornerstone, includes children (creation and raising of). 
The legalization of same sex marriages would assume the right of these couples to either artificially inseminate, hire a surogate mother, or adopt. How will these variable conditions affect the raising of these children? I'm not concluding that there will be wide-spread problems, I'm just asking the question, "where do the concerns of child raising come into the discussion?" There seems to be a lack of studies that can offer any real comfort to anyone concerned with this....some kids will be fine, others will have difficulties, as far as I can guess.
I am assuming here that since there is objection to having different terminology for same-sex unions, that there is a desire to mirror the traditional family structure and relationships of a family. Or am I incorrect in that assumption? If "marriage" is now only about a commited relationship and sex, then too bad for us. (my opinion only)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Marriage is not a Human Rights Issue.*

While I recognize that there are those who say that it is a human right to be able to marry a partner of one's choice, marriage is not a human rights issue.

Since the law does not allow children to marry, nor does it allow closely related persons to marry, nor does it allow more than two persons of the opposite sex to marry, marriage therefore is a privilege here in Alberta, not a right. It is much like your driver's license, not a human right either, but a privilege to have and marriage should be treated accordingly by lawmakers.

The solution is to allow civil unions granted with the same benefits as married couples. As for multiple partners, that can surely only follow if the institution of marriage is destroyed.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sinc, I for one, like to think Canada is a fair and progressive society that does not deny its citizens their rights until such a time that the rest of the world has caught up. This is also not Liberal policy (an estimated one third of the Liberal Party MPs are against the idea of legalized same-sex marriage). I'm sure that Paul Martin would love to avoid any controversial policies in the delicate state the government is in. He is defending the rights of an individual. He actually does have balls.

Macguiver, it is interesting that you bring up legal issues. Our legal system has weighed the legal arguments for and against allowing same sex marriage and in every case has found that denial of marriage is discriminatory. Those same courts have consistently denied a variety of other challenges such as polygamy, under-age marriage, marriage between family members, etc. The law is interpretive and should society change over the next 200 years such that polygamy becomes socially acceptable, then the law may well change to reflect that shift. The only way, in fact, to guarantee that society does not change "traditional definitions" is for the country to be operated as a theocracy rather than as a secular society. As for bisexuals, that argument is really scraping the barrel. I, for one, await with baited breath the deluge of legal applications of bisexuals who are in stable, bisexual relationships. They have the right to marry either of their partners. Beyond that, they enter the definition of polygamy.

As far as I know, there is also nothing to stop a same-sex, unmarried couple from adopting a child today, if they are found by the social services and child welfare departments to be capable of providing a safe and caring environment (at least in Ontario). It's not at all clear to me what irreparable damage allowing same-sex marriages will cause. I do understand that some people feel very strongly, but do you honestly believe that allowing such marriages will have any material impact on today's society? If so, what?

There may be a middle-ground (but I don't see why rights should ever be compromised). That would be to allow status marriages that are subject to review of some sort that assesses in 10 years time whether the allowance of such marriages has been materially deterimental to Canadian society. The review panel could hear arguments from anyone. If some form of significant damage can be demonstrated, then the marriages could be reverted to civil unions. Personally, I would be against attaching any conditions to marriage but it would surely satisfy those who are against any change in legal marriage.

The definition of marriage varies between religions. Forced marriages are still condoned by some religious organizations and yet others encourage polygamy. It could be argued that marriage may be in safer hands when defined by society than by churches!

Edit: Sinc, how can it be equal if not the same? What do you think members of same-sex unions should call their state? Are they a unioned couple? Do they send out civil union invitations and buy a union cake? If they have the same legal rights as people who are in heterosexual marriages, they presumably have the same rights to adopt (I wonder if Macguiver agrees?).


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Somehow I doubt if MacGuiver agrees.



> The solution is to allow civil unions granted with the same benefits as married couples


Well, Sinc, I'd say that would by YOUR solution. Are we not just splitting hairs and engaging in some kind of semantics argument here for the sake of the anxious? When I got married (to a woman), it was a civil ceremony or civil union. Does that mean that I am not married? I think not. To me, it is much ado about nothing. The decision to allow 'marriages' between same sex couples will not affect me or my family one little bit. 



> What will happen if a devout Muslim, Catholic, Jew, Pentecostal or someone of no faith at all should put a child up for adoption but not want to have that child raised in a gay home?


Some of these questions are humorous, but this one struck me. Somehow I doubt that a lot of DEVOUTLY religious people are putting kids up for adoption. And if they have made that decision (or had it made for them more likely), the adoption is blind and they would not know. And if they didn't want such a thing to happen, the could keep the child could they not?


----------

