Gay Marriage in Canada

Remove all ads!

Cause if he knew, I would be banned for flaming.

 

Gnarff, who has claimed such? Certainly not Rally who it seemed you were replying to. I think the point many were trying to make that while it is perfectly acceptable for someone to place a child in a home of a devoutly religious couple, provided there were no ulterior motives of the adopting parents, that it was equally acceptable to place a child in a home of a gay couple, provided they didn't have any ulterior motives for adoption either.

I could not be bothered to go through all of your other posts to find other examples of things like this - I'm sure they exist, as I remember reading some of them - but I can prove my point by just using a single one of your posts. Why do you have this paranoid (bordering on delusional) attitude?

HOW can the law be interpreted that you wouldn't be allowed to make Scriptural references (by the way, it's "censoring") in a public setting? Now if you walk up to someone on the streets and scream in their face, "YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL, YOU FAGGOT!" yeah, maybe there. But there's no way it would disallow you to read a passage of the Bible publicly that claims homosexuality to be a sin.

WHY do you think that people are saying things behind your back? I admit that when I read your posts I am shocked at some of the ideals that you hold, but it's not like I say, "Wow, Gnarff is such a religious nutjob a$$hole." I doubt anyone else says things like that either. Why do you think that they do?

Finally, WHAT is so hard to understand about the principle that a priest, pastor, rabbi, shaman, cleric, any-other-religious-figure, can refuse to marry anyone on grounds that they do not live their lives according to the religion under which they wish to make their vows. This is the one that completely floors me. When my wife and I got married, we could not go to a Mormon minister and ask him to marry us unless we were willing to convert the the Church of LDS. We could not turn around and sue this guy for discrimination. His basis of his refusal was he would not marry someone who wasn't true to the teaching of the Church of LDS - a completely reasonable argument - which would also apply to any gay couple that wanted to be married in such a way. (As an aside, I was married in a Catholic Church, and I don't see them allowing gays to get married either. In fact, AFAIK, there is no Christian denomination that allows gay marriages, and there is nothing that any law can say to force them to, as it would be in violation of their right to practice their religion.)

So why the paranoia?

 

Hmmm....do you know this case ?

http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/93.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4530209.stm

 

Some Christians like to think they're being persecuted; it fosters group identity and there are lots of cool perks:

Who wouldn't want to be blessed and like a prophet?

Didn't the United Church of Christ, a liberal evangelical church IIRC, just come out in support of gay marriage?

 

@ Arendil - Oh please, that's hardly a worthy comparison. The reason for the uproar was not that he quoted from the Bible, but because he said the gay community is a "cancer". He also said that gays were likely to rape children and animals. That's a far cry from someone quoting a passage in the Bible against the practice of homosexuality.

I even touched upon this type of speech in my post. Specifically, I said you wouldn't be allowed to scream, "You're going to burn in hell, you faggot!" To me, this pastor's speech is much closer the this inflammatory message, than my statement of being allowed to site the Bible publicly. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

 

And that is probably the most sensible thing I have read in this thread.

Maybe I'm just an idealistic hippy, but why can't we all just get along peacefully?

 

As in answering the legal headaches without adding the controversy of calling it Marriage? Basically solving the legal dilema and telling them to be on their way? That would be infinitely better than the piece of crap that the Liberals pawned off on us.

Regardless of what any scientist tells you, we trace our roots back to the First Humans, Adam and Eve, who were maried by God. Marriage has always been a Christian tradition. By allowing other religions and even civil governments to perform it it was seen as allowing non-believers to marry, and thus commit one less sin...

It prohibits anything to grossly offend a minority based on what makes them different. It's illegal to promote anti-semetite literature. By that same law, some parts of the Old Testament could be called into Question, and getting the wrong Judge, could be declared illegal. By contrast, I've expressed the opinion (which is continually glossed over) that Gay Marriage mocks traditional marriage, a core feature to Christianity, which basically is the same as poking hurtful jibes at the gay community, the latter is protected under the law, where as we Christians canhave our freedoms revoked by something called the Separation of Church and state...

I'd prefer it that way. Just like with Homosexuality, I prefer Don't ask, Don't tell, and don't go parading it around in the face of people that would object/lose their lunch...

Because to allow them to marry is a slap in the face of the moral stance that we Christians hold, yet it's okay for them to mock that which we hold sacred, but to even mock them with a term of derision, even in a moment of anger, is considered wrong. That's not equal in society.

Earlier in this thread she stated that she didn't want to see devoutly religious families alloed to expose their children to what she called Fundamentalism. No ulterior motives were claimed, just that I vehemently opposed allowing gays to marry and adopt. This was offensive to her, and I guess that I was labelled an extremist.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and not enough Canadians were vigilant, therefore some of our freedom is threatened. Religion is under attack whether you want to accept it or not. Ranging from Aetheists that want to use science to claim it's bull****, to Homosexuals that thinkthat they are doing nothing wrong, to extremists (like the ones pointed out by Rutkowski) that take the name of God and really don't know what they're talking about yet manage to harpoon our credibility. Those of you who sit there and think that nothing is wrong will wake up one day and wonder how you could end up in bondage to someone else's ideologies and where your judges were when this was going on, while they are handing your freedom over to those that would enslave you...

There are some in the Gay Community that will view Religions that believe that Homosexuality as a sin as being very wrong and need to be enlightened, and might seek the court to help them force that teaching out of religious doctrine.

Okay that line was a bit of a joke, but it didn't come off as one. Perhaps some of you have an initial gut response that you don't share in your posts, perhaps not. I was trying to make a joke, but I did a poor job on that...

That's how it should be, but It is likely that some Gay couple will seek such a seal of approval but be refused and claim discrimination because homosexuality will never be accepted by such faiths. They will drag this to the courts, and the wrong judge could again rule against Religion and claim that we are trying to deny the rights to a gay couple that the Law mandates that they have...

Because if God is real, Jesus Christ is real and the Holy Ghost is real, then Satan must also be real. Satan will do everything in his power to discredit the worship of God to convince people that there is no God, or that all is well, or that there is no consequence for sin. It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you...

While Some of what Arendil's case refered to that the preacher said was not correct, the threat of taking away freedom of speech to religious groups is a very real danger...

I know that some Christian religions have come out in favour of this abomination. That doesn't make it morally right...

While some of what he said is inaccurate, it is still record that he was taken to court for condemning the Gay community Sooner or later such a charge will stick...

Because most governments are too stupid to come up with a compromise that gives both sides what they want and have to pick one side over the other...

 

/me comes out of hiding long enough to correct a mischaracterization

That is NOT what I said. Specifically, I said that I don't think children should be exposed to fundamentalism in their formative years. This was in response to your statement that children shouldn't be exposed to homosexuality in their formative years.

Why, might you ask, should my opinions dictate how anyone else should be able to raise children? Answer: THEY SHOULDN'T, and I'm not trying to say that they should.

The point I was trying to make is that no matter who you are or what you believe or how you act, someone is likely to find something offensive in how you raise your children. However, the vast majority kids come through their parents so-called "mistakes" just fine and grow up to be decent human beings in spite of how they were raised. (please note that my tongue is in my cheek there, on the "in spite") That being the case, who can ABSOLUTELY say what's right or wrong for all children to be exposed to? NO ONE, that's who. You can only determine what's right and wrong for YOU to teach YOUR OWN children, and do the very best you can within those boundaries.

 

I accept that that wasn't your intention, but what you pointed out was my interpretation. In many such arguements, both sides tend to misinterpret what is actually said, or misstate their points. This simply clouds issues..

And the more people take offence, the more the offended stand to defend their ways, this leads to more objections, and more defensiveness... That doesn't sound like progress to me...

So you want this to divert to a debate on God? I would imagine that to be way off topic. Suffice it to say that We, the religious believe our charge to be given from God to raise our children properly. If you reject our position, then you have your statement...

But we have to sit back and do nothing while the state seeks to undermine what we want to teach them? Sorry, I can't do that...

 

Gnarfflinger wrote:

Some of us think that, on the contrary, eternal vigilance comes at the cost of freedom. Cf. the freedom of the press being currently at stake in the US for the sake of "guarding our freedom". Freedom is just a word for you, Gnarfflinger, you use it as it suits you without acknowledging that being free to marry your beloved is, well, part of freedom. Don't abuse it in your quest of ideologically shackling the world, brother. You're trying to take something from others, no one is taking something from you. Keep that in mind.

And:

Hey, this already happened to me! I was sitting right there in in our church (dedicated to St. Boniface) attending a service and wondered: how comes I ended up in bondage to someone else's ideologies? Maybe our position depends on our perspective? I don't lose any part of my freedom in case two people of the same gender show their affection for each other in public. How comes you do?

The people whining over something like gay marriage should relax a bit. If it really is the issue of a minority position forced upon a majority - as I've seen claimed here -, it will surely pass. In a few decades it will be gone with the wind. Like the social insurance system .

If, on the other hand, it turns out to be something more fundamental and plays in the same league as women's rights et al., we expect the phenomenon to be commonly accepted in the future. For those of you who feel offended by gay marriage it will still be an ideal environment: because you have something to do with your evenings and, frankly, conceit and bumptiousness comes a lot easier than charity and altruism.

 

I repeat, not everyone is Christian or not even religious. If someone non-religious wants to get married and raise a kid non-religiously, then let them. God invented this Free Will thing for a reason, you know?

 

No, I don't want to make that diversion. I want you to be free to teach YOUR children according to YOUR standards within YOUR church and home, and I want to to be free to do the exact same thing, just replacing "church" with "synagogue".

[ July 08, 2005, 15:13: Message edited by: Rallymama ]

 

How could Adam & Eve be christians when they were created 3500 years before Jesus was even born?

In fact Jesus wasn't a christian. The word was coined after his death.

Also I am under the impression that, for instance,
China had marriage long before any christian missionaries invaded them.

Civil Union would have been a better term because that is what it is when witnessed by a non clergy person.

 

Gnarff,

You really never answered my question. Basically, all you said amounted to: "It's not paranoia if it's actually happening!" Needless to say, I do not agree with that assessment. However, I will allow this: I was in error when I said that you were paranoid. The more I listen to what you say, I see that it would be much more descriptive to say that you have a persecution complex.

Note that I'm not saying that Mormons were never persecuted in the U.S. They certainly have been. However, that has not happened in a long time. The last major public action against any portion of the Mormon community happened over 40 years ago.

Basically, a community near Salt Lake City was raided by local police for practicing polygamy. While that was already against official Mormon doctrine at the time, many people in that particular community were still practicing polygamy, and even among the Mormons who weren't there was a general acceptance of that as a tolerable lifestyle. Because of these sentiments, the crackdown turned into a public relations disaster for the local law enforcement agency, and none of those arrested ever went to court, and most were released with no charges being brought against them in a matter of days.

So I'm basically saying it's OK if you want to point out how Mormons have been persecuted in the past, but by claiming that is happening as we speak, I think is being a bit dishonest.

 

And what would be the compromise Gnarff? I say that what we have now is a compromise. Gays get all the legal rights that heterosexual couples get, but those religions opposed to the idea do not have to marry them. I'd say it's win-win.

 

But Freedom of religion has been undermined repeatedly ever since the inception of the separation of Church and State. Eventually religion was forced to take a back seat to many things, and likely the law of the land over their own doctrine is coming...

If you do not agree with or feel a spiritual connection to what was being taught, then you were still free to leave. I wonder if I could go Sabbath after Sabbath to another religion and still feel any connection to the sermons or would I simply try to discern which pew was most comfortable for a nap? But to consider the possibility that my Bishop could be legally harrassed for standing up for our beliefs is a grave insult to me. I fear that our doctrine may yet be proscribed to satisfy another group with a differing moral stance...

Yes, you are free to reject this, but we are obligated to defend this. We are free to shirk this obligation, but that would be wrong. Further, I resent that Religion has been constantly undermined for the last couple centuries to the point where it is considered by some to be "fairy tales" or irrelevent. Does this give me the right to expect Government to pass a law banning Aetheism?

Actually, according to Mormon teachings, there was a council in Heaven, where two thirds of that host of Heaven (We ALL were in that two thirds) agreed that Jesus Christ would be our Saviour. The one third that opposed this were cast out and followed Lucifer and became Demons. From the point where Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, they were given commandments to prepare their posterity for the Coming of Jesus Christ. They were promised that He would die for their sins. Thus, they were Christians even though the term had not been coined yet.

Secondly, Jesus Christ was of that same religion that Adam and Eve had been taught, and his teachings were added to the scriptures compiled from the time of Moses to that point, and the Term Christianity was coined, but it had existed since the time of Adam and Eve.

Third, After the Great Flood, Noah's decendents spread out all over the world, including China, and they took with them the tradition of Marriage.

I can accept that because it does not seek the name of God to legitimize their sins.

And you don't see the courts saying that prayer in schools is not good, or state run education wanting to include certain things into their curriculum and not caring that the Religious communities object to some of it? religion is being undermined every step of the way by the separation of Church and State. How long before Religion is brought to heel and subjugated entirely?

Actually now, it's Religion in general, and it's not obvious, but it's there...

Actually, the opposition to marrying Gays has not been guaranteed (nor can it under other anti-discrimination laws) the right of refusal. It can (and inevitably will) be challenged. Consider a relationship where a man and woman are living together but not married. They have certain rights, despite their arrangement being sinful. Those legal rights could be extended to Gays without offending religions at all...

 

Not in Britain they don't, no rights what-so-ever.

 

Yes, I do see this. I think it's what we attribute the reasons to that we differ.

The reason that praying in school is considered not good is because not everyone follows the same religion - is even religious for that matter. You may certainly like for everyone to join hands at the beginning of the school day and say the "Our Father", but the problem would be that only about 70% of the classroom actually knows such a prayer. You would think it appropriate for a Muslim, or a Jew, for example, to have to recite the "Our Father" when it is against his/her beliefs? Should Mormon children then be required to recite Jewish and Muslim prayers? Would you like your own potential children to learn passages from the Quoran?

As for the state cirriculum including certain things that religious communities object to, I again must assume that you're talking about evolution as the banner example of such a case. By definition, to understand and believe in a Christian view of creation, one must be Christian. Again, not everyone follows Christianity, and thus do not follow that view of Creation. If we teach creationism, should we teach all forms of creationism? Like how the Muslims believe the world was formed - or the Buddists - or the Aborigonies - etc.? And that's where Evolution differs. There isn't one form of evolution for Christians, and another form for Buddists. It's the same evolution. However, their creation stories differ markedly.

 

But wouldn't that be just as offensive? When a man and woman live together outside of marriage it's sinful so when two gay people live together wouldn't it be sinful too? You're just trading one sin for another because one suits you better. Sin is sin as I was taught.

I'm sure someone, somewhere will try and challenge the law but it won't work for a couple of reasons.

1. The courts would shoot it down because they cannot dictate church policy. Period.

2. Do you honestly think that people would want to celebrate probably the happiest day of their life under a cloud of discrimination, hatred and ill will? I wouldn't.

This is why the law clearly stated that marriage between gays is legal under the law, but the church will not and cannot be forced to perform a ceremony if it goes against their particular doctrine.

 

I think what Gnarff is talking about is common law marriages. In the U.S. you don't get any special rights if you just move in with your girlfriend, or she moves in with you. However, there are several states in the U.S. that allow you to enter into a common law marriage, with specific rules for each state. Basically, common law marriages function exactly like a regular marriage, except that there was no formal ceremony. The rules are pretty easy to meet too. The only prerequisities (in the states that allow common law marriages) are (1) having the mental capacity to enter into a marriage and (2) cohabitation. There is no time limit that you have to live together to be considered common law married.

More details here: Facts and Fiction Concerning Common Law Marriage.