Michael Hardner Posted February 11, 2006 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 Didn't Freud say that all of us go through this "confusion" ....mostly during pre-adolescent or pubescent stages? That those stages are normal? That in the end, it will get sorted out? Well, not much of what Freud came up with is still believed today. But, yes, there are undoubtedly some who are unsure of their sexuality, who are confused, and who sort it out. Just as there are some who "know" from the beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankAbroad Posted February 11, 2006 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 Yep. All gay men are screaming queens, all lesbians are big scary man-hating bull-dykes, straight men are the only manly men, and all heterosexual women yearn for nothing more to be baby makers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcqueen625 Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 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. The point is that had Paul Martin been returned to office he had satted that he wanted to remove the notwithstanding clause from the Constitution thereby leaving it up to Liberal appointed judges to decide forever what is and what isn't acceptable to Canadians. Gays and Lesbians are already challenging the exclusion on the grounds of religion with the challenge of the lesbians who wanted to forve the Knights of Columbus to rent their hall for a lesbian civil union celebration. The fact is that the Knights of Columbus are a Catholic institution, who's member's are practicing Catholics. The reality is that without the blessing of the church, any union of two people is nothing but a civil union, regardless of what you call it. Only a small number of United Church Parishes perform gay or lesbian weddings, and the same goes for Anglican. Most other religions in the world do not recognize such unions for anything other than what they are, civil unions, not marriages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 The reality is that without the blessing of the church, any union of two people is nothing but a civil union, regardless of what you call it. Only a small number of United Church Parishes perform gay or lesbian weddings, and the same goes for Anglican. Most other religions in the world do not recognize such unions for anything other than what they are, civil unions, not marriages. True! Throughout the world, there is a ritual celebrating the union of a man and a woman. It may be known by another name in another language....but the meaning is nevertheless the same. We know it as marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Gays and Lesbians are already challenging the exclusion on the grounds of religion with the challenge of the lesbians who wanted to forve the Knights of Columbus to rent their hall for a lesbian civil union celebration. The fact is that the Knights of Columbus are a Catholic institution, who's member's are practicing Catholics. The case you're talking about is one of many grey areas that will be tested. The KoC is a Catholic organization, but not a church. Its members are practicing Catholics, but being a practicing Catholic doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate. There are many more cases that will need to be tested, including adoption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Gays and Lesbians are already challenging the exclusion on the grounds of religion with the challenge of the lesbians who wanted to forve the Knights of Columbus to rent their hall for a lesbian civil union celebration. The fact is that the Knights of Columbus are a Catholic institution, who's member's are practicing Catholics. The case you're talking about is one of many grey areas that will be tested. The KoC is a Catholic organization, but not a church. Its members are practicing Catholics, but being a practicing Catholic doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate. There are many more cases that will need to be tested, including adoption. The KoC has the freedom to express their religion. Imposing these views on them is extremely discriminatory and against their charter rights. No one will tell me that I have to allow things I don't believe are moral to happen on my property. What was the final ruling on the KoC case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seabee Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Renting a hall is a business practice, not a religious one. When doing business a religious group, or even a person, is no longer protected on the basis of their religious beliefs. Can a Muslim or Jewish landlord refuse to rent an apartment to someone on the basis this someone is catholic or atheist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
na85 Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 No one will tell me that I have to allow things I don't believe are moral to happen on my property. You're entitled to your rights only as far as the protection of your rights does not infringe upon the rights of another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 The KoC has the freedom to express their religion. Imposing these views on them is extremely discriminatory and against their charter rights. No one will tell me that I have to allow things I don't believe are moral to happen on my property.What was the final ruling on the KoC case? I believe they had to rent the hall. Read what seabee said. You can't legally refuse to rent an apartment to a gay couple for example. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the charter, as is freedom from discrimination for homosexuals. When those rights clash, the parties take the case to court and a ruling is made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 The KoC has the freedom to express their religion. Imposing these views on them is extremely discriminatory and against their charter rights. No one will tell me that I have to allow things I don't believe are moral to happen on my property.What was the final ruling on the KoC case? I believe they had to rent the hall. Read what seabee said. You can't legally refuse to rent an apartment to a gay couple for example. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the charter, as is freedom from discrimination for homosexuals. When those rights clash, the parties take the case to court and a ruling is made. No where in the charter does it say the word homosexual or sexual orientation. This is an invented right. Whereas it clearly says freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are protected. I would take a fine or jail time over being forced into doing something strongly against my beliefs. It's obvious that these gays were just stirring up shit, I'm sure there is a million places other than a Knights of Columbus hall that they could go to. Just shows the irresponsible activism of some of that side. If you want to piss off people, don't be suprised when they push back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Renting a hall is a business practice, not a religious one. When doing business a religious group, or even a person, is no longer protected on the basis of their religious beliefs.Can a Muslim or Jewish landlord refuse to rent an apartment to someone on the basis this someone is catholic or atheist? Freedom of Religion is a charter right. However, despite this, if it conflicted with their conscience, then they should be able to refuse. Personally I believe anyone should be able to choose who they wish to do business with, not have the government tell you that you must. No one will tell me that I have to allow things I don't believe are moral to happen on my property. You're entitled to your rights only as far as the protection of your rights does not infringe upon the rights of another. It's my hall (hypothetically), who gives anyone the right to force me to rent it to customers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 I'm clearly in the minority here- Un-decided. I see the positives for it, and I see the negatives against it. It doesn't bother me at all that same sex couples can get married, because it doesn't affect me, but at the same time my personal beliefs strongly state against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seabee Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Personally I believe anyone should be able to choose who they wish to do business with, not have the government tell you that you must. If you were to move to Québec, and a french-speaking Québécois were to refuse to rent you an appartement, or a grocer, to sell you food, etc., on the grounds that you are English-speaking, would you simply say; "Oh well! That is his right. I will not ask the Government to interfere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Personally I believe anyone should be able to choose who they wish to do business with, not have the government tell you that you must. If you were to move to Québec, and a french-speaking Québécois were to refuse to rent you an appartement, or a grocer, to sell you food, etc., on the grounds that you are English-speaking, would you simply say; "Oh well! That is his right. I will not ask the Government to interfere? It's his property, it's his choice. I'll go to someone that wants my money. I'll never ask the government to interfere in my business dealings, they have nothing to do with it. I can speak French by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 12, 2006 Report Share Posted February 12, 2006 Personally I believe anyone should be able to choose who they wish to do business with, not have the government tell you that you must. If you were to move to Québec, and a french-speaking Québécois were to refuse to rent you an appartement, or a grocer, to sell you food, etc., on the grounds that you are English-speaking, would you simply say; "Oh well! That is his right. I will not ask the Government to interfere? It's his property, it's his choice. I'll go to someone that wants my money. I'll never ask the government to interfere in my business dealings, they have nothing to do with it. I can speak French by the way. They wouldn't refuse you, they just would pretend they don't know what English is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Gays and Lesbians are already challenging the exclusion on the grounds of religion with the challenge of the lesbians who wanted to forve the Knights of Columbus to rent their hall for a lesbian civil union celebration. The fact is that the Knights of Columbus are a Catholic institution, who's member's are practicing Catholics. The case you're talking about is one of many grey areas that will be tested. The KoC is a Catholic organization, but not a church. Its members are practicing Catholics, but being a practicing Catholic doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate. There are many more cases that will need to be tested, including adoption. You mean to tell me that lesbians can dictate to the Catholic Women's League? KoC may be an organization....but it is an organization based on religion! It is these kind of challenges that only infuriates people more towards the gay group! I would like to see them try this shenanigan on the Muslims and we'll see how they deal with the fatwa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Gays and Lesbians are already challenging the exclusion on the grounds of religion with the challenge of the lesbians who wanted to forve the Knights of Columbus to rent their hall for a lesbian civil union celebration. The fact is that the Knights of Columbus are a Catholic institution, who's member's are practicing Catholics. The case you're talking about is one of many grey areas that will be tested. The KoC is a Catholic organization, but not a church. Its members are practicing Catholics, but being a practicing Catholic doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate. There are many more cases that will need to be tested, including adoption. You mean to tell me that lesbians can dictate to the Catholic Women's League? KoC may be an organization....but it is an organization based on religion! It is these kind of challenges that only infuriates people more towards the gay group! I would like to see them try this shenanigan on the Muslims and we'll see how they deal with the fatwa. We are a majority though Betsy, meaning we have no rights. Just have to take it I guess, religion is a bad thing in Canada (unless your Muslim). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Renting a hall is a business practice, not a religious one. When doing business a religious group, or even a person, is no longer protected on the basis of their religious beliefs.Can a Muslim or Jewish landlord refuse to rent an apartment to someone on the basis this someone is catholic or atheist? KoC hall can be a fund-raising option for this group. It is unlike any business places. Since it is a religious property, based on their religion...they can impose rules that do not go against their faith. Of all public halls available, why would these lesbains insist on this particular one? Btw, that tribunal for human rights....how do those judges get chosen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Gays and Lesbians are already challenging the exclusion on the grounds of religion with the challenge of the lesbians who wanted to forve the Knights of Columbus to rent their hall for a lesbian civil union celebration. The fact is that the Knights of Columbus are a Catholic institution, who's member's are practicing Catholics. The case you're talking about is one of many grey areas that will be tested. The KoC is a Catholic organization, but not a church. Its members are practicing Catholics, but being a practicing Catholic doesn't give you carte blanche to discriminate. There are many more cases that will need to be tested, including adoption. You mean to tell me that lesbians can dictate to the Catholic Women's League? KoC may be an organization....but it is an organization based on religion! It is these kind of challenges that only infuriates people more towards the gay group! I would like to see them try this shenanigan on the Muslims and we'll see how they deal with the fatwa. We are a majority though Betsy, meaning we have no rights. Just have to take it I guess, religion is a bad thing in Canada (unless your Muslim). You know what, I feel more inclined to believe that religion is under siege! Of course they'll start on Christianity...since as you say, we're the majority....and we do not go to extremes in fighting for our beliefs. At least, the gay group had done one good thing: it united the muslim countries with the US in turning down ILGA's application in the UN. At least there's one common ground that they agree with, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Renting a hall is a business practice, not a religious one. When doing business a religious group, or even a person, is no longer protected on the basis of their religious beliefs. Can a Muslim or Jewish landlord refuse to rent an apartment to someone on the basis this someone is catholic or atheist? KoC hall can be a fund-raising option for this group. It is unlike any business places. Since it is a religious property, based on their religion...they can impose rules that do not go against their faith. Of all public halls available, why would these lesbains insist on this particular one? Btw, that tribunal for human rights....how do those judges get chosen? They insisted on the KoC hall because they knew it would create a stir. Nothing beyond that. The CHRT (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) is a joke, so heavily influenced by politics. An Parlimentary Order-in-Council appoints the members (ie. the Prime Minister picks them). Here's the link to their site if you wanted more info: http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Personally I believe anyone should be able to choose who they wish to do business with, not have the government tell you that you must. The problem with your statement is that it opens the doors to discrimination on any conceivable basis - skin colour, ethnic origin, religion, gender, age, even hair colour. The government shouldn't have to tell anyone to treat all people equally - I'd like to see it just being inherent in each of our personal value systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Personally I believe anyone should be able to choose who they wish to do business with, not have the government tell you that you must. The problem with your statement is that it opens the doors to discrimination on any conceivable basis - skin colour, ethnic origin, religion, gender, age, even hair colour. The government shouldn't have to tell anyone to treat all people equally - I'd like to see it just being inherent in each of our personal value systems. If you feel discriminated against, then spend your money elsewhere. That shows the discriminator pretty quick that you won't tolerate that behaviour, and he loses out on your business. I have no problem with people choosing who they want to do business with, thats their right, its their business, time and effort. Seriously, just go elsewhere to people that are more tolerant, if they don't want your money, don't insist on giving it to them! This way the more tolerant businesses/landlords do well, and the intolerant ones are out of business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Personally I believe anyone should be able to choose who they wish to do business with, not have the government tell you that you must. The problem with your statement is that it opens the doors to discrimination on any conceivable basis - skin colour, ethnic origin, religion, gender, age, even hair colour. The government shouldn't have to tell anyone to treat all people equally - I'd like to see it just being inherent in each of our personal value systems. Government interference is too much...that some of its impractical rules are costing businesses unnecessary expenses. But then, that's for another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Personally I believe anyone should be able to choose who they wish to do business with, not have the government tell you that you must. The problem with your statement is that it opens the doors to discrimination on any conceivable basis - skin colour, ethnic origin, religion, gender, age, even hair colour. The government shouldn't have to tell anyone to treat all people equally - I'd like to see it just being inherent in each of our personal value systems. Government interference is too much...that some of its impractical rules are costing businesses unnecessary expenses. But then, that's for another thread. The one issue the left and right should agree on is...GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS. If the left's view that government should not ban abortion because of separation of church and state is correct, then the same view that government should not be able to define marriage is correct because marriage is a religiou institution... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Geoffrey: No where in the charter does it say the word homosexual or sexual orientation. This is an invented right.Whereas it clearly says freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are protected. The charter prohibits against discrimination against "other groups". That, obviously, is open to interpretation but homosexuals in society today are definitely a group that are discriminated against. I would take a fine or jail time over being forced into doing something strongly against my beliefs. It's obvious that these gays were just stirring up shit, I'm sure there is a million places other than a Knights of Columbus hall that they could go to.Just shows the irresponsible activism of some of that side. If you want to piss off people, don't be suprised when they push back. It's within anyone's legal rights to appeal to the supreme court, so go ahead. If you feel discriminated against, then spend your money elsewhere. That shows the discriminator pretty quick that you won't tolerate that behaviour, and he loses out on your business. That system doesn't work. Blacks were discriminated against in many ways until LBJ's Civil Rights Act was passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.