Same-Sex Marriage

[fellowtraveller]

But with a name like normanchateau which = French with a home province like Quebec which has the highest population of Roman Catholics in Canada, I wouldn't really be calling anyone else a religious nut unless of course that person has a personal vendetta against religion in general which is certaintly a tragic situation.

Not only is that a nasty and bigoted statement, it is incorrect.

While a relatively high proportion of Catholics, Quebec also has the lowest % of church attendance in Canada. Quebec is the most secular province in Canada.

[BubberMiley]

How strange, Bubber, that you claim to have no religious ties and at the same time express comments showing that you feel superior to religious people, who 'join' religions so as to feel superior to others. You have some issues! Or maybe you're just bitter about the Tory win tonight. Nah, you have some issues.

I don't feel superior to anybody Sharkman. I just point out self-righteousness when I see it, and it's rampant among people who call themselves christians but aren't really because all they want is to have a doctrine to back them up while they criticize others. And I'm happy with the Tory "win" because it (Thank gawd) wasn't a majority. Stephen Harper will likely be PM for a shorter time than Paul Martin.

[Leafless]

fellowtraveller

You wrote- " Not only is that a nasty and bigoted statement, it is incorrect. While a relitively high proportion of Catholics, Quebec also has the lowest church attendence in Canada. Quebec is the most secular province in Canada."

Nasty and bigoted to hit back on someone labelling the Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper a religious nut?

Statistics concerning religion is what religion you identify yourself as being part of --not if you go to church or are actively participating in whatever religion you belong to.

BTW- Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario provide funding for the Roman Catholic school system and for the public secular education system.

[BubberMiley]

What's wrong with calling Harper a religious nut? He's religious isn't he?

[fixer1]

To repy to those who feel I used "thay and their " too much. It is because I am not part of the gay community that I used the words in these respects. as for myself goes, I do not care what the definition of marriage is. I lived many years common law and then was married civilly. I will say though that to many the change in the official definition of marriage would go against their religious values.

I am married because I chose to do it. I am straight because I chose to be that way. I am here because I chose to be here. These are just things we choose to do and be, just as others choose to be gay. I am all for gay people being able to marry civilly, but just as I can not force a Catholic Church to marry me or for that matter any church that does not want to, then neither should gay people expect to be able. for the rest of the world to change the definition of marriage just to make one group happy is also then preferred treatment.

I can pretty much say that I am now more decided that SSM is just one of semantics. I have only a few gay friends, but they pretty much are more then happy that they can now marry civilly, and could not care about the difinition of marriage. I also must say that after looking at my civil ceremony documents I have a civil union, but a signed marriage certificate. So I guess I am not officially married by religious views as well.

[BubberMiley]

I am straight because I chose to be that way. I am here because I chose to be here. These are just things we choose to do and be, just as others choose to be gay.

If you actually believe being straight was a choice you made, I would question whether you really are.

[Hicksey]

I am straight because I chose to be that way. I am here because I chose to be here. These are just things we choose to do and be, just as others choose to be gay.

If you actually believe being straight was a choice you made, I would question whether you really are.

People are raised to be straight. They don't know any better until they're of age. Most try hetero first and decide they don't like it and then try homo and decide they like it. A choice is a choice is a choice.

To this day it baffles me as to why people would deny this. They made a choice. It's not one I would or could make, but so what?! I don't care what 5% of the population does in their bedrooms as long as I don't have to watch them parading down my main street or if they force the choice of 5% on the whole. I expect them to be proud of who they are, and I even think that even though I don't agree with their choice, there are certain inalienable rights. But to walk in and disrespect 2000 years of tradition, that's a different story. I'm perfectly willing to respect their beliefs/rights, so why then can't they respect mine?

[tml12]

What's wrong with calling Harper a religious nut? He's religious isn't he?

Are you so left-wing that everyone who is religious is a nut??? :angry:

[sharkman]

It looks like a lot of bitter Liberals and NDPers are trying to work out their grief after last night's Tory win. Go ahead, take pot shots at Harper, Christians and any other group you like to nurse a grudge against. Once you get over yourselves, you'll be much more pleasant to have discussions with and treat people as you would like to be treated.

[Trudeau Enthusiast]

Hey everyone, I am a strong supporter of Same Sex Marriage. I read a few posts ago tml12 post this;

tml12 If you believe marriage is a religious institution, then that is why (non religious people be denied the right to marry).

I strongly disagree with that statement. I am a Christian (Anglican), so obviously I believe marriage to be a religious institution. Yet I think non-religious people have the same right as religious people to get married. I am straight, but I also believe that homosexual people have the same equal right to get married. I believe that two people who are truly in love are genderless in God's eyes.

Anyway, this is my first post and I wasn't sure about how to quote someone (and, in fear of looking daft right off the bat, I just copied and pasted (sorry if that is internet-taboo!)).

Any response to my post would be appreciated!

[Hicksey]

Hey everyone, I am a strong supporter of Same Sex Marriage. I read a few posts ago tml12 post this;

tml12 If you believe marriage is a religious institution, then that is why (non religious people be denied the right to marry).

I strongly disagree with that statement. I am a Christian (Anglican), so obviously I believe marriage to be a religious institution. Yet I think non-religious people have the same right as religious people to get married. I am straight, but I also believe that homosexual people have the same equal right to get married. I believe that two people who are truly in love are genderless in God's eyes.

Anyway, this is my first post and I wasn't sure about how to quote someone (and, in fear of looking daft right off the bat, I just copied and pasted (sorry if that is internet-taboo!)).

Any response to my post would be appreciated!

And religions exclusively define marriage as between a man and a woman.

It's the government that's taken the word marriage for itself and bastardized it. Traditionalists like me believe that it is an insult to 2000 years of tradition and that should the government want to enter into the marriage business they should respect its traditions. However, I am not of the mind that government can't offer unions unsanctioned by the church and define them as they please and even bequeath upon the participants the same rights within the relationship as those of the participants in a marriage.

[BubberMiley]

Are you so left-wing that everyone who is religious is a nut??? :angry:

My views on religion have nothing to do with my economic views. A lot of very religious people are very left wing (some of them even the self-righteous kind) and I know at least one atheist libertarian CPCer. But I think pretty much everyone is nuts, especially including me, so don't take it too terribly serious if I talk about religious nuts (unless I mean balls).

[tml12]

Are you so left-wing that everyone who is religious is a nut??? :angry:

My views on religion have nothing to do with my economic views. A lot of very religious people are very left wing (some of them even the self-righteous kind) and I know at least one atheist libertarian CPCer. But I think pretty much everyone is nuts, especially including me, so don't take it too terribly serious if I talk about religious nuts (unless I mean balls).

OK then...all is forgiven...

[tml12]

Hey everyone, I am a strong supporter of Same Sex Marriage. I read a few posts ago tml12 post this;

tml12 If you believe marriage is a religious institution, then that is why (non religious people be denied the right to marry).

I strongly disagree with that statement. I am a Christian (Anglican), so obviously I believe marriage to be a religious institution. Yet I think non-religious people have the same right as religious people to get married. I am straight, but I also believe that homosexual people have the same equal right to get married. I believe that two people who are truly in love are genderless in God's eyes.

Anyway, this is my first post and I wasn't sure about how to quote someone (and, in fear of looking daft right off the bat, I just copied and pasted (sorry if that is internet-taboo!)).

Any response to my post would be appreciated!

TRUDEAU ENTHUSIAST!!!

You have asked me a question and I would be most obliged to respond.

I am not denying any people the right to marry. I am not a member of any clergy so I do not have the power to marry anyone. If your issue is that your Christian (you say Anglican) institution or my Christian (I am Catholic) refuses to marry gays then your issue is with them, not with me. After all, their organizations have the power to marry anyone according to their laws.

My argument is the STATE should not be in the business of marrying people. If we accept the separation of church and state, then we accept the state is not a religious institution that can impose religious laws, then we should accept that the state cannot marry people.

I hope this helps...if you have other issues with my opinion I would be happy to respond...

[mar]

TRUDEAU ENTHUSIAST!!!

You have asked me a question and I would be most obliged to respond.

I am not denying any people the right to marry. I am not a member of any clergy so I do not have the power to marry anyone. If your issue is that your Christian (you say Anglican) institution or my Christian (I am Catholic) refuses to marry gays then your issue is with them, not with me. After all, their organizations have the power to marry anyone according to their laws.

My argument is the STATE should not be in the business of marrying people. If we accept the separation of church and state, then we accept the state is not a religious institution that can impose religious laws, then we should accept that the state cannot marry people.

I hope this helps...if you have other issues with my opinion I would be happy to respond...

That would be a better argument if the institution of marriage did not pre-date Christianity. Babylon had purely civil mariage concerned entirely with property rights long before Christianity emerged, so why is that definition not the "traditional definition of marriage"?

As a technical matter in most Western countries, the state extends its right of legal association to churches only so far as they can perform ceremonies. Licensing is always handled by the state. In the Netherlands, the religious ceremony has no legal standing, so people have a civil ceremony and only a religious one if they choose. While people may claim they are married under God, Netherlands wants to see your signature on a binding legal document before they start doling out any marriage benefits

[JMH]

What I agreed with is the fact that the 'equal mariage law' exempted churches and other religious organisations from participating - so that the state was NOT forcing this law on those of faith.

Had the government not included this exemption, then I would oppose it.

BigGunner

You wrote- " I am in favour of it, because it's not up to goverrnment do define what my family structure is and if Dave and John want to be married, it's neither mine nor anyone elses buisness."

But that's the whole point, the government did get involved and made it THEIR BUISNESS.

Family structure must be upheld by all of society or we possibly could wind up all being bastards.

Unfortunately, radical gays decided to beat on church doors demanding marriage as opposed to civil unions.

Many of the clergy refused and it became a civil rights issue.

I'd be curious to know how many gay people exist in Canada. Any stats?

[tml12]

TRUDEAU ENTHUSIAST!!!

You have asked me a question and I would be most obliged to respond.

I am not denying any people the right to marry. I am not a member of any clergy so I do not have the power to marry anyone. If your issue is that your Christian (you say Anglican) institution or my Christian (I am Catholic) refuses to marry gays then your issue is with them, not with me. After all, their organizations have the power to marry anyone according to their laws.

My argument is the STATE should not be in the business of marrying people. If we accept the separation of church and state, then we accept the state is not a religious institution that can impose religious laws, then we should accept that the state cannot marry people.

I hope this helps...if you have other issues with my opinion I would be happy to respond...

That would be a better argument if the institution of marriage did not pre-date Christianity. Babylon had purely civil mariage concerned entirely with property rights long before Christianity emerged, so why is that definition not the "traditional definition of marriage"?

As a technical matter in most Western countries, the state extends its right of legal association to churches only so far as they can perform ceremonies. Licensing is always handled by the state. In the Netherlands, the religious ceremony has no legal standing, so people have a civil ceremony and only a religious one if they choose. While people may claim they are married under God, Netherlands wants to see your signature on a binding legal document before they start doling out any marriage benefits

I don't care whether you think my argument is good or not. Surely you should simply allow me to have the opinion that I have based on my beliefs and value systems.

I don't care what the Netherlands does. You have whorehouses and who knows what else on every block. Does that make it right?

No, overall your value structure defines who you are. I was not raised where such things wers acceptable.

I should edit this to add that I have nothing against different people, I am just asking that they do not impose their values on mine.

[mar]

Unfortunately, radical gays decided to beat on church doors demanding marriage as opposed to civil unions.

Many of the clergy refused and it became a civil rights issue.

I'd be curious to know how many gay people exist in Canada. Any stats?

Does it matter?

Either you accept that as Canadians we believe all citizens are equal under the Charter or you don't. It doesn't matter how many there are or whether we like them or even whether we approve.

A quick example for you. In the 1800's it was common practice for both british and french immigrants in canada to marry First Nations women. After awhile, both the Anglican and Catholic churches decided they didn't like this so they nullified all marriages saying that since the women were not baptized Christains early enough (they had to make it that way because most of them had converted to Christianity before or at the time of their marriage) the marriages were not valid. Many women were abandoned by their spouses.

So, would you accept this restriction to the Charter? Can a religion say, sorry we don't like you savages so we'll nullify your sacrements, the ones we performed?

There is an old saying "First they came for the gypsies but I wasn't a gypsey so I didn't care. Then they came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew so I didn't care. Then they came for the homosexuals but I wasn't a homosexual so I didn't care. Then they came for me but there was nobody left to care."

[Hicksey]

TRUDEAU ENTHUSIAST!!!

You have asked me a question and I would be most obliged to respond.

I am not denying any people the right to marry. I am not a member of any clergy so I do not have the power to marry anyone. If your issue is that your Christian (you say Anglican) institution or my Christian (I am Catholic) refuses to marry gays then your issue is with them, not with me. After all, their organizations have the power to marry anyone according to their laws.

My argument is the STATE should not be in the business of marrying people. If we accept the separation of church and state, then we accept the state is not a religious institution that can impose religious laws, then we should accept that the state cannot marry people.

I hope this helps...if you have other issues with my opinion I would be happy to respond...

That would be a better argument if the institution of marriage did not pre-date Christianity. Babylon had purely civil mariage concerned entirely with property rights long before Christianity emerged, so why is that definition not the "traditional definition of marriage"?

As a technical matter in most Western countries, the state extends its right of legal association to churches only so far as they can perform ceremonies. Licensing is always handled by the state. In the Netherlands, the religious ceremony has no legal standing, so people have a civil ceremony and only a religious one if they choose. While people may claim they are married under God, Netherlands wants to see your signature on a binding legal document before they start doling out any marriage benefits

I don't care whether you think my argument is good or not. Surely you should simply allow me to have the opinion that I have based on my beliefs and value systems.

I don't care what the Netherlands does. You have whorehouses and who knows what else on every block. Does that make it right?

No, overall your value structure defines who you are. I was not raised where such things wers acceptable.

I should edit this to add that I have nothing against different people, I am just asking that they do not impose their values on mine.

I can't think of a weaker argument than "they're doing it anyway, why not just accept it?"

Just because people decide to break the rules we've set for society doesn't mean we just ignore it or legalize it.

[tml12]

Unfortunately, radical gays decided to beat on church doors demanding marriage as opposed to civil unions.

Many of the clergy refused and it became a civil rights issue.

I'd be curious to know how many gay people exist in Canada. Any stats?

Does it matter?

Either you accept that as Canadians we believe all citizens are equal under the Charter or you don't. It doesn't matter how many there are or whether we like them or even whether we approve.

A quick example for you. In the 1800's it was common practice for both british and french immigrants in canada to marry First Nations women. After awhile, both the Anglican and Catholic churches decided they didn't like this so they nullified all marriages saying that since the women were not baptized Christains early enough (they had to make it that way because most of them had converted to Christianity before or at the time of their marriage) the marriages were not valid. Many women were abandoned by their spouses.

So, would you accept this restriction to the Charter? Can a religion say, sorry we don't like you savages so we'll nullify your sacrements, the ones we performed?

There is an old saying "First they came for the gypsies but I wasn't a gypsey so I didn't care. Then they came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew so I didn't care. Then they came for the homosexuals but I wasn't a homosexual so I didn't care. Then they came for me but there was nobody left to care."

That last quote is actually resentful to those who do not agree with gay marriage. You are supposing that if we don't agree with gay marriage the state will take gays to a concentration camp.

Not a fair argument. I have argued that we are no different and should be treated equally. You are arguing that, if I as a Catholic, define marriage as my religion does that I am being racist. No I do not think you are being fair.

You may define marriage as you wish. That is fine. But don't think you can impose your *opinions* on the rest of us...

[tml12]

TRUDEAU ENTHUSIAST!!!

You have asked me a question and I would be most obliged to respond.

I am not denying any people the right to marry. I am not a member of any clergy so I do not have the power to marry anyone. If your issue is that your Christian (you say Anglican) institution or my Christian (I am Catholic) refuses to marry gays then your issue is with them, not with me. After all, their organizations have the power to marry anyone according to their laws.

My argument is the STATE should not be in the business of marrying people. If we accept the separation of church and state, then we accept the state is not a religious institution that can impose religious laws, then we should accept that the state cannot marry people.

I hope this helps...if you have other issues with my opinion I would be happy to respond...

That would be a better argument if the institution of marriage did not pre-date Christianity. Babylon had purely civil mariage concerned entirely with property rights long before Christianity emerged, so why is that definition not the "traditional definition of marriage"?

As a technical matter in most Western countries, the state extends its right of legal association to churches only so far as they can perform ceremonies. Licensing is always handled by the state. In the Netherlands, the religious ceremony has no legal standing, so people have a civil ceremony and only a religious one if they choose. While people may claim they are married under God, Netherlands wants to see your signature on a binding legal document before they start doling out any marriage benefits

I don't care whether you think my argument is good or not. Surely you should simply allow me to have the opinion that I have based on my beliefs and value systems.

I don't care what the Netherlands does. You have whorehouses and who knows what else on every block. Does that make it right?

No, overall your value structure defines who you are. I was not raised where such things wers acceptable.

I should edit this to add that I have nothing against different people, I am just asking that they do not impose their values on mine.

I can't think of a weaker argument than "they're doing it anyway, why not just accept it?"

Just because people decide to break the rules we've set for society doesn't mean we just ignore it or legalize it.

Was that directed at me? Because I am not sure what quote of mine you are referring to.

[Hicksey]

TRUDEAU ENTHUSIAST!!!

You have asked me a question and I would be most obliged to respond.

I am not denying any people the right to marry. I am not a member of any clergy so I do not have the power to marry anyone. If your issue is that your Christian (you say Anglican) institution or my Christian (I am Catholic) refuses to marry gays then your issue is with them, not with me. After all, their organizations have the power to marry anyone according to their laws.

My argument is the STATE should not be in the business of marrying people. If we accept the separation of church and state, then we accept the state is not a religious institution that can impose religious laws, then we should accept that the state cannot marry people.

I hope this helps...if you have other issues with my opinion I would be happy to respond...

That would be a better argument if the institution of marriage did not pre-date Christianity. Babylon had purely civil mariage concerned entirely with property rights long before Christianity emerged, so why is that definition not the "traditional definition of marriage"?

As a technical matter in most Western countries, the state extends its right of legal association to churches only so far as they can perform ceremonies. Licensing is always handled by the state. In the Netherlands, the religious ceremony has no legal standing, so people have a civil ceremony and only a religious one if they choose. While people may claim they are married under God, Netherlands wants to see your signature on a binding legal document before they start doling out any marriage benefits

I don't care whether you think my argument is good or not. Surely you should simply allow me to have the opinion that I have based on my beliefs and value systems.

I don't care what the Netherlands does. You have whorehouses and who knows what else on every block. Does that make it right?

No, overall your value structure defines who you are. I was not raised where such things wers acceptable.

I should edit this to add that I have nothing against different people, I am just asking that they do not impose their values on mine.

I can't think of a weaker argument than "they're doing it anyway, why not just accept it?"

Just because people decide to break the rules we've set for society doesn't mean we just ignore it or legalize it.

Was that directed at me? Because I am not sure what quote of mine you are referring to.

Didn't mean to quote you. Oops. Sorry.

[mar]

I can't think of a weaker argument than "they're doing it anyway, why not just accept it?"

Just because people decide to break the rules we've set for society doesn't mean we just ignore it or legalize it.

I didn't set those rules. I don't care if gays have the right to marry. I might care if it became compulsory for all of us to marry gays.

I don't think a whole lot of us care about this supposed rule we set up. Surveys tell us about 80% of young people think gays should be allowed to marry so what right do we have to enshrine in law something they, whose country this will soon become, believe in?

I can't think of a weaker argument than "society set rules" Society has set rules allowing slavery, defining women as property and a lot of other things. Maybe the Conservatives could start a campaign to ammend the Charter to go back to the good old days when women were property and couldn't vote. Actually, I suspect some of them would do it just to get back at Belinda

[JMH]

Unfortunately, radical gays decided to beat on church doors demanding marriage as opposed to civil unions.

Many of the clergy refused and it became a civil rights issue.

I'd be curious to know how many gay people exist in Canada. Any stats?

Does it matter?

Either you accept that as Canadians we believe all citizens are equal under the Charter or you don't. It doesn't matter how many there are or whether we like them or even whether we approve.

A quick example for you. In the 1800's it was common practice for both british and french immigrants in canada to marry First Nations women. After awhile, both the Anglican and Catholic churches decided they didn't like this so they nullified all marriages saying that since the women were not baptized Christains early enough (they had to make it that way because most of them had converted to Christianity before or at the time of their marriage) the marriages were not valid. Many women were abandoned by their spouses.

So, would you accept this restriction to the Charter? Can a religion say, sorry we don't like you savages so we'll nullify your sacrements, the ones we performed?

There is an old saying "First they came for the gypsies but I wasn't a gypsey so I didn't care. Then they came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew so I didn't care. Then they came for the homosexuals but I wasn't a homosexual so I didn't care. Then they came for me but there was nobody left to care."

Gay marriage has nothing to with the charter -as it has already been decided upon.............the charter allows civil unions by default. Gay marriage, on the other hand can not be passed; Its ironic but true that the charter would have to be violated (freedom of faith) in order to allow same sex marriage to occur. Even more ironic is the fact that the only way out of this (legally) is the use of the "not with standing clause".

[mar]

Gay marriage has nothing to with the charter -as it has already been decided upon.............the charter allows civil unions by default. Gay marriage, on the other hand can not be passed; Its ironic but true that the charter would have to be violated (freedom of faith) in order to allow same sex marriage to occur. Even more ironic is the fact that the only way out of this (legally) is the use of the "not with standing clause".

You're playing with words. Nothing needs to be decided. Gays can marry under the Charter, religions are not obligated to perform the ceremony and may not be forced to. Civil marriages are the legal marriage in Canada so gays can marry, religions may or may not decide to perform ceremonies, everybody's happy, nobody's rights are violated. If gays want to be married in the Catholic church they can take that up with the proper authorities in Vatican City.