Same-Sex Marriage

[crazymf]

And like I said, even if they do get to keep SSM recognized by the law....it won't be the same. It will never be the same as that of the traditional marriage. Without the recognition and acceptance of religious orders (and their followers)...SSM will be meaningless. It is the kind of validation they'll never get.

Are you consistent with family and friends who are not married in a church -- that their union is somehow invalid and/or less than yours?

No.

Two queers being married. Yes. It's different.

Doesn't matter how you slice it. It isn't the same. Quit trying to make it normal. Live the way you want. Be in love with your boyfriend for life, have a civil union, whatever. Have the same rights and freedoms as all of us, absolutely.

Married. No.

We can argue all day, but at the end of it, I'll vote for a government against ssm and you'll vote for it. That's democracy and the day there gets to be more queers voting than straights, I guess you win.

The problem in talking in traditional terms about minorities is we always get branded as haters. Sorry to disappoint you but I don't hate queers, yet.

I'll let you know, but I'm getting REAL tired of gay parades and things like Gay Ski Week up at Whistler this week.

[Black Dog]

I meant the KoC case. KoC has their own rules. Whether we agree or not with their interpretations (like the examples you've given above), it is still their own organization and their own policy. We have no right to dictate to changes just to suit anyone who objects to it.

Which is why the BC Human Rioghts tribunal ruled they had the right to refuse to rent to teh couple in question. Get your facts "straight".

And like I said, even if they do get to keep SSM recognized by the law....it won't be the same. It will never be the same as that of the traditional marriage. Without the recognition and acceptance of religious orders (and their followers)...SSM will be meaningless. It is the kind of validation they'll never get.

Gee, someone should tell some of the religious groups that endorse gay marriage (including Canada's largest Protestant denomonation, the United Church).

Also: are heterosexual marriages unsanctified by religion also meaningless? Personally, as an atheist, I think the recongnition of the legality of my union is far more more meaningful than the blessing of some imaginary sky pixie.

[Madman]

What 'meaning' are you talking about? Do you think anyone cares what you think the 'meaning' of their marriage is? Since I doubt you’d be invited a wedding of a same-sex wedding anytime soon, leave that meaning to those involved.

The only encompassing meaning there is to any union that matters is the legal one. And as far as that goes, you don't really have a choice.

And what about divorce? Is it meaningless if it's forbidden by the church?

Do you think inter-faith marriages are meaningless if their respective churches EXPLICITLY forbid it?

This holier than thou attitude you exuberate is pathetic.

[crazymf]

I meant the KoC case. KoC has their own rules. Whether we agree or not with their interpretations (like the examples you've given above), it is still their own organization and their own policy. We have no right to dictate to changes just to suit anyone who objects to it.

Which is why the BC Human Rioghts tribunal ruled they had the right to refuse to rent to teh couple in question. Get your facts "straight".

And like I said, even if they do get to keep SSM recognized by the law....it won't be the same. It will never be the same as that of the traditional marriage. Without the recognition and acceptance of religious orders (and their followers)...SSM will be meaningless. It is the kind of validation they'll never get.

Gee, someone should tell some of the religious groups that endorse gay marriage (including Canada's largest Protestant denomonation, the United Church).

Also: are heterosexual marriages unsanctified by religion also meaningless? Personally, as an atheist, I think the recongnition of the legality of my union is far more more meaningful than the blessing of some imaginary sky pixie.

BD!!!!!!

Don't let the Muslims hear you say that about the big Muhammad. They'll be all over your black fur.

hahahaha

[Madman]

The problem in talking in traditional terms about minorities is we always get branded as haters. Sorry to disappoint you but I don't hate queers, yet.

I'll let you know, but I'm getting REAL tired of gay parades and things like Gay Ski Week up at Whistler this week.

I'm sure you've got them shaking in their boots.

You could pop a vein and fall into an epileptic fit of rage, and the parades and skiing will go on.

[Spike22]

What 'meaning' are you talking about? Do you think anyone cares what you think the 'meaning' of their marriage is? Since I doubt you’d be invited a wedding of a same-sex wedding anytime soon, leave that meaning to those involved.

The only encompassing meaning there is to any union that matters is the legal one. And as far as that goes, you don't really have a choice.

And what about divorce? Is it meaningless if it's forbidden by the church?

Do you think inter-faith marriages are meaningless if their respective churches EXPLICITLY forbid it?

This holier than thou attitude you exuberate is pathetic.

Madman or is that gayboy? Anyway a lot of folks do care about what we think the meaning of gay marriage means. It means corn holing and canoe playing. No reproduction of the human race possible between ya - so it is just a friendship with gay (yeck) sex.

[crazymf]

The problem in talking in traditional terms about minorities is we always get branded as haters. Sorry to disappoint you but I don't hate queers, yet.

I'll let you know, but I'm getting REAL tired of gay parades and things like Gay Ski Week up at Whistler this week.

I'm sure you've got them shaking in their boots.

You could pop a vein and fall into an epileptic fit of rage, and the parades and skiing will go on.

Yeah, I know. That's good though if they keep grouping up like that. It'll be easier to get rid of them all if the government ever comes to its senses.

Boom.......

Just kidding.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[Madman]

Madman or is that gayboy? Anyway a lot of folks do care about what we think the meaning of gay marriage means. It means corn holing and canoe playing. No reproduction of the human race possible between ya - so it is just a friendship with gay (yeck) sex.

Madman thank you... but I'll role play if you like.

Don't worry, I'll be gentle with your spike.

[betsy]

Of the few gay people I know, none care one bit about any of this, and laugh at all the kerfulle it has caused. Now I must admit the gays I know are not the type to be flaunting their homosexuality around, but they will openly tell you thye are gay. So is there a certain type of gay person that is pushing all this. Of my gay friends, they tell me is is mostly the gay activist type that seem to push this. I asked what they meant by that, and I must admit each one had a different answer. So that is why I am now asking here, if there are any even tiny differences in the laws or benefits to gay couples that would be joined by civil union.

I definitely agree with you! I know some gays too that even seem embarass about all these hooplas. They'd rather not be dragged along in this muck. I've seen a whole page ad taken by a group of homosexuals supporting the preservation of the traditional meaning of marriage.

It's only the lobby group (of course they're powerful)...and some radicals...and especially some liberal-do-gooders who think they're doing the homosexual community a lot of good by fighting for this "cause".

[betsy]

And like I said, even if they do get to keep SSM recognized by the law....it won't be the same. It will never be the same as that of the traditional marriage. Without the recognition and acceptance of religious orders (and their followers)...SSM will be meaningless. It is the kind of validation they'll never get.

Are you consistent with family and friends who are not married in a church -- that their union is somehow invalid and/or less than yours?

I've got a lesbian cousin living with a woman...and this was at least thirty years ago when I was a little girl. So I'm not immune to these. I've also got a gay cousin on my dad's side...a very open, flamboyant gay.

I guess the family just kept a stiff upper lip dealing with this.

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.

That is just the difference, isn't it?

[betsy]

Forming a gay church would not cure the underlying denial of equal access to a state-issued license.

I understand....and I do would like to see gay couples have the same legal protection that all couples have.

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

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.

Why can't you just settle for something like...common-law union? Or coin your own word?

Wouldn't it be more preferable to have something gays could call their very own?

[Melanie_]

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.

[cybercoma]

Marriage is a legal term, not a religious term....

credibility down the toilet.

[tml12]

Marriage is a legal term, not a religious term....

credibility down the toilet.

agreed there cyber

[Melanie_]

When you can't refute the argument, discredit the speaker.

[cybercoma]

When you can't refute the argument, discredit the speaker.

Marriage is a religious term and you said it yourself when you recognized that it takes a church to validate a marriage. You'll find marriage defined by almost every religion.

"Marriage is not a religious term...." is simply wrong.

[tml12]

When you can't refute the argument, discredit the speaker.

Marriage is a religious term and you said it yourself when you recognized that it takes a church to validate a marriage. You'll find marriage defined by almost every religion.

"Marriage is not a religious term...." is simply wrong.

agreed...

[Melanie_]

Marriage is a religious term and you said it yourself when you recognized that it takes a church to validate a marriage. You'll find marriage defined by almost every religion.

Not me, I was just quoting Betsy.

Marriage is a legal definition, and the right to perform marriages is granted from the government to clerics within a religion, justices of the peace, Elvis impersonators, etc. "And now, by the power granted to me by the Province of Manitoba, I pronounce you..."

[tml12]

Marriage is a religious term and you said it yourself when you recognized that it takes a church to validate a marriage. You'll find marriage defined by almost every religion.

Not me, I was just quoting Betsy.

Marriage is a legal definition, and the right to perform marriages is granted from the government to clerics within a religion, justices of the peace, Elvis impersonators, etc. "And now, by the power granted to me by the Province of Manitoba, I pronounce you..."

okay but the state is not a relifious insittution...

[Melanie_]

Exactly. The state defines marriage, and then grants the right to perform marriages to others. Those others can also put their own parameters on who they will and will not perform the ceremony for, but they can't put a binding definition on the word "marriage".

[cybercoma]

Sorry i'm wrong, Melanie didn't say a church was needed to validate marriage. She was making the point that a church isn't needed. And you're right, a church is not needed for the contract. Anyone can go get a marriage license from the city, but it is religion that has defined marriage. Almost every religion has their own rules for marriage and their own ceremonies for beginning a marriage. So it's incorrect to say marriage is not a religious term, because obviously it is. It's not somehow erased as a religious term because it's used as a legal term.

[Melanie_]

Sorry i'm wrong, Melanie didn't say a church was needed to validate marriage. She was making the point that a church isn't needed. And you're right, a church is not needed for the contract. Anyone can go get a marriage license from the city, but it is religion that has defined marriage. Almost every religion has their own rules for marriage and their own ceremonies for beginning a marriage. So it's incorrect to say marriage is not a religious term, because obviously it is. It's not somehow erased as a religious term because it's used as a legal term.

And I'll make the same argument in reverse. The legal definition is not erased because religions choose not to recognize it. The legal definition trumps the religious definitions, simply because as you said there are so many different religious interpretations. There is room for all of them, as long as the basic legal requirements are not violated. So, if a church chooses not to perform a same sex marriage, that doesn't mean that a same sex marriage performed elsewhere isn't valid.

[cybercoma]

Sorry i'm wrong, Melanie didn't say a church was needed to validate marriage. She was making the point that a church isn't needed. And you're right, a church is not needed for the contract. Anyone can go get a marriage license from the city, but it is religion that has defined marriage. Almost every religion has their own rules for marriage and their own ceremonies for beginning a marriage. So it's incorrect to say marriage is not a religious term, because obviously it is. It's not somehow erased as a religious term because it's used as a legal term.

And I'll make the same argument in reverse. The legal definition is not erased because religions choose not to recognize it. The legal definition trumps the religious definitions, simply because as you said there are so many different religious interpretations. There is room for all of them, as long as the basic legal requirements are not violated. So, if a church chooses not to perform a same sex marriage, that doesn't mean that a same sex marriage performed elsewhere isn't valid.

Still doesn't change the point that it is a religious term. You said it's not.

[Melanie_]

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.