Marriage & Family Under Attack.

[FastNed]

The Family, the basic unit of our Western Culture is under attack by a coalition of radical feminists, gay rights advocates and (to be charitable) gullible politicians. Their goal has been hidden by misdirection and 'spun' by wordsmiths to be an issue of simple fairness and individual rights for Gays. The true objective is the destruction of the traditional marriage relationship and the related concept of "Family". The State is to redefine the concept of "Marriage" and "Family" under the guise of civil rights for individuals of this or that persuasion (or perversion, take your pick) and use the hammer of the Law with the stated intent of enforcing civil rights, to force our religious institutions to perform "marriage" ceremonies against the tenets of our various faiths. The State will force a revision of our religious dogma under the guise of 'civil rights'. That any North American politician believes this can be done without open civil and religious armed revolt is beyond belief. It is most likely that they are so concentrated in chasing this or that interest group for contributions and votes that they do not comprehend the complete agenda to which they give their support.

By insisting on a concentration on relationships and rights, with no moral judgements allowed, they seek through misdirection and concentration on "civil rights' to destroy the basis of our society and erode and negate our religious freedoms. For those of you saying, "Oh no, that can't happen here" please read the Law Commission Report "Beyond Conjugality" which you can find

HERE

Whatever "Marriage" may mean to others, to me it is an act of my religion, the creation of a relationship in the eyes of God and one that is blessed under the religious dogma of my faith. Any politician who elects to interject himself into my Church to interfer with that relationship does so at his own risk.

The State has the power to create and define civil relationships. Fine, feel free to create any such that you can find the votes to pass or, let the Courts create them. That the religious term marriage has been used to describe civil relationships does not and can not allow the State to dictate the dogma and practices of my religion or any other. Marriage is a religious rite and the State must keep its hands off!

Consenting adults should be free to do whatever they wish in private. They have that right as I have a right to hold a moral opinion of their conduct. Neither I or anyone has the right to request that the State impose our religious moral views on any other but the obverse of that is also true: they can not use the State to force a revision of our religious beliefs and practices.

[Pellaken]

People and Freedom, under attack.

The Individual, the root unit of our Western Culture is under attack by a coalition of radical christians, regressive and traditional rights activists and (to be charitable) gullible politicians.

from this post, I'd have to say that you qualify somewhere in this group.

[Pellaken]

to add:

if the state and the church is seperate, then

A-marriage must be totally re-written, since its based on christian tradition

I sugguest the government takes all documents relating to marriage, hits ctl+c then ctl+v (copy and paste)

therefore

B-gay legal unions, under any name, have no reason NOT to be allowed.

[Ronda]

Pellaken.

You are not talking about individual freedom. You are talking about social engineering. Do you really not understand that "re-writing marriage" and stripping society of anything that is religious in its roots is being more of a control freak than you're claiming "religious fundamentalists" are?

Nobody is telling gay people or siblings or adult partners of any stripe that they may not live together, raise kids together, etc.etc. There is no freedom trampling. Wanting recognition for something you aren't doing, ie. getting married isn't the same as having a basic individual right. Calling your relationship that which it isn't does not involve securing an individual freedom.

If that's the case, I was unable to attend university and I don't want to because I don't like what they're teaching but I notice that those with university education get better jobs and have a higher social standing than myself. This is discrimination. I'm intelligent and have done quite a lot of individual learning. Why should I not have the benefits of someone with a stupid piece of paper? After all, some uni grads are dumb as rocks anyway. I want my diploma. Now.

[Pellaken]

you get treated differently if your married

check any government document that asks you questions. one is always "are you married?"

if marriage IS based on religion, then, due to the seperation of church and state, all benifits should be erased.

either we ALL get married, or NONE of us get married. saying that some of us can and some of us cant is the real social-engenering. we are just trying to stop it.

[Ronda]

Bull.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Because the government asks if ppl are married, that makes it a "right"? There's a stigma attached to NOT being married now?? Tell that to the plethora of singles out there. Hetero and homo. Quick, go out and get married before someone.... what, eggs your house? Strings you up?

Why don't you re-read my example about the university diploma. Either we all have them or we all don't.

And again, since it's not getting into your head for some reason... gays CAN marry. Nobody is saying that "class" of people may not marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex who is not related to them and is of age etc. etc. Just like you. So, guess what, Pellaken, if your "true love" is your sister or your aunt, tough crap for you. You can't marry her. Travesty, isn't it.

[Ronda]

Oh, and as for the State not interfering with "religious freedom" ... here's an article from 365gay.com:

http://www.365gay.com/NewsContent/080203ir...rishPriests.htm

"Priests and bishops are being warned by the Irish government that they face charges if they distribute the Vatican's denouncement of gay marriage.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) said Friday that priests who quote sections of the document, hand it out, or send it to politicians or other citizens could be prosecuted under Ireland's strict incitement to hatred legislation."

Now, who was it (Aidan, I'm looking at you) who was insisting that governmental cheerleading of homosexuality will not at all erode religious freedom? And just so we're clear... should a "religious" person be allowed to beat a gay person to death? Absolutely not. But to say that the behaviour is unhealthy, unnatural, un-Godly, whatever? Or to simply publish a statement from the Vatican?? Come on.

[KrustyKidd]

"Married" on a questionaire? Havn't seen that one so far. Seen "In case of emergency" and "NOK" but not that.

I understand Pellaken and his desire to have gays counted as full majority citizens but he must also realize that all situations are different.

The government gets a quick fix from minority causes. (Read Craig's initial post.) The gay marrige issue is not an issue, they are simply a hanger on to a whole list of immigrants, Francophones, working women, animal activists, anti smokers, pro smokers (MJ acivists), MADD and so on and forth. They don't care for the people, only the votes.

Congratulations, gays are now legal. Big deal. Just like Craig said, it is only an errosion of the traditional moral foundations upon which the basic unit is founded on. Good for gays? No it is not. The reason why is that they are simply on the errosion train now. Nothing means anything. If they had the backing of normal people then over time it would reach a stage where it was something that would last. However, as it is, nobody takes it seriously except the Government, you know, the ones who make legal gun owners criminals and criminal MJ possesors legal . To anybody that cares to look at questionaires that ask if you are married. They then look at spouses name and see the name of a guy (if you are a man and woman if you are a woman) and go hmmmm, it means you are a freak and a homo. Nothing has changed except gaining the resentment of the silent majority. The ones that counted you as a fellow citizen in the first place.

Nothing like a government to tell us right from wrong. Mind control? I used to hate gays, pot smokers and terrorists. Now I hate farmers with duck hunting tools (410 shotguns) cigarette smokers, Presidents of countries that we depend on for our livelyhood and all polititions that are not corrupt. Funny world.

[Pellaken]

I can live with gay legal unions.

I can live with consentual poligomy.

I, obviously unlike you guys, think that adults can make up their own minds, and dont need some book or government to tell them what to and not to do.

[FastNed]

Pellaken, you just touched upon what I suspect should be our approach to a solution to this "marriage" controversy.

Now lets get candid about why this is such an explosive issue. Time after time, we have seen the claim of civil rights & other 'legal' rights used to push one of these issues way beyond anything that is reasonable. Many of us see this "marriage" issue ultimately being used to force the doors of our Churches open and being used to force our Ministers and Priests to perform acts contrary to the tenets of our faith. The State can not be used to force a change in our religious faith, not without a great deal of civil unrest and, at least here in America, a very real possibility of armed resistance.

That is the reality and it is why there is serious talk of a constitutional amendment here in America.

Western civilization, and thus our Nations were built on the Judeo-Christian ethos. Marriage, to a Jew, a Catholic or a Christian is a religious act and relationship and each of these religions has criteria/dogma which must be met if you wish a Rabbi, Priest or Minister to officiate. Non religious alternatives are available performed by Justices of the Peace, City/Town Clerks or whatever and until now, the ceremony has been called a "marriage".

I believe we are now forced to define "marriage" as a religious union and create a "civil union" for all others. Those that claim this would have an inferior legal status can be answered with a simple Statute/Law that establishes that any legal reference to "Marriage" shall now by definition mean "Marriage and/or Civil Union". Trust me, the legalities of this situation are the easy part.

Would this change the moral issues - absolutely not. But the State should not be used to impose anyone's moral views on others any more than the State can be used to force a change in the tenets of my faith. What other consenting adults wish to do in private is none of my business, what the State establishes as conditions for a civil union is a matter for the voters and people of each jurisdiction and if those of my faith believe it to be immoral, that is our personal, private religious right but others are free to hold different opinions.

So you see, Pellaken, it is not a matter of homophobia but rather a question of my religious rights which I wish to preserve.

[Ronda]

That's funny, Pellaken. You seem pretty sure that the government should tell people how to live and spend their money. Read every other post you've ever written for confirmation.

Why are you so sure that people against gay marriage get their "morals" or indeed every thought that enters their head from a book, anyway?? It's getting really old. I am capable of thought, Pellaken and I think gay marriage is a BAD idea for numerous well thought out and documented reasons posted elsewhere. All you keep saying is that others get their thoughts from a book and EVERYONE should get married. Period. Great comeback. Very thought provoking. Please back up your arguments with facts or at least logic, besides "people can do what they want" - stop and think of the well of arguments that can be posted against that for a moment... I mean, what are you suggesting now, anarchy?? You lurch from

Stalin-esque welfare schemes to total unbridled individualistic hedonism and lawlessness? Please.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Neddy, you summed it up. I've always thought that common-law marriage was less than the real thing. Want the benifits, the recognition, but can't be bothered to go to the courthouse and sign a piece of paper.

I've always felt that a marriage done ala Clerk,JP, Judge, or Captain was best, and had value to civic responsibillity and pride (believing religion and state are unmixable).

The realm of religious marriage should be left to the practioners of that religion. In the end, the religious marriage must be approved and certified by the state anyway.

[Pellaken]

"Many of us see this "marriage" issue ultimately being used to force the doors of our Churches open and being used to force our Ministers and Priests to perform acts contrary to the tenets of our faith. "

bull sh*t

I heard on CTV, which has quite a bit of right-wing propaganda, that the government's bill will allow any church that does not want to do so, to not do so.

I beleive that any 2 consenting adults that want to enter into a union from which they will reveive the benifits of any other 2 consenting adults. call it marriage, call it civil unions, call it ;dsklfhsa;d if you really want to. the point is that the government has no business telling 2 people that they cannot join in legal union, while telling 2 other people that they can. its time the government got out of the bedrooms of this country.

[Neal.F.]

Do I have to spell it out for you?

Sure the legislation will say that religious denominations will not be required to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, but as sure as God made little green apples, The day after the gay marriage bill becomes law, a homosexual couple will walk into an evangelical or Catholic Church and DEMAND to be married. When it is explained to them that the denomination in question does not recognize such unions as marriage, they will pick up their cellphones anc call their lawyers, who will file a discrimination suit, which, i assure you , has already been prepared.

The Liberal courts will then say "You're right. Any denomination who will not "marry" homosexual couples is guilty of discrimination, and is required to perform the ceremony".

Make no mistake about. their in society...forever.

By going aftyer gay marriage, they are trying to destroy one of the church's most important sacraments, by making it utterly worthless.

And Bill C-250 , though it says it will not intrude on churches, trust me, once it becomes law, the gay lobby will file suit to have the Bible and other religious texts that speak negatively against homosexuality as hate literature. And I think the courts will agree.

Remember two things: We no longer have a democracy in this country. We are now ruled by politically appointed judges.

The other thing to remember is that 10 years ago, anyone talking about gay marriage would have been considered way out in the firnges of left field...on the warning track, in foul territory... wasn't it only 5 years ago that Parliament reaffirmed the definition of marriage as being between a union of one man, and one woman, not currently married to another, and not more closely related than first cousins?

Bearing in mind the above, book banning may seem inconceivable today, but 5 years from now, we may very well be asked to turn in our Bibles, Qu'rans, Torahs etc. And no doubt the government will create an expensive bureaucracy to carry it out.

[Ronda]

call it marriage, call it civil unions, call it ;dsklfhsa;d if you really want to.

No. Call it anything BUT marriage. You cannot call it something which it is not. That is where I have my main issue. A marriage is a man and a woman. The man is the groom and the husband and generally goes on to be the father. The woman is the bride and the wife and generally goes on to be the mother. That's the way it is.

If I walk into a Church, or city hall to get married and tell them I'd rather be referred to as the husband and I'd prefer to be called Paul instead of Ronda, they'd look at me like I was nuts and they wouldn't do it. When gays get married, one may call themselves "bride" or "bridegroom" - (which actually means "groom" anyway) and the other may be the groom or they're both the groom. Who's the "wife", who's the "husband"?? If they have kids already or they adopt, who's mommy? Are they both mommy or daddy??

You get my point. Re-defining marriage is calling something that which it isn't. There should be some distinction. That's what language does for people... defines things in terms that we understand. It would be like me noticing that men get special treatment in some areas and insisting that since I am an EQUAL citizen, I should be allowed to call myself a man too, and be referred to as one. We all should. Or a black person calling themselves white due to perceived preferential treatment for whites. It's stupid. Is it a "segregation era, seperate but equal-style action" to even call women women or blacks black??

Having gays get married and be married with no difference at all alluded to from straight couples, it implies a sameness that does not exist. Gays can be EQUAL citizens without redefining words and entering into an exclusive institution that will continue to be "discriminatory" after it is redefined to include them anyway.

[Hugo]

Neal,

I absolutely agree with you. For those who don't think it's possible, I'd remind them that history is replete with examples of states leaning on and oppressing organised religion, from Romans throwing Christians to the lions, through the Avignon Papacy, to the Third Reich's oppression of both Christianity and especially Judaism, Serbian persecution of Muslims, and so on.

It will happen again unless a change is made. I can see the PC-police turning this nation into another late Roman Empire, praising hedonism and self-indulgement above all else, despising virtue and oppressing sincerely-held religion. You can already see the seeds of this, now turned saplings.

[Neal.F.]

"You can already see the seeds of this, now turned saplings"

Yes Hugo, and I think it's high time we did some serious clear-cutting, before tree-huggers like Svend and his NDP boys spike the trees.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Unwilling to change, or revise old traditions...

The Roman Catholic church was the traditional and true church of the faith. Then those deviants came along with their filthy ideas and started the bastard protestant traditions.

[Hugo]

The Church, even the Roman Catholic, is not completely closed to new ideas and reform, and was not even in the Middle Ages, as the Catholic Reformation and the Council of Trento (1545-1563) bear witness.

The Catholic Church is, however, cautious about carelessly embracing new ideas simply because they are said to be new and progressive, and you would be wise to do the same. Marxism was once a new and progressive idea, too, as was trephining with neolithic tools, radium facial hair removal and the will to power. Just because an idea is new and progressive does not make it great, and just because something is traditional and time-honoured does not make it irrelevant or useless. Each idea has to be considered on its own merit. Taking into account the scientific, moral, medical and sociological windows on homosexuality I can't see how embracing it could be considered a good idea at all.

It's also incorrect to assume that anybody opposing homosexual endorsement is either religious, or simply being mindlessly dictated to by scripture and clergy. People on this very forum have disproven both points. We have had atheist views on why homosexual marriage is not a good idea, as we have had scientific, sociological and medical evidence to reach the same conclusion. To say that those opposed are blind and unthinking simply illustrates those characteristics in you.

[Pellaken]

Do I have to spell it out for you?

Sure the legislation will say that religious denominations will not be required to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals, but as sure as God made little green apples, The day after the gay marriage bill becomes law, a homosexual couple will walk into an evangelical or Catholic Church and DEMAND to be married. When it is explained to them  that the denomination in question does not recognize such unions as marriage, they will pick up their cellphones anc call their lawyers, who will file a discrimination suit, which, i assure you , has already been prepared.

The Liberal courts will then say "You're right. Any denomination who will not "marry" homosexual couples is guilty of discrimination, and is required to perform the ceremony".

Make no mistake about. their in society...forever.

By going aftyer gay marriage, they are trying to destroy one of the church's most important sacraments, by making it utterly worthless.

And Bill C-250 , though it says it will not intrude on churches, trust me, once it becomes law, the gay lobby will file suit to have the Bible and other religious texts that speak negatively against homosexuality as hate literature. And I think the courts will agree.

Remember two things: We no longer have a democracy in this country. We are now ruled by politically appointed judges.

The other thing to remember is that 10 years ago, anyone talking about gay marriage would have been considered way out in the firnges of left field...on the warning track, in foul territory... wasn't it only 5 years ago that Parliament reaffirmed the definition of marriage as being between a union of one man, and one woman, not currently married to another, and not more closely related than first cousins?

Bearing in mind the above, book banning may seem inconceivable today, but 5 years from now, we may very well be asked to turn in our Bibles, Qu'rans, Torahs etc. And no doubt the government will create an expensive bureaucracy to carry it out.

if any of those actions are taken, I will fight it will all of my will.

I belive in the freedom of 2 consenting adults to do whatever they want

including, to beleive in whatever religion they want to

as well as the freedom for each religion to decide what it can and cannot do.

if we allow one freedom to cancel another freedom, then we have no freedom at all.

No. Call it anything BUT marriage. You cannot call it something which it is not. That is where I have my main issue. A marriage is a man and a woman. The man is the groom and the husband and generally goes on to be the father. The woman is the bride and the wife and generally goes on to be the mother. That's the way it is.

whew

for a moment there I thought you would replace "that's the way it is" with "that's the way it has always been, and that's the way it always will be"

I think someone used that argument against stopping slavery... or was it giving women rights? either way, the bible is opposed to both

[FastNed]

Pellaken, at best you are naif.

The Saskatoon StarPhoenix has run Gay ads and Gay Personals. In 1999, it ran an ad which cited biblical quotations against homosexuality. Three gay men found it "hateful" that the bible had been quoted in this fashion so they filed a "Hate Speech" complaint with the Human Rights Commission. See here.

Need I tell you the outcome?

[Craig Read]

Ned, you hit the nail on the head. The separation of powers is under attack.

If the politicos who want to buy votes and appear 'enlightened' want to redefine marriage they must follow their own vaunted due process:

1. Define in great detail the differences between a Civil and Church sanctioned marriage.

2. Define the rights associated with Civil vs. Religious marriages.

3. Ask Parliament to debate this issue and whether or not Marriage law should be rewritten.

4. Put any changes to a referendum.

This would be healthy, legal and valid.

Instead we have Judges and pious little Politicians flapping their lips about 'rights', 'humanity', 'equality'.

The redefinition of what is a family is a massive societal change.

As I said before I have not heard one argument that Homosexual behaviour is natural.

It is a societal induced phenomenon and just one more example of the destruction of the Western Liberal tradition as people are blitzed by the media that deviant behaviour is not only lawful but should be rewarded.

This is a nonsense and a dangerous one at that. As many others like Ronda and Neal point out - where does it end ???

[Neal.F.]

Where does it end?

I'll tell you.

re-education camps. Not barbed wire fence, but actaul attempts at brainwashing.

If you think I'm out in left field, in the Canadian civil service, you are required to attend "sensitivity training" as part of the job. And anyone who says the slightes tthing which a homosexual thinks belittles homosexuals in any way, back they go, for more "sensitivity training"

How long before EGALE and their ilk insist on it for everyone? Some soineless companies in the private sector are now doing this.

[Lost in Manitoba]

We had sensitivity training in the USN as well. We all took anger management and alcohol awareness courses too. What's the big deal? The sensitivity training deals with sexual harassment and racial intollerance as well.

[Neal.F.]

Lost,

I don't see what right the government, or a corporation has to impose its version of mind control on me.

You see, what it all comes down to is whose agenda is going to pushed here. You would not want an employer that imposed a mandatory Bible study, and you would be right to oppose it.

Therefore no employer has the right to mandate that one must attend "sensitivity training" "anger manangement" or any other pop-psych politically correct course they might want to offer.