Majority Of Catholics Back Same-sex Marriage

[Littlefinger]

http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?i...79-C768C810232F

Environics survey of 2,018 Canadians between June 12 and July 6 :

Fifty-seven per cent of Catholics support same-sex marriages, while 40 per cent are opposed. Among Protestants, only 38 per cent support the concept and 58 per cent are opposed. Among all Canadians, the poll found a slim majority, 53 per cent, support same-sex marriage, while 43 per cent are opposed and three per cent are undecided.

Other results:

58% of women support

49% of men support

18-29 year olds:

65% in favour, 33% opposed

Over 60:

33% in favour, 64% opposed

Alberta:

37% in favour, 59% opposed

BC:

64% in favour, including 72% of Vancouverites

Liberal supporters:

61% in favour, 36% opposed

CA supporters:

29% in favour, 68% opposed

PC supporters:

43% in favour, 52% opposed

NDP supporters:

65% in favour, 32% opposed

Bloc supporters:

75% in favour, 25% opposed

[Neal.F.]

It'd be less deceptive if they'd be asking only those who attended mass regualrly, instead of those who call themselves Catholics and show up on Christmas and easter only, if at all.

[sir_springer]

In these days of "politically correct-ophobia" running amok among the masses...

I'm wondering how many people tell polsters what they really think.

Like I said before...

Within the privacy of a voting booth, being politically correct don't mean diddly.

*******

In today's Toronto Star:

Cauchon works to sway MPs

Same-sex issue divides Liberals

It's about equality, minister says

VALERIE LAWTON

OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—Justice Minister Martin Cauchon will stress equality rights during what's expected to be a raucous mid-August caucus meeting as he tries to win over backbenchers threatening to revolt against a government plan to allow same-sex marriage.

"This is an issue of equality for all Canadians; he's certainly going to mention that," Mike Murphy, the minister's spokesperson, said yesterday.

"We have a Charter of Rights in Canada, which is important to understand."

A Star poll of Ontario Liberals showed MPs are badly divided over the government's plan to redefine marriage and allow gays and lesbians to tie the knot.

The poll found 36 MPs who oppose the change and 32 MPs — the bulk of them cabinet members required to vote with the government — who support it. Another 11 MPs reached by the Star were undecided.

It suggests a close decision when MPs finally vote on legislation, likely next year.

The government has sent a draft bill to rewrite the definition of marriage to the Supreme Court for an opinion on whether it's constitutional.

The marriage debate is expected to be the hottest topic of debate at a Liberal caucus meeting that begins Aug. 18 in North Bay.

It's unclear what the government will do if MPs kill the legislation.

"We do not have a Plan B at this stage," Murphy said.

"The government has decided on what we believe is a balanced approach that recognizes the equality of Canadians and at the same time protects freedom of religion. It also takes into account the role of the courts and the role of Parliament."

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister also said it would be "premature" to talk about what happens if MPs succeed in blocking the bill.

However, the government will get a clearer picture of what that final vote will look like next month.

The Alliance plans to force a vote on a motion calling for the traditional definition of marriage to be maintained.

Most members of the Bloc Québécois and NDP favour same-sex marriage. The Tory caucus is split.

[Littlefinger]

Is it politically incorrect to oppose same-sex marriage? Just under half of Canadians do. I see no evidence that people feel pressured by society to say they support same-sex marriage. I don't think one can safely say that either position is more politically correct than the other. One appeals to equality and the other appeals to religious morals, both of which have their adherents in society.

It is much more likely that these poll results are accurate and social conservatives are in a state of denial.

[Ronda]

I don't really care for this topic but I would like to point out that the reasons for opposing same sex marriage are far more numerous than "religious morals". I really reject the idea that the only people who would oppose it are "religious nuts" or people (as Pellaken would say) who "get their morals from a book". I don't understand how points are made on a logical basis to oppose this move, and the answer is invariably something to do with not letting religion dictate morals. It's silliness. Religion is opposed to murder too, but we don't consider the law which prohibits murder to be religious fanaticism at work.

Ask Craig and Moderate Centrist, or me, for that matter. Read the billion other entries about gay marriage and you'd find that the reasons include more than religious dogma.

[Littlefinger]

Of course it's more than just religious dogma. I was just using that argument to show that it is not politically incorrect to oppose same-sex marriage; hence, there is no reason to believe that the results of the Environics survey are inaccurate.

[Neal.F.]

The headline is anti-catholic spin. They are lumping non believing, non racticing catholics in there, calling them catholics, the implication being that the Church is out of step with its members....

It won't matter a whit though, since the Christmas and Easter & non-practicing types are not the ones who show up every week and place a little envelope in the basket.

The Article and its headline are clearly attempting to discredit the church as a voice and participant in civic life.

[westcoast99]

You don't have to go to church every week to be a "real Catholic" or "real Anglican".

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Black Dog]

Catholic doctrine is that once a Catholic, always a Catholic (barring excommunication and so forth) So someone like me, a baptised, confirmed and raised Catholic who hasn't set foot in Church in years (and wouldn't go back unless forced to at gunpoint) is still considered a Catholic.

The Article and its headline are clearly attempting to discredit the church as a voice and participant in civic life.

Oh, I'd say the Church has done a far better job discrediting itself than any of its opponents ever could.

[Lost in Manitoba]

As an institution the Catholic Church specifically, and Churches in general, probably have the worst record of sexual abuses in history. They really shouldn't try to take the moral high ground.

[Ronda]

Yeah, absolutely, Lost. In fact, it's all a front. The saints, the churches, the Pope... heck, even Christ himself! It's all a scam cos Catholics really hate gays (and blacks and women) and love sexual abuse. Why don't you get real?

While you're at it, since you expect everyone who disagrees with you to actually research a topic before making a broad statement, why not give it a try yourself? Hey, using your logic, maybe the priests who have abused people were feeling stigmatised and ostracised by hate-mongers like you and were just acting out... you know, like how a little brother does to a big brother bully?

[Lost in Manitoba]

OOOOOOH.

Lets just take the last century. Can you name one other institution, just one, that has been involved in as many sexual abuse allegations or charges as the Church?

I'm not implying that the faith itself is corrupt, just the institution. I'm also not implying that the Church doesn't do many, many good things for humanity, such as schools and hospitals. What I am saying is that for an institution that has been plagued with child rapists to come out and condemn homosexualls and to deny them any sort of equallity is nothing more than hypocracy.

Remember, just name one.

[Ronda]

I want you to stop making massive generalisations, Lost. That's what it boils down to. The "institution" is not to blame for cases of sexual abuse that have happened within the Church. You accuse everyone else of being hate-filled and discriminatory and inflammatory etc. but here you sit with your very bigoted and prejudiced opinions about religion and religious people.

I love your moral relativist viewpoint, too, that the Church can not make any judgements on anyone's behaviour because all who are affiliated with the Church are not sinless. Your view of "any sort of equallity" (sic) is interesting as well. Yeah, you know... gays unable to vote, denied the right to live, unable to get jobs, the list goes on.

Oh, and an institution that is involved with sexual abuse, particularly of minors.... hmm... difficult... Oh wait! How about NAMBLA ? Hang on though... that's a gay rights group who are fighting against "ageism" and the freedom to have "consentual" sex with young boys. I guess that doesn't count. Sorry, I guess the only ones wanting to get it on with young boys are those perverted (non-homosexual, of course) Catholics.

And here's an interesting quote from a homosexual "boy lover" from the above mentioned website regarding this topic:

Of course, money plays a role in this too. This is very clear, for example, in the many scandals in the United States over sex between priests and youths, in which the Catholic church has paid out millions of dollars in an effort to resolve them. If, as has happened frequently in these scandals, (1) the boy came back regularly over a period of years in order to have sex with the priest, and (2) the "victim" waited twenty to thirty years before denouncing the priest, one is entitled to wonder whether his motive was not financial above all; and if there is a sense of guilt, it results mainly from the medieval and hypocritical attitude of the church, and not automatically, nor necessarily, from the sexual relationship itself.

Basically, a homosexual's opinion that the "abuse" is in many cases "intergenerational man-boy love" and that the sex itself was more to do with homosexuality than Catholicism. A different opinion, I suppose.

[Lost in Manitoba]

I apologise for the generalisations Ronda. And you are of course right that the institution, the Church, is not responsiblle for the individual actions of the priests who commit sexual abuse. Ultimately the guilt is on the individual.

I don't think the comparison of NAMBLA to the Church works though. A priest is in a position of power and authority, much like a teacher or a coach. There is an absolute trust put on him by the parents and the community. And so when that trust is broken, the crime becomes even more dispicable. NAMBLA may be a bunch of perverts, but they are openly perverts who are trying to go through the acceptable channells to get the laws changed, such as courts and gov't.

Obviously this topic is of interest to us all, otherwise we wouldn't be running so may threads on it right now. I have no real vested interest in the outcome of gay marriage rights. My life will not change one bit, yay or nay.

I do however have a problem with close minded religious sheep. Going to the bible to interpret right or wrong is no better than muslim radicals making sharia laws, and I'm determined not to ever live in that sort of society. If you want to live your life according to your traditions than thank your lucky stars that you live in a country that appreciates individual freedoms.

[Pellaken]

I do however have a problem with close minded religious sheep. Going to the bible to interpret right or wrong is no better than muslim radicals making sharia laws, and I'm determined not to ever live in that sort of society.

exactly! that's what I've been saying for a while now.

[Black Dog]

I want you to stop making massive generalisations, Lost. That's what it boils down to. The "institution" is not to blame for cases of sexual abuse that have happened within the Church. You accuse everyone else of being hate-filled and discriminatory and inflammatory etc. but here you sit with your very bigoted and prejudiced opinions about religion and religious people.

The institution facilitated the actions of abusers in the Church by covering up allegations of abuse, moving pedophile priests from paqrish to parish with full knowledge of their deeds. That's a cold, hard fact, not ageneralization. People who had the power to put a stop to the actions of these perverts didn't and now they expect to be taken seriously as an arbiter of morality? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. It may be unfair to judge an institution on the actions of a few of its members, but that's how it goes. It's callled credibility and when the Church covers up sexual abuse of minors on one hand and then condemns relationships between consenting adults on the other, credibility is something they don't have.

As for NAMBLA, that's a straw man that has no bearing on the issue of the Catholic Church vs. homosexuality. (That said, I think NAMBLA is disgusting and wish more mainstream gay rights organizations would step up their condemnation of that group But that's a discussion for another time).

[FastNed]

I'm 100 % with you on this one, Black Dog, the Bishops and Red Caps were so busy and concerned about protecting the "image" of the Clergy of the Church that they neglected to protect the Children of the Church.

For a number of reasons, I'm not sure any great credence can be given to this survey.

First, there now has been a statement from the Pope on this very subject to remind them of the tenets of the faith.

Second, we have no knowledge of the wording of the questions which produce these results. I rather doubt they were asked: "Should Gays have a right to receive the sacrament of marriage on the altar of your church?" I suspect there would have been different percentages were that the question asked.

Last, there are many people (like myself) quite fed up with intrusive survey takers. If we can't stop them from bothering us, we most certainly can mess up their results by giving false data.

[Ronda]

Black dog,

I'm on my way to work so I don't have a lot of time. Let me say that I accept your point about the Church and how they should've put a stop to the things that were going on within some parishes. Granted. However, this does not mean that all their teachings are useless or that the Church now has no right to speak out about moral issues. I would also point out that gay groups not VOCALLY discrediting NAMBLA and in fact, allying with them in some cases, damages the gay credibility. Not to mention the groups themselves and their wishes to legalize public sex amongst other things and Gay Pride. (Have you been?? I have, and it made me sick.) I find it hard to believe that these are the uncontested spokespeople of gays and yet, we're meant to believe that their "lifestyle" is no different from heterosexuals.

[Black Dog]

I find it hard to believe that these are the uncontested spokespeople of gays and yet, we're meant to believe that their "lifestyle" is no different from heterosexuals.

I thought you didn't like people making judgements on groups based on the actions of a few of its members.

[Lost in Manitoba]

'not VOCALLY discrediting NAMBLA'

I was actually thinking of this earlier on today, Ronda. It would go a long way for PR for various mainstream gay groups to speak loudly against NAMBLA or legalized public sex. In the public perception, I think, Many people associate all gays with this kind of hedonism or perversion. I truly doubt that support of NAMBLA is commonplace among the gay community but thats only my opinion; a vocal campaign would reassure me that my faith is not misplaced.

Looking at it from another side though. Not all the denominations of Christianity actively pay attention to each other, nor do they often criticize each other. The Anglican bishops didn't actively denounce the Catholics for the molestations and their subsequent cover-ups. Or, There's plenty of 'whacko' Christian sects whose ideas are bizzarre and extremist, at best, and yet you don't see a lot of activism against them by other Churchs. I think it boils down to is, though there is a gay culture around, homosexualls aren't part of a union with little cards. They don't vote at meetings or have a shop steward to speak for them. (come to think of it, heterosexualls don't have any of that either. I hope the neighbor's trailer-park personallity doesn't reflect bad on me.)

[Ronda]

I pretty much agree with you there, Lost, and I feel the same way, for the most part. I will say that I know quite a few gay people and most of them ARE hedonistic and perverted though! I don't let it stand in the way of a friendship - I simply object to the societal reconditioning necessary to normalise this kind of behaviour and attitude. Perhaps this colours my viewpoint. For example, I don't know of a lot of gays who are against gay pride... and gay pride is quite lewd and disgusting, if you've ever been. When I hear a gay activist speak of pushing sexual limits within society and decriminalising public sex, I don't really see it as an isolated viewpoint because the gays I know support that view.

With regards to the different denominations of Churches, I see what you mean, but I don't know if I completely agree with that because while there may not have been a public denunciation by other denominations ( I honestly don't know), I am certain that if you ask any Christian or church-going person what they thought of that situation, they would condemn the behaviour. I have never met a gay person in my life who has expressed any dissatisfaction with gay pride or activism. NAMBLA has never come up, however on their website they mention acceptance by many mainstream gay activist groups.

[Lost in Manitoba]

'most of them ARE hedonistic and perverted though'

- I've always thought you can tell a lot about a person by the friends they choose to keep Truth be told, most of my friends are like that and by and large most of them are straight.

'I am certain that if you ask any Christian or church-going person what they thought of that situation, they would condemn the behaviour. I have never met a gay person in my life who has expressed any dissatisfaction with gay pride or activism'

My closest gay friend is a music Prof. at a University. He definitely isn't 'butch' but he claims to hate watching the faeries making fools of themselves. Maybe he's one of a kind, I dunno.

[Black Dog]

I will say that I know quite a few gay people and most of them ARE hedonistic and perverted though!

And most Christians I know are small-minded, ignorant bigots. That and a twonie will get you a cup of coffee.

[Ronda]

I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation in order to acheive some kind of a middle ground or at least greater understanding of different points of view, Blackdog. I'm not trying to throw stones around regarding which group of people is more fitting of stereotypes. I'm happy to leave our portion of the conversation with you thinking Christians are bigots and me thinking gays are perverts but that really doesn't accomplish much, does it?

[FastNed]

Hi Ronda, it is rather sad but what I see here is the same evolution as occurred with "racial" politics. 'Normal' Gays, 'straight' gays, 'non-extreme' gays (pick one) find the positions taken by the extreme gays to be more than a bit off the wall but because of a feeling of group solidarity, do not speak out against them and their extreme positions. The problem with this is that over time, the extreme voices are the only ones heard. And when these extreme demands go far beyond any reasonable common ground, they create far more opposition, encourage the growth of homophobia and reduce or eliminate opportunities for reasonable compromise.

The majority of us today understand that it is OK to hate the 'sin' but not the sinner. We understand that we have a right to our moral standards but that others are not obligated to share our views and/or morals. And we understand that the only body we own and can or should control is our own. What others choose to do in the areas of sex and reproduction is their choice limited only by questions of consent and adult status under our social compact and laws. A basis exists for a common ground where we can agree to disagree but can live and let live. To have this work, both sides must control and stifle their extremist elements.

Our bibles and religious works have defined homosexuality as a sin for several thousand years, they constitute the basis of our morals and lives and we will not accept attempts to define their content as Hate Speech. Neither will we accept or allow attempts to change our religious rites to force us to perform gay "marriages". To us that is the equivalent of our nut fringe that wants homosexuals burned at the stake. But if the Gay Rights movement continues to push to have our religious tracts defined and prosecuted as Hate Speech and our churches de-consecrated by the performance of gay "marriage" ceremonies, then perhaps our appropriate response is to unleash our extreme elements and begin to pass the kindling wood. We can find a common ground and live in peace or have warfare. Pick one!