Same-Sex Marriage

[Jay]

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...

So if happen to not have a religion, does that mean I can't get married?

[geoffrey]

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...

So if happen to not have a religion, does that mean I can't get married?

In my opinion that is correct, you can't. Why would you want to? You can get Civil Unionised. The word shouldn't matter if it carries no religious meaning.

Seperation of Church and State remember, apparently thats a one way road in Canada, this can't continue.

[JMH]

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.

I'm afraid you brought up the charter (words).

However , if what you say is true? .........why is it STILL an issue?

I personally don't care who marries who. What I DO care about is bullshit that keeps going on and on and on. This is not a political issue at all..................ANYMORE. Go talk to father O'flarity with your ideas ( but dont leave him alone with the children).

[geoffrey]

I'm afraid you brought up the charter (words).

However , if what you say is true? .........why is it STILL an issue?

I personally don't care who marries who. What I DO care about is bullshit that keeps going on and on and on. This is not a political issue at all..................ANYMORE. Go talk to father O'flarity with your ideas ( but dont leave him alone with the children).

If that wasn't the most disrespectful, intolerant and ignorant comment I've heard this year I don't know what is. You've just lost any crediability in my opinion with such a blatent display of bigotry, and you've only been here 3 days.

[Madman]

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".

which conservative ass did you pull that argument out of??

[JMH]

I'm afraid you brought up the charter (words).

However , if what you say is true? .........why is it STILL an issue?

I personally don't care who marries who. What I DO care about is bullshit that keeps going on and on and on. This is not a political issue at all..................ANYMORE. Go talk to father O'flarity with your ideas ( but dont leave him alone with the children).

If that wasn't the most disrespectful, intolerant and ignorant comment I've heard this year I don't know what is. You've just lost any crediability in my opinion with such a blatent display of bigotry, and you've only been here 3 days.

Well, I guess thats why theres so many jokes about lawyers out there!

When it comes to intolerance and disrespect, I'm not sure if you were talking about our Canadian charter or the backlog of legal cases concerning the Catholic church and its leadership?

[JMH]

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...

So if happen to not have a religion, does that mean I can't get married?

Not in a church..........correct. Unless they allow it........which creates another argument altogether. Non-political issue.

[CCGirl]

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.

What? Please cite credible sources for this ridiculous statement. Do people actually remember choosing to be straight or gay? Going through puberty, I do not recall "deciding" whether to like men or women!!

I'm perfectly willing to respect their beliefs/rights, so why then can't they respect mine?

No, you are not respecting them! If you respected them you would offer them equality. You may have your religious beliefs, but why would you want to impose them on the rest of society?

[tml12]

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...

So if happen to not have a religion, does that mean I can't get married?

In my opinion that is correct, you can't. Why would you want to? You can get Civil Unionised. The word shouldn't matter if it carries no religious meaning.

Seperation of Church and State remember, apparently thats a one way road in Canada, this can't continue.

You got it..

[CCGirl]

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".

What a load of cr*p Cite some sources for this stroke of genius please.

[JMH]

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".

which conservative ass did you pull that argument out of??

I'm not aware of the "gay marriage clause" within the charter of rights and fredoms. Enlighten me.

[geoffrey]

I'm afraid you brought up the charter (words).

However , if what you say is true? .........why is it STILL an issue?

I personally don't care who marries who. What I DO care about is bullshit that keeps going on and on and on. This is not a political issue at all..................ANYMORE. Go talk to father O'flarity with your ideas ( but dont leave him alone with the children).

If that wasn't the most disrespectful, intolerant and ignorant comment I've heard this year I don't know what is. You've just lost any crediability in my opinion with such a blatent display of bigotry, and you've only been here 3 days.

Well, I guess thats why theres so many jokes about lawyers out there!

When it comes to intolerance and disrespect, I'm not sure if you were talking about our Canadian charter or the backlog of legal cases concerning the Catholic church and its leadership?

No, I was definitely talking about that personal attack on a member of this forum that only a few posts earlier said he was Catholic. I happen to be Catholic and don't appreciate such an attack.

There just no place for personal attacks here.

Go talk to father O'flarity with your ideas ( but dont leave him alone with the children).

If thats not a personal attack I don't know what is.

[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".

What a load of cr*p Cite some sources for this stroke of genius please.

Pierre Elliot Trudeu.

[JMH]

I'm afraid you brought up the charter (words).

However , if what you say is true? .........why is it STILL an issue?

I personally don't care who marries who. What I DO care about is bullshit that keeps going on and on and on. This is not a political issue at all..................ANYMORE. Go talk to father O'flarity with your ideas ( but dont leave him alone with the children).

If that wasn't the most disrespectful, intolerant and ignorant comment I've heard this year I don't know what is. You've just lost any crediability in my opinion with such a blatent display of bigotry, and you've only been here 3 days.

Well, I guess thats why theres so many jokes about lawyers out there!

When it comes to intolerance and disrespect, I'm not sure if you were talking about our Canadian charter or the backlog of legal cases concerning the Catholic church and its leadership?

No, I was definitely talking about that personal attack on a member of this forum that only a few posts earlier said he was Catholic. I happen to be Catholic and don't appreciate such an attack.

There just no place for personal attacks here.

Go talk to father O'flarity with your ideas ( but dont leave him alone with the children).

If thats not a personal attack I don't know what is.

Unless you are a Catholic priest under investigation, I'm not sure how you would define a humourous slant upon an issue as a PERSONAL ATTACK! This is not a Catholic memo board. This is a political arena for Canadians (70% of wich are not Catholic). That being said, many of you hve brought religion into the foray.

When doing so, you had best be ready to defend your selves. It's quite obvious to me that any non-catholic thought or coment is unacceptable. :angry:

[CCGirl]

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".

What a load of cr*p Cite some sources for this stroke of genius please.

Pierre Elliot Trudeu.

:angry: Bull! People need to post sources if they are going to make uninformed opinions.

[tml12]

As I have said many times before, let the State and various religious institutions define their religious values and then let us be on with it, not allowing any of them to be intertwined...

[Jay]

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...

So if happen to not have a religion, does that mean I can't get married?

In my opinion that is correct, you can't. Why would you want to? You can get Civil Unionised. The word shouldn't matter if it carries no religious meaning.

Seperation of Church and State remember, apparently thats a one way road in Canada, this can't continue.

You got it..

Geez that will be fun...drop to one knee, bring out the ring, and say " will you civally unionize with me?" I'd like to see you tell my wife that she isn't married

So if you get married in a church, then your married, otherwise you enter a civil union. Does it matter which church? Can I go to a temple? How about in the forest with the druids? Oh, wait a sec, thats more nature than god. What if I believe in the flying spaghetti monster? (http://www.venganza.org/) does this count as marriage?

Maybe we should stop this nonsense, agree that if two consenting adults love and are committed to each other, that should be enough. Does it really matter to you that much that 2 men get married and are entitled to the same things you are? Aren't there much more seious issues to expend our energy on?

[YankAbroad]

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.

Oh boy -- silliness like this is one reason why I think most pronouncements by the heterosexual establishment about gays are so funny and ridiculous.

Here's one of the vast majority of gay men who neither "tried hetero first" nor ever had an inclination to "try hetero." And one who also knows the vast majority of straight men never had the inclination to "try homo" either.

[YankAbroad]

Its ironic but true that the charter would have to be violated (freedom of faith) in order to allow same sex marriage to occur.

Again, why are majority religions insisting that their "right" to violate the rights of other people (including other religions) is charter-protected?

A ban on gay marriage violates the freedom of faith of religions which conduct gay marriages today -- including Quakers and significant branches of Judaism and Christianity. Does their right to practice their faith as they see fit not matter?

[YankAbroad]

You can get Civil Unionised. The word shouldn't matter if it carries no religious meaning.

My religion will marry me to another man tomorrow morning if I can demonstrate a bona fide commitment to a lifelong partnership with the man in question.

Why are you attempting to impose your religion's view of marriage on my church?

[normanchateau]

As for Harper being a 'religious nut' I don't get it, he has never to my knowledge worn his religion (whatever it is) on his sleeve, or made much comment (if at all ) about it, so how does one define 'religion nut' - is it anyone who goes to church or what? Scarborough re-elected Liberal Tom Wappel, he's a guarranteed vote against SSM. I don't think these slurs and innuendo will carry much weight next time around, they are allready a weakened position.

If Harper is not a religious nut, why did he vote against C-250? Before C-250 was passed by the Liberals, NDP and BQ, hate crimes were restricted to those motivated by hatred of a particular race, religion, colour or ethnic group. C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation in order that gay bashing would be considered a hate crime. Harper argued against this addition claiming that such legislation would be used to deny religious freedom. Accordingly, amendments were put into C-250.

As passed, C-250 has an escape clause which allows religiously motivated hatred. The C-250 text states that an individual is immune from prosecution under the act "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion based on a belief on a religious text." Despite that, Harper feared that C-250 would eventually be used to declare the Bible as hate literature. That's what makes Harper a religious nut in my opinion.

Had Harper merely stated that he opposes all hate crimes legislation because a crime is a crime whatever the motives, that argument would at least have made him appear objective. But he has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se.

And if it wasn't religious motivation that prompted Harper to vote against C-250, what was it? Hatred of homosexuality?

The other party leaders are religious, especially Paul Martin, but we don't see them using religious motives to deny homosexuals protection under hate crimes legislation.

[scribblet]

I'm not religious at all and neither is my husband, we are against pot, and changing the traditional definition of marriage. That doesn't mean I hate homosexuals, I don't, they can have marriage and all the benefits, just leave the traditional definition alone.

The reasoning behind voting against C-250 has has been explained to you repeatedly so if you choose to continue twisting it around and makes you happy to think that then go for it - but that horse don't hunt. Personally I'm pro choice so where does and I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative.

Stereotyping people as 'religious nuts' and suggesting they hate someone simply because they disagree with you is ridiculous, people can come to conclusions and opinions based on reason. Harper has never to my knowledge made any kind of religious statements, I've no idea what or if or how often he attends church and I don't care - its his business. I don't go to church but I respect the view of those who do and leave them to it without labelling them for choosing to believe whatever they do. I also respect the right of people to have a voice in parliament and participate in our democracy.

Its this type of rhetoric and pigeon holing that helped the liberals lose the election.

[normanchateau]

I'm not religious at all and neither is my husband, we are against pot, and changing the traditional definition of marriage. That doesn't mean I hate homosexuals, I don't, they can have marriage and all the benefits, just leave the traditional definition alone. The reasoning behind voting against C-250 has has been explained to you repeatedly so I'm not going to type it all over again, - that horse don't hunt. Personaloly I'm pro choice ) and I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative.

Stereotyping people as 'religious nuts' and suggesting they hate someone simply because they disagree with you is ridiculous, people can come to conclusions and opinions based on reason. Harper has never to my knowledge made any kind of religious statements, I've no idea what or if or how often he attends church and I don't care - its his business. I don't go to church but I respect the view of those who do and leave them to it without labelling them for choosing to believe whatever they do. Its this type of rhetoric and pigeon holing that helped the liberals lose the election.

So why did Harper vote against C-250 if he's not a religious nut?

[scribblet]

I'm not religious at all and neither is my husband, we are against pot, and changing the traditional definition of marriage. That doesn't mean I hate homosexuals, I don't, they can have marriage and all the benefits, just leave the traditional definition alone. The reasoning behind voting against C-250 has has been explained to you repeatedly so I'm not going to type it all over again, - that horse don't hunt. Personaloly I'm pro choice ) and I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative.

Stereotyping people as 'religious nuts' and suggesting they hate someone simply because they disagree with you is ridiculous, people can come to conclusions and opinions based on reason. Harper has never to my knowledge made any kind of religious statements, I've no idea what or if or how often he attends church and I don't care - its his business. I don't go to church but I respect the view of those who do and leave them to it without labelling them for choosing to believe whatever they do. Its this type of rhetoric and pigeon holing that helped the liberals lose the election.

So why did Harper vote against C-250 if he's not a religious nut?

Did you not read what I said, one doesn't have to be religious to be against it, if it makes you happy to reinforce your views with repetition - go for it. Whatever turns you on

[normanchateau]

I'm not religious at all and neither is my husband, we are against pot, and changing the traditional definition of marriage. That doesn't mean I hate homosexuals, I don't, they can have marriage and all the benefits, just leave the traditional definition alone. The reasoning behind voting against C-250 has has been explained to you repeatedly so I'm not going to type it all over again, - that horse don't hunt. Personaloly I'm pro choice ) and I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative.

Stereotyping people as 'religious nuts' and suggesting they hate someone simply because they disagree with you is ridiculous, people can come to conclusions and opinions based on reason. Harper has never to my knowledge made any kind of religious statements, I've no idea what or if or how often he attends church and I don't care - its his business. I don't go to church but I respect the view of those who do and leave them to it without labelling them for choosing to believe whatever they do. Its this type of rhetoric and pigeon holing that helped the liberals lose the election.

So why did Harper vote against C-250 if he's not a religious nut?

Did you not read what I said, one doesn't have to be religious to be against it, if it makes you happy to reinforce your views with repetition - go for it. Whatever turns you on

So why did Harper vote against C-250?