Same-Sex Marriage

[Clopin]

OK, let me restate it then. The word marriage is used in different contexts, but the legal definition is the binding one. A religious definition must fit within the legal one, and is only valid if it does so. A marriage doesn't have to fit within a religious definition to be valid, though.

Well put, Melanie.

[geoffrey]

OK, let me restate it then. The word marriage is used in different contexts, but the legal definition is the binding one. A religious definition must fit within the legal one, and is only valid if it does so. A marriage doesn't have to fit within a religious definition to be valid, though.

Well put, Melanie.

Seperation of Church and State was violated when the government got involved in marriage.

[cybercoma]

OK, let me restate it then. The word marriage is used in different contexts, but the legal definition is the binding one. A religious definition must fit within the legal one, and is only valid if it does so. A marriage doesn't have to fit within a religious definition to be valid, though.

If religious definitions must fit within legal definitions, then the state controls religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and as such is free from state control.

[Clopin]

Then so be it.. Which religion shall we adopt as a guide? Or should we just let all do what they please?

Should we allow polygamy for those religions that permit it?

Should we disallow Catholic divorce as Europe did in the past?

[geoffrey]

Then so be it.. Which religion shall we adopt as a guide? Or should we just let all do what they please?

Should we allow polygamy for those religions that permit it?

Should we disallow Catholic divorce as Europe did in the past?

No, just stay out of marraige which is a religious issue and the government should never have been involved from the start.

Give people civil benifets, and end it at that. Churches are the only people that can authorize marriage.

We don't need a religion to adopt as a guide, religion and politics must be two seperate things.

[Clopin]

Help me out here.. A man wants to take a second wife... what's stopping him other than the state?

[geoffrey]

Help me out here.. A man wants to take a second wife... what's stopping him other than the state?

This is a very interesting perdicament. I'd normally have to say that their religion should take precedent. But that leaves the door open for legalised Jihad or whatever you want...

So what it boils down to, is that people cannot actively harm other people. Generally, in polygamist relationships, the women are in a position where their rights aren't respected and this qualifies as a harm against their person and freedom!

[Clopin]

You do realize you're encroaching on religious freedoms.. and resorting back to the state to enforce the restrictions on marriage... don't you?

[na85]

OK, let me restate it then. The word marriage is used in different contexts, but the legal definition is the binding one. A religious definition must fit within the legal one, and is only valid if it does so. A marriage doesn't have to fit within a religious definition to be valid, though.

If religious definitions must fit within legal definitions, then the state controls religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and as such is free from state control.

If religious definitions are not required to fit within legal definitions, then you're giving religious organizations carte blanche to do what they please, and fuck the law. Allowing this would set a bad legal precedent that religion can trump the law. If I form a church and my definition of murder is that it's not murder if the victim is a homosexual, or a visible minority, can I claim religious freedom if I am tried for murder or a hate crime?

You do realize you're encroaching on religious freedoms.. and resorting back to the state to enforce the restrictions on marriage... don't you?

Again, there are limits to everything. Your religious freedoms don't take precedence over someone else's equality rights:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Taken directly from the Charter. You'll notice that even though sexual orientation is not mentioned, that list is neither exhaustive nor exlusive. All it says is "in particular". Beyond those items (race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability) every person is still equal before and under the law. This is especially poignant given that we've just concluded marriage is a legal definition, and that it cannot be superceded by a religious definiton.

[Clopin]

I'm actually arguing for your side na85, making a point that the state plays a pivotal role in this.

[na85]

I'm actually arguing for your side na85, making a point that the state plays a pivotal role in this.

:re-reads the last few posts: Sorry, my bad. Misinterpreted. Damn internet.

Either way, my last wasn't directed entirely at you and cyber. T'was a rebuttal and also a general statement.

[geoffrey]

So the state's marraige legislation should be based around do whatever as long as no one is harmed... and leave the harm principle up to the courts.

That leaves the Church's free to do whatever, and still bans polygamy and unfair treatment of women.

[na85]

Although I suppose we're still left with the whole "definition of marriage" can of worms

[geoffrey]

Although I suppose we're still left with the whole "definition of marriage" can of worms

Not if its done in a Church. Then I have no qualms over this, as long as our government only recognizes civil unions. The United Church marries gays I believe, and freedom of religion protects this right, so giv'er.

What most of us oppose in the realistic right, is the government legislating religious doctrine.

[Hicksey]

Hicksey this one's for you:

Why is it that it is always us that have to come around? Why is it that one has to believe whatever the prevailing liberal view is on an issue or you're called a bigot? Because we don't choose to change the boundaries of what we consider moral whenver liberals decide to move the moral goalpost ever wider, we're all a bunch oif right-wing-religious-bigots?!

I am so tired of being told this just because I have differing beliefs than you. Why the arrogance? Why MUST everyone agree with you? Are liberals' beliefs all of a sudden the judgement tool against one's beliefs must be compared before they can be right, or worthy?

I have compassion for all. My views are tempered between my moral grounding in religion and common sense that we can't all be expected to believe the same, and that as such there needs to be real compromise. I haven't closed my mind to your beliefs, but people seem to automatically do that to mine anymore. My beliefs aren't just ignored. People expect--no they demand--that I simply bow to theirs or risk being labelled prejudiced and a bigot.

I think it is inherently hypocritical to demand tolerance for others in the face of intolerance toward my beliefs. Please understand that I'm not seeking to label anyone specific here.

Well, I confess I used phraseology which implied that I'm right and you are wrong. Of course, I do think that but I try to use less values-laden language in these discussions.

I think people who are against gay marriage are like my long departed grandmother. She was a saint, a person who did the most for everyone she knew and strangers, and intelligent too.

And she was racist to the bone.

The PC crowd would villify my grandma, because they could never consider her in the context of her society. (Ironically, they have a little trouble with tolerance.) They wouldn't see that she treated people of other races with grace and politeness. Her whole personality for them would be defined by one opinion on one issue.

Likewise, I have relatives who have trouble with the same sex marriage issue. Are they bigots ? I don't think so. I disagree with them, but I don't disrespect them.

I apologize, Hicks, if I used an exclusionary tone with you. I do respect other people's views and I will try to do better next time.

Apology accepted.

I responded to you mostly because you were the latest to say it that way. But if you take a look the phenomenon is going on everywhere around us. If you're not hip to the liberals' causes you're instantly labelled a bigot. I took part in this discussion earlier and suggested what IMO so far has been the fairest proposal and takes into account the viewpoints of everyone while still allowing the greatest latitude as to how we celebrate a union between two people. And for my efforts I was branded a bigot. So I left the discussion. I still check back now and then, and that's how I saw your comment.

[betsy]

And yes, I've got my fair share of relatives and friends who were or are not married in church...but they were/are unions of men and women.

What's the point of going through this big hurdle....since no matter what, even if SSM remains recognized by law....validation does not come with it, unless it becomes recognized by religion.

This seems contradictory - on the one hand, you are willing to recognize unions of men and women not joined by a church as marriages, but on the other hand you are saying that religion is the only way to validate a marriage.

Personally, I don't care if any religion ever recognizes SSM, as their acceptance or rejection is meaningless to anyone who doesn't subscribe to their dogma. Marriage is a legal term, not a religious term, so as long as the law of the land recognizes SSM, the marriages are valid.

Maybe it's the wrong term or I have not explained fully.

Common-law is not fully accepted in some religions. Unless things have changed, RC is also firm on that.

RC does not approve of divorce...they do have annulment.

My own priest refused to give me holy communion when he learned I was just living with my then-common law spouse. I knew the rules...I didn't go off spouting they have to change their outlook on these sort of things just because.

My point is I don't care whether my friends prefer to marry or not. That is their life. I accept them as individuals. The same way that I accept gays as individuals. I don't care whether they want to live together and have a union.

My problem is the way they want to be included in the traditional definition of marriage.

Whether it's a legal term or not makes no difference. Whether liberals or gays argue that it's not a religious term makes no difference. Whether the law says it is valid makes no difference! Yes it may be valid under the eyes of the law....

...but the kind of validation that the gay groups are demanding will take a long time to happen....if it ever happens at all!

There will still be that invisible wall separating our belief of what a traditional marriage should be from that type of a so-called "marriage!"

[betsy]

OK, let me restate it then. The word marriage is used in different contexts, but the legal definition is the binding one. A religious definition must fit within the legal one, and is only valid if it does so. A marriage doesn't have to fit within a religious definition to be valid, though.

I'm not arguing that marriages recognized by law is not valid under the law. I'm not saying it isn't binding.

What I meant by that word "validation"....is the full acceptance by society to recognize it as a "marriage."

Since most religions do not accept homosexual relationships as normal....the large segment of society will never accept this marriage as one and the same with the traditional marriage that we know of.

I will always see it as a union...not a marriage! Whether it's government-approved and government-endorsed. And no democratic law can make me change my belief or opinion. I'm sure I'm not the only one who will dig in my heels deeper.

That is why you see these little "testing" and challenges of religious laws and beliefs slowly being challenged. Gay groups know that for them to be fully recognized, they would need to break down religion and churches that stand in their way.

As a Christian, I feel I have a duty to try to protect my religion and the teachings of my God.

[betsy]

Then so be it.. Which religion shall we adopt as a guide? Or should we just let all do what they please?

Should we allow polygamy for those religions that permit it?

Should we disallow Catholic divorce as Europe did in the past?

Don't adopt any.

Create your own.

[betsy]

Again, there are limits to everything. Your religious freedoms don't take precedence over someone else's equality rights:

And it didn't! What equal rights have been denied???

Gays have the right to marry as every one else under our traditional definition of marriage.

As long as they adhere to its definition. One man and one woman.

[betsy]

Marriage had always been and still is, a religious institution. And we're not just talking about Christianity here. Even pagans had their own celebration of the union of a man and a woman, as a marriage.

The state wants to take over from religion.

The union recognized by the state is not a marriage. It is co-habitation.

The only reason marriage had been connected with the state is simply for the purpose of legal benefits (pensions, death benefits etc..,).

Almost everyone seems to be agreeable that homosexuals co-habiting together should be entitled to those same benefits.

So, why this persistence from the gay groups to crack on marriage?

If various religions are practically unanimous in not only regarding homosexuality as a sin...but also look on it as against the law of nature.....it will be almost impossible to change society with the way they view this union.

Since we live in a tolerant society, we have come to become tolerant. Even to the point of wanting to see some legal protections for this group.

But tolerance does not mean acceptance.

[scribblet]

OK, let me restate it then. The word marriage is used in different contexts, but the legal definition is the binding one. A religious definition must fit within the legal one, and is only valid if it does so. A marriage doesn't have to fit within a religious definition to be valid, though.

I'm not arguing that marriages recognized by law is not valid under the law. I'm not saying it isn't binding.

What I meant by that word "validation"....is the full acceptance by society to recognize it as a "marriage."

Since most religions do not accept homosexual relationships as normal....the large segment of society will never accept this marriage as one and the same with the traditional marriage that we know of.

I will always see it as a union...not a marriage! Whether it's government-approved and government-endorsed. And no democratic law can make me change my belief or opinion. I'm sure I'm not the only one who will dig in my heels deeper.

That is why you see these little "testing" and challenges of religious laws and beliefs slowly being challenged. Gay groups know that for them to be fully recognized, they would need to break down religion and churches that stand in their way.

As a Christian, I feel I have a duty to try to protect my religion and the teachings of my God.

I agree with your comments Betsy, once those barriers have been brought down there will be no boundaries or moral values left, a complete 'anything goes' hedonistic society. Is this what we really see for the future, no bottom line, any perversion is acceptable, and the last barrier - the age of consent will be breached !!!!

[Black Dog]

So, what's wrong about having a state-issued licence without using the word marriage?

Because allowing heterosexuals a state-issued marriage licnse while refusing teh same to homosexuals is discriminatory.

Seperation of Church and State was violated when the government got involved in marriage.

Canada doesn't have a formal separation of church and state.

If religious definitions must fit within legal definitions, then the state controls religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and as such is free from state control.

Religious definitions and civil (legal) terms are apples and oranges. People keep equating the two, but they are not the same at all, something recognized in the provisions in the Equal Marriage Act that allow religious institutions to define marriage on their own terms.

No, just stay out of marraige which is a religious issue and the government should never have been involved from the start.

Give people civil benifets, and end it at that. Churches are the only people that can authorize marriage.

The precedent has already been set. State unions=marriages. If you have issues with the semantics, well, that's unfortunate, but I fail to see why you can't just render unto Caesar what is Caesar's etc.

So the state's marraige legislation should be based around do whatever as long as no one is harmed... and leave the harm principle up to the courts.

That leaves the Church's free to do whatever, and still bans polygamy and unfair treatment of women.

But suppose you have a case where you have a polygamous or polyandrous relationship where all the participants are consenting adults?

My point is I don't care whether my friends prefer to marry or not. That is their life. I accept them as individuals. The same way that I accept gays as individuals. I don't care whether they want to live together and have a union.

My problem is the way they want to be included in the traditional definition of marriage.

Whether it's a legal term or not makes no difference. Whether liberals or gays argue that it's not a religious term makes no difference. Whether the law says it is valid makes no difference! Yes it may be valid under the eyes of the law....

...but the kind of validation that the gay groups are demanding will take a long time to happen....if it ever happens at all!

There will still be that invisible wall separating our belief of what a traditional marriage should be from that type of a so-called "marriage!"

Quite frankly, I doubt there's a lot of gays who give a rat's ass about getting "validation" from homophobic institutions like the R.C. Church. The point here is equal treatment under the law.

[Hicksey]

There will still be that invisible wall separating our belief of what a traditional marriage should be from that type of a so-called "marriage!"

Quite frankly, I doubt there's a lot of gays who give a rat's ass about getting "validation" from homophobic institutions like the R.C. Church. The point here is equal treatment under the law.

Remember my proposal? It seems to me that you just endorsed it, even if unintentionally.

That was the whole purpose of my proposal. Equal treament under the law. People could still celebrate their union however they want.

[Hollus]

There will still be that invisible wall separating our belief of what a traditional marriage should be from that type of a so-called "marriage!"

Quite frankly, I doubt there's a lot of gays who give a rat's ass about getting "validation" from homophobic institutions like the R.C. Church. The point here is equal treatment under the law.

Remember my proposal? It seems to me that you just endorsed it, even if unintentionally.

That was the whole purpose of my proposal. Equal treament under the law. People could still celebrate their union however they want.

No Hicksey, he did not endorse it at all.

I dont think religion owns the right to dictate what marrige means to the rest of the country. Is your church being forced to SMM? As I understand it, each church makes that decision on their own.

You seem to feel that the gay community is trying to attack religion by claiming equal rights as Canadian citizens. I feel my country is being attacked by religious extremists who want everyone to subscribe to their beliefs. I feel that if there are differences in opinion with regards to SSM in your religion, than thats somthing that should worked out within your religion. Just because the term 'marriage' was born through religion, does not mean that you can dictate to the rest of the country, how they should interpret it.

[tml12]

So, what's wrong about having a state-issued licence without using the word marriage?

Because allowing heterosexuals a state-issued marriage licnse while refusing teh same to homosexuals is discriminatory.

Seperation of Church and State was violated when the government got involved in marriage.

Canada doesn't have a formal separation of church and state.

If religious definitions must fit within legal definitions, then the state controls religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and as such is free from state control.

Religious definitions and civil (legal) terms are apples and oranges. People keep equating the two, but they are not the same at all, something recognized in the provisions in the Equal Marriage Act that allow religious institutions to define marriage on their own terms.

No, just stay out of marraige which is a religious issue and the government should never have been involved from the start.

Give people civil benifets, and end it at that. Churches are the only people that can authorize marriage.

The precedent has already been set. State unions=marriages. If you have issues with the semantics, well, that's unfortunate, but I fail to see why you can't just render unto Caesar what is Caesar's etc.

So the state's marraige legislation should be based around do whatever as long as no one is harmed... and leave the harm principle up to the courts.

That leaves the Church's free to do whatever, and still bans polygamy and unfair treatment of women.

But suppose you have a case where you have a polygamous or polyandrous relationship where all the participants are consenting adults?

My point is I don't care whether my friends prefer to marry or not. That is their life. I accept them as individuals. The same way that I accept gays as individuals. I don't care whether they want to live together and have a union.

My problem is the way they want to be included in the traditional definition of marriage.

Whether it's a legal term or not makes no difference. Whether liberals or gays argue that it's not a religious term makes no difference. Whether the law says it is valid makes no difference! Yes it may be valid under the eyes of the law....

...but the kind of validation that the gay groups are demanding will take a long time to happen....if it ever happens at all!

There will still be that invisible wall separating our belief of what a traditional marriage should be from that type of a so-called "marriage!"

Quite frankly, I doubt there's a lot of gays who give a rat's ass about getting "validation" from homophobic institutions like the R.C. Church. The point here is equal treatment under the law.

no and why should they? Catholic homosexuals do not need "validation" from their church to be married. They can get a civil union or, decide whether their sexuality or their religion is more important, and make a decision from there...