A Great Day in Canadian History!

cybercoma · June 29, 2005

The irony in all of this is that you say that religious groups should be REQUIRED to host same sex marriage receptions, yet at the same time you say religious freedom doesn't enable you to tell someone what they can or can't do. Why does your freedom to have a gay marriage enable you to require the church, that is morally opposed to same sex marriage, to host the party afterwards?

Depends if the Church is acting like a business and rents it hall to anyone who comes in off the street or if it restricts access to members of the Church. If the Church is acting like and competing with businesses (like hotels) then the Church must abide by the same rules as other businesses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You may as well call the act of marriage a "business" by the Church since they make money from that as well. They should be FORCED to perform same-sex marriages because they have to abide by business rules. Renting out the hall is no different, since it would be the same as having a satanic cult perform their services on the premises. You wouldn't dream of forcing the church to allow something like that. It's ridiculous to be forcing the church to accept something that it's morally opposed to. The government is trying to change religion and they have no place interfering with that. If religion should remain out of politics, then politics should stay out of religion.

cybercoma · June 29, 2005

Yes, and I have no problem with people living THEIR LIVES as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfear with other's rights. I can't remember who it was but another poster said it well in another thread, that Christians seem to think its their duty to police the world and to make all believe as they do, they can't seem to accept the fact that other people believe something they don't. That's why I chose a religion that respects the beliefs of others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're missing the entire point. This political step only serves to villify the religious institutions that are opposed to same-sex marriage. The rhetoric by the supporters paints these religions and these people who believe in family values as human rights violators. SSM is NOT a human right, but a legal right. There are very few people that don't believe homoesexuals should have equality before the law. What is a human right violation is the government putting through a law that will force changes on religions by basically condemning them for their actions. We do still have a human right that allows freedom of religion and granted people aren't being arrested for their beliefs (until churches start denying same-sex marriages/receptions), but the government is negatively painting almost every world religion.

Black Dog · June 29, 2005

Ok.... If you have no problem how others live their life, how about if the Hell's Angels sue a church for not letting them host their "event" whatever it may be? Do you think the church has the right to refuse? How about the neo-nazis renting a Knights of Columbus hall for their "events"? Most will agree, if the church refuses to have Hell's Angels in their church it is their right. If gays want the church, many of you will say it is oppression!!! Where is the line drawn? How long do you think it will be before they require schools to teach homosexuality in their sex ed courses?

We're not talking about a church. We're talking about halls operated by organizations affiliated with the church that regularily rents out their facilities for secular purposes.

Yes it's unlikely that man and dog will ever be permitted to marry for the reason that there isn't a large beastiality lobby. But say a movement started, and they started public campaigns and appealing to peoples emotions. More plausible is the legalization of polygamy. Just wait a few years when they take it to the surpreme court. There is now a precident and there is no legal reason why they would not allow it. (Although the SCC doesn't seem to make it's decisions based on law)

How does gay mariage set a precedent for polygamy? What's super-fun-fantasitcally ironic is that if polygamists ever do make a play for legal recognition, it wil be on the basis of religious freedom (that's why the B.S. cops won't go after Bountiful's Mormon polygamists).

And really: what's wrong with polygamy, anyway?

cybercoma · June 29, 2005

We're not talking about a church. We're talking about halls operated by organizations affiliated with the church that regularily rents out their facilities for secular purposes.

Way to split hairs. They're not the Church itself, but they're affiliated with the Church. Give me a break.

How does gay mariage set a precedent for polygamy? What's super-fun-fantasitcally ironic is that if polygamists ever do make a play for legal recognition, it wil be on the basis of religious freedom (that's why the B.S. cops won't go after Bountiful's Mormon polygamists).
And really: what's wrong with polygamy, anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sets the precedent because it should be anyone's right to marry whomever they choose, just as long as they can show they're in love, right?

The problem with polygamy is that in every culture that it exists, it is oppressive towards women. That shouldn't be a problem though, if people are in love. :rolleyes:

I miss Reagan · June 29, 2005

How does gay mariage set a precedent for polygamy?

Cyber beat me to the punch. Because the courts have decided that people should have the right to marry whomever they choose.

And really: what's wrong with polygamy, anyway?

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. And I appreciate your being consistant. But I'm saying that right now politicians are saying "never" about polygamy because right now there isn't popular support for the movement, just like 6 years ago they said "never" to SSM because people were mostly opposed. It wasn't a legal decision, it was a decision based on pressure from the SSM lobby.

kimmy · June 29, 2005

How does gay mariage set a precedent for polygamy? What's super-fun-fantasitcally ironic is that if polygamists ever do make a play for legal recognition, it wil be on the basis of religious freedom (that's why the B.S. cops won't go after Bountiful's Mormon polygamists).
And really: what's wrong with polygamy, anyway?

(did you mean to type "B.C. cops", or was "B.S. cops" deliberate? :lol: )

I was actually kind of enchanted with an idea that Sparhawk raised earlier: why should the government recognize *any* marriage? Why not use the phrase civil union in a legal sense, and leave government completely out of the marriage biz?

As for polygamy... I've got no personal objection to consenting adults entering whatever arrangements they're comfortable with (but I do object to girls being raised as brides and married off at the age of 12, which is why I think the RCMP ought to go into Bountiful with flamethrowers and bulldozers... but I digress.) However, my support adults being able to live their lives as they wish doesn't extend to wanting to extend spousal benefits to every union that calls itself a family.

-k

I miss Reagan · June 29, 2005

Question: How's this going to work in Alberta? Is Alberta going to do the same as they did with the gun registry and just refuse to comply? Curious.

Black Dog · June 29, 2005

Way to split hairs. They're not the Church itself, but they're affiliated with the Church. Give me a break.

It's an important distinction to make. You're making it sound like gays are demanding they be able to throw orgies in the pews. But the KoC are not the Catholic Church.

It sets the precedent because it should be anyone's right to marry whomever they choose, just as long as they can show they're in love, right?
The problem with polygamy is that in every culture that it exists, it is oppressive towards women. That shouldn't be a problem though, if people are in love.

In many cultures (including our own) heterosexual marriage is oppressive to women. What's your point?

Question: How's this going to work in Alberta? Is Alberta going to do the same as they did with the gun registry and just refuse to comply? Curious.

Alberta may stop solemnizing marriages: Klein

Klein proposed that the province might withdraw from sanctioning marriages and just recognize civil unions, leaving marriage to religious orders.

So in order to avoid opening up the institution to gays, Klein wants to close it off to straight people (IIRC, the majority of marriages in Alberta are civil: that is non-religious). 'course, if "marriage" means a union of one man and one woman, any heterosexual civil union in Alberta would be, according to the the logic of SSM opponents, a de facto marriage. Gay civil unions, on teh other hand, would remain civil unions. What kind of tortured logic do these people employ?

I miss Reagan · June 29, 2005

Sounds fair. No marriages for anyone. Leave religious institutions to the churches.

Black Dog · June 29, 2005

Sounds fair. No marriages for anyone. Leave religious institutions to the churches.

Why does Alberta want to undermine such an important social institution as marriage?

I miss Reagan · June 29, 2005

Sounds fair. No marriages for anyone. Leave religious institutions to the churches.

Why does Alberta want to undermine such an important social institution as marriage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm thinking the best way to go would be for all levels of government to stay out of the business of marriage. That way they are not favoring either side. Let the churches marry who they will. If they want to marry gays, fine. The government can legally recognize both with out performing the marriages. I think that's pretty fair. I don't know, make the case against BD.

Black Dog · June 29, 2005

I'm thinking the best way to go would be for all levels of government to stay out of the business of marriage. That way they are not favoring either side. Let the churches marry who they will. If they want to marry gays, fine. The government can legally recognize both with out performing the marriages. I think that's pretty fair. I don't know, make the case against BD.

Well, I'll use anti-SSM logic here.

Marriage is "suppossed to be" between a man and a woman, right? Therefore, any union between a man and a woman would be, de facto if not de jure, a marriage. So for the Klein government to bar heterosexual couples from marriage would not only bey discriminatory towards non-religious people, but inconsistent with the principles that drive oppossition to SSM. Why should I, as a non-religious heterosexual, be barred from the institution that is suppossed to be so important to society that we cannot allow gays to participate?

I also have issues with the practicality. Would religious marriages also have to be recognized by the state in order to recieve benefits? In other words would a couple have to be both married and civil union'd?

No to me it would be a lot simpler just to legalize gay marriage. Those churches that want to solemnize them can, those that do not do not. Which is, surprise, exactly how it works so far. Three years of SSM, and not a single church has been forced to perform one against its will.

Cartman · June 29, 2005

Klein has spoken about this Reagan.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...esex050629.html

But Klein acknowledged Tuesday that he had few options.
''There are no legal weapons. There's nothing left in the arsenal,'' Klein said. ''We're out on a lurch.''

Leader Circle · June 29, 2005

Way to split hairs. They're not the Church itself, but they're affiliated with the Church. Give me a break.

It's an important distinction to make. You're making it sound like gays are demanding they be able to throw orgies in the pews. But the KoC are not the Catholic Church.

It sets the precedent because it should be anyone's right to marry whomever they choose, just as long as they can show they're in love, right?
The problem with polygamy is that in every culture that it exists, it is oppressive towards women. That shouldn't be a problem though, if people are in love.

In many cultures (including our own) heterosexual marriage is oppressive to women. What's your point?

Question: How's this going to work in Alberta? Is Alberta going to do the same as they did with the gun registry and just refuse to comply? Curious.

Alberta may stop solemnizing marriages: Klein

Klein proposed that the province might withdraw from sanctioning marriages and just recognize civil unions, leaving marriage to religious orders.

So in order to avoid opening up the institution to gays, Klein wants to close it off to straight people (IIRC, the majority of marriages in Alberta are civil: that is non-religious). 'course, if "marriage" means a union of one man and one woman, any heterosexual civil union in Alberta would be, according to the the logic of SSM opponents, a de facto marriage. Gay civil unions, on teh other hand, would remain civil unions. What kind of tortured logic do these people employ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I say good job Ralphy. Stick to the redneck ways!!

Black Dog · June 29, 2005

I say good job Ralphy. Stick to the redneck ways!!

I thought you were against bestiality and incest? :blink:

theloniusfleabag · June 29, 2005

IMR,

I'm thinking the best way to go would be for all levels of government to stay out of the business of marriage. That way they are not favoring either side. Let the churches marry who they will. If they want to marry gays, fine. The government can legally recognize both with out performing the marriages. I think that's pretty fair. I don't know, make the case against BD.

Good point here. If churches don't wish to have the ceremony in their building they shouldn't have to. As Black Dog points out,

Three years of SSM, and not a single church has been forced to perform one against its will.

Black Dog also raises a very valid point with...

I also have issues with the practicality. Would religious marriages also have to be recognized by the state in order to recieve benefits? In other words would a couple have to be both married and civil union'd?

More headaches and paperwork than it's worth, I should think.

I am, admittedly, a bit confused on this whole issue. Is it just the name 'marriage' that the church has issue with?

My wife and I got married about 6 years ago, 'JP style'. No bible, no religion, but we went to the registry office and were issued a 'marriage certificate'. I don't see why a gay couple cannot do the same thing.

If it is the word 'marriage' that the church doesn't want to share with same-sex couples, then they should have to prove a 'copyright infringement' on it.

Melanie_ · June 29, 2005

It is a fantastic day! I wish the haters like Argus could relax a little though... this legislation will have absolutely no effect on anyone who isn't gay! Congrats to all that it does affect though!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't recall ever even having discussed this issue with you.

As far as I'm concerned you are, to be as polite as I can, a nonentity.

Have you ever posted anything of note? Apparently not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do we need a list of who Argus will deign to talk to? Really, Argus, at the risk of being labelled a nonentity myself, that was rude.

Argus · June 29, 2005

It is a fantastic day! I wish the haters like Argus could relax a little though... this legislation will have absolutely no effect on anyone who isn't gay! Congrats to all that it does affect though!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't recall ever even having discussed this issue with you.

As far as I'm concerned you are, to be as polite as I can, a nonentity.

Have you ever posted anything of note? Apparently not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do we need a list of who Argus will deign to talk to? Really, Argus, at the risk of being labelled a nonentity myself, that was rude.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and you would expect me not to be rude when some smarmy twerp exults in the gay marriage law passing by describing me as a "hater"? Simpletons like this haven't got the intellectual capacity or maturity to understand nuanced arguments or arguments based on principal - largely because all they've got behind their own political beliefs is childish emotionialism and a vast ignorance about anything more complicated than a comic book.

Black Dog · June 29, 2005

Another point on churches being forced to preform marriages against their will. Churches refuse to sanctify any marriage that does not conform to church teachings all the time (f'r instance the Catholic Church doesn't marry divorced individuals and special dispensation is required for marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics). I wonder why this practice, which has gone uncallenged for years, would suddenly be threatened.

I Miss Trudeau · June 29, 2005

Question: How's this going to work in Alberta? Is Alberta going to do the same as they did with the gun registry and just refuse to comply? Curious.

Refusing to comply is far more work than Klein and his merry band of conservatives are willing to do.

No, Klein will voice his disagreement publicly for a week or two, then get back to the business of fishing.

Shakeyhands · June 29, 2005

It is a fantastic day! I wish the haters like Argus could relax a little though... this legislation will have absolutely no effect on anyone who isn't gay! Congrats to all that it does affect though!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't recall ever even having discussed this issue with you.

As far as I'm concerned you are, to be as polite as I can, a nonentity.

Have you ever posted anything of note? Apparently not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ummmm first off, **DELETED.**

secondly, the more posts of yours that I read the more I think you may be a close relative of RightWingers or worse. You spew hate around this board continuoulsy. Sorry if I touched a nerve big boy.

Carry on with the Hate.

The Simpleton Nonentity,

Edited June 29, 2005 by Shakeyhands

newbie · June 29, 2005

If Klein has his way, who will marry the atheists?

daniel · June 29, 2005

It is a fantastic day! I wish the haters like Argus could relax a little though... this legislation will have absolutely no effect on anyone who isn't gay! Congrats to all that it does affect though!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't recall ever even having discussed this issue with you.

As far as I'm concerned you are, to be as polite as I can, a nonentity.

Have you ever posted anything of note? Apparently not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ummmm first off, **DELETED.**

secondly, the more posts of yours that I read the more I think you may be a close relative of RightWingers or worse. You spew hate around this board continuoulsy. Sorry if I touched a nerve big boy.

Carry on with the Hate.

The Simpleton Nonentity,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, along with Melanie and others, I too have made it to his hate list. But we're not the ones who suppress free speech. We'll let him carry on with this bile and sweeping insults.

ScottBrison · June 29, 2005

Whoa. Back up a minute. How did we get here:
Calling for a nail to be put into the coffin of religion ...

from here?

It places another well needed nail in the coffin of interference in the affairs of the State by the Church.

Cybercoma, if you're going to respond to a post, at least try to read it first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because by implying people with religious beliefs are INTERFERING with the government and should be silenced would be the same thing as putting the nail in the coffin of religion. Religion is an integral part of some people's lives and protected as a HUMAN RIGHT, asking people to disregard their basic human rights for the sake of politics is pure nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and I have no problem with people living THEIR LIVES as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfear with other's rights. I can't remember who it was but another poster said it well in another thread, that Christians seem to think its their duty to police the world and to make all believe as they do, they can't seem to accept the fact that other people believe something they don't. That's why I chose a religion that respects the beliefs of others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok.... If you have no problem how others live their life, how about if the Hell's Angels sue a church for not letting them host their "event" whatever it may be? Do you think the church has the right to refuse? How about the neo-nazis renting a Knights of Columbus hall for their "events"? Most will agree, if the church refuses to have Hell's Angels in their church it is their right. If gays want the church, many of you will say it is oppression!!! Where is the line drawn? How long do you think it will be before they require schools to teach homosexuality in their sex ed courses?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have no problems with those caveats, because they're not "oppression" oppression is stopping someone from doing something, those actions would only change the venue, not the outcome.