Same-Sex Marriage

Nocrap · March 19, 2006

Wow. Everyone is weighing in on this.

The problem with such a debate is that we are assuming that people who are Gay cannot be religous, or if you are religous, you cannot be Gay. Once we debate on religous grounds, it becomes something quite different.

Gay couples want to be married in a church, for the same reason that Heterosexual couples want to be married in a church. The trouble is that once you say Gay, SEX becomes the only consideration. We don't ask a man and woman wanting to marry if they practice S and M....Do they practice group sex....will they molest their children....will they cheat on their partner...yet all of these occur within the confines of a man/woman marriage.

My grandson has a rare genetic disorder and in my town of about 150,000 there is only one other child with same disease. His parents happen to be both women, who adopted him knowing the challenges they would face. They both attend church regularly and are bringing their son up with what you could call 'Christian values', which include not passing judgement on anyone.

I watched him be baptized, and he and my grandson visit back and forth on a regular basis. He is happy and healthy and well cared for, both physically and spiritually. An absolute delight.

Funnily enough, when we get together with his mothers, we never discuss our sex lives.

Drea · March 19, 2006

Wow. Everyone is weighing in on this.
The problem with such a debate is that we are assuming that people who are Gay cannot be religous, or if you are religous, you cannot be Gay. Once we debate on religous grounds, it becomes something quite different.

Gay couples want to be married in a church, for the same reason that Heterosexual couples want to be married in a church. The trouble is that once you say Gay, SEX becomes the only consideration. We don't ask a man and woman wanting to marry if they practice S and M....Do they practice group sex....will they molest their children....will they cheat on their partner...yet all of these occur within the confines of a man/woman marriage.

My grandson has a rare genetic disorder and in my town of about 150,000 there is only one other child with same disease. His parents happen to be both women, who adopted him knowing the challenges they would face. They both attend church regularly and are bringing their son up with what you could call 'Christian values', which include not passing judgement on anyone.

I watched him be baptized, and he and my grandson visit back and forth on a regular basis. He is happy and healthy and well cared for, both physically and spiritually. An absolute delight.

Funnily enough, when we get together with his mothers, we never discuss our sex lives.

You nailed it perfectly nocrap!

na85 · March 21, 2006

wow, this thread is STILL going on? :blink:

Virgil · March 24, 2006

Wow. Everyone is weighing in on this.
The problem with such a debate is that we are assuming that people who are Gay cannot be religous, or if you are religous, you cannot be Gay. Once we debate on religous grounds, it becomes something quite different.

Gay couples want to be married in a church, for the same reason that Heterosexual couples want to be married in a church. The trouble is that once you say Gay, SEX becomes the only consideration. We don't ask a man and woman wanting to marry if they practice S and M....Do they practice group sex....will they molest their children....will they cheat on their partner...yet all of these occur within the confines of a man/woman marriage.

My grandson has a rare genetic disorder and in my town of about 150,000 there is only one other child with same disease. His parents happen to be both women, who adopted him knowing the challenges they would face. They both attend church regularly and are bringing their son up with what you could call 'Christian values', which include not passing judgement on anyone.

I watched him be baptized, and he and my grandson visit back and forth on a regular basis. He is happy and healthy and well cared for, both physically and spiritually. An absolute delight.

Funnily enough, when we get together with his mothers, we never discuss our sex lives.

A gay person may be religious, his religious beliefs are simply offshoots of standard (say Christianity, not all religions are against gays, I'm going to speak specifically of Christianity however). An issue such as gay marriage should be taken up by the gays and supporter with the church, and not the government. Civil union should be completely legal since all Canadians should be equal in legal rights. Marriage is merely civil union with a religious blessing, so ig the gays seek that blessing, they should seek it with the church.

I thus believe that the government should make gay marriage legal on the boundaries that the specified religion the person is marrying in permits it.

"Elton John and David Furnish did not have the legal standing to get a "marriage" certificate. British law only allows same sex couples to get a civil union certificate. They had no choice in the matter. Assuming there is different treatment under the law based on which type of union you enter (marriage v. civil union), I can tell you that as a gay man, the percentage of gay men I know who would willingly choose the one that gave fewer protections is virtually non-existent."

As I said before, marriage is a religious issue, and with the church being a private institution, the British government has no business saying they could marry. Wich is probably why they didn't.

Liam · March 24, 2006

...I thus believe that the government should make gay marriage legal on the boundaries that the specified religion the person is marrying in permits it.
"Elton John and David Furnish did not have the legal standing to get a "marriage" certificate. British law only allows same sex couples to get a civil union certificate. They had no choice in the matter. Assuming there is different treatment under the law based on which type of union you enter (marriage v. civil union), I can tell you that as a gay man, the percentage of gay men I know who would willingly choose the one that gave fewer protections is virtually non-existent."

As I said before, marriage is a religious issue, and with the church being a private institution, the British government has no business saying they could marry. Wich is probably why they didn't.

So, you want religions to determine to whom the state should issue certain licenses? That seems very theocratic to me.

No, the British system didn't restrict gays from "marriage" because it is a private and/or religious arrangement. They only offered gays "civil union" certificates, not the same marriage licenses they hand out to every capricious straight couple before they head to the altar for the fifth or sixth time.

JerrySeinfeld · March 24, 2006

...I thus believe that the government should make gay marriage legal on the boundaries that the specified religion the person is marrying in permits it.
"Elton John and David Furnish did not have the legal standing to get a "marriage" certificate. British law only allows same sex couples to get a civil union certificate. They had no choice in the matter. Assuming there is different treatment under the law based on which type of union you enter (marriage v. civil union), I can tell you that as a gay man, the percentage of gay men I know who would willingly choose the one that gave fewer protections is virtually non-existent."

As I said before, marriage is a religious issue, and with the church being a private institution, the British government has no business saying they could marry. Wich is probably why they didn't.

So, you want religions to determine to whom the state should issue certain licenses? That seems very theocratic to me.

No, the British system didn't restrict gays from "marriage" because it is a private and/or religious arrangement. They only offered gays "civil union" certificates, not the same marriage licenses they hand out to every capricious straight couple before they head to the altar for the fifth or sixth time.

Same sexmarriage is an oxymoron.

You can't call a man you likes men a heterosexual can you? Well I suppose you could, but you'd be changing the definition of a word.

If we started calling man-woman couples homosexual, would we gain anything?

Running around changing the definition of words is an odd excercise.

Riverwind · March 24, 2006

Running around changing the definition of words is an odd excercise.

The meaning of words changes all of the time - there is nothing wrong with it. The word 'liberal' used to refer to people in favour of free markets and free trade.

JerrySeinfeld · March 24, 2006

Running around changing the definition of words is an odd excercise.
The meaning of words changes all of the time - there is nothing wrong with it. The word 'liberal' used to refer to people in favour of free markets and free trade.

It still is in the academic world.

This hasn't changed, you just weren't aware of it.

Since we're changing meanings, how about changing the meaning of the word "heterosexual" to include same sex couples?

Riverwind · March 24, 2006

Since we're changing meanings, how about changing the meaning of the word "heterosexual" to include same sex couples?

Changing that particular word would be a but strange since the prefix 'hetero' means 'different'. You can't make that statement about marriage. That word now refers to two people in a committed relationship of either sex. A few people have a problem with that change but a few people had a problem with changing the meaning of the word 'person' to include women back in the 20s. So it is unlikely there will be any question about the meaning of the marriage word 20 years from now.

JerrySeinfeld · March 24, 2006

Since we're changing meanings, how about changing the meaning of the word "heterosexual" to include same sex couples?
Changing that particular word would be a but strange since the prefix 'hetero' means 'different'. You can't make that statement about marriage. That word now refers to two people in a committed relationship of either sex. A few people have a problem with that change but a few people had a problem with changing the meaning of the word 'person' to include women back in the 20s. So it is unlikely there will be any question about the meaning of the marriage word 20 years from now.

20 years? you're right on that. in our eager-to-be-progressive, can't-wait-to-lose-last-years-tradition society you can bet the definition will be "any union between one man,one woman, or one man and another man or one man and seven women...." - surely to satisfy the muslims among us as we know it's important to satisfy every minority right as it pertains to the legal definition of words.......blah blah blah

good stuff guys - keep the hits a comin'

betsy · March 25, 2006

Wow. Everyone is weighing in on this.
The problem with such a debate is that we are assuming that people who are Gay cannot be religous, or if you are religous, you cannot be Gay. Once we debate on religous grounds, it becomes something quite different.

Gay couples want to be married in a church, for the same reason that Heterosexual couples want to be married in a church. The trouble is that once you say Gay, SEX becomes the only consideration. We don't ask a man and woman wanting to marry if they practice S and M....Do they practice group sex....will they molest their children....will they cheat on their partner...yet all of these occur within the confines of a man/woman marriage.

My grandson has a rare genetic disorder and in my town of about 150,000 there is only one other child with same disease. His parents happen to be both women, who adopted him knowing the challenges they would face. They both attend church regularly and are bringing their son up with what you could call 'Christian values', which include not passing judgement on anyone.

I watched him be baptized, and he and my grandson visit back and forth on a regular basis. He is happy and healthy and well cared for, both physically and spiritually. An absolute delight.

Funnily enough, when we get together with his mothers, we never discuss our sex lives.

I do not assume that a gay person cannot be religious. A truly religious person (Christian) would understand what the resistance is all about.

And a truly religious Christian will not try to change the words of God just so to suit one's own needs.

For does that not seem an arrogance towards God? Rebelling against the Head of the Church (Pope) is like going on a mutiny against God.

We all have our own demons to conquer, or our own crosses to bear. I guess it is in the way we bear them that counts in God's eyes.

And yes, it is the sex, isn't it?

If you'll consider most of the Christian values...they all boil down to be sex-related...or about carnal pleasures. There is the abortion issue, adultery, fornication, perversions etc..,

The resistance is not a matter of passing judgement on gays...but rather, a fight to preserve the true meaning of marriage as God and Christ had intended it. Obviously the union of a man and woman is significant for was not Christ a guest in a marriage where-in he performed a miracle?

Liam · March 27, 2006

The resistance is not a matter of passing judgement on gays...but rather, a fight to preserve the true meaning of marriage as God and Christ had intended it. Obviously the union of a man and woman is significant for was not Christ a guest in a marriage where-in he performed a miracle?

Unfortunately for your side of this argument, Betsy, it is the state, not the churches, who issue marriage licenses. Churches always could and will always be allowed to determine who meets the standards of their sacraments, but where the state has taken upon itself to begin issuing licenses, it *must* treat its citizens fairly and equally.

There was an interesting exchange that circulated via email down here in the US this past week regarding gay marriage. I don't know if it made its way up to Canada:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/raskin.asp

JerrySeinfeld · March 27, 2006

The resistance is not a matter of passing judgement on gays...but rather, a fight to preserve the true meaning of marriage as God and Christ had intended it. Obviously the union of a man and woman is significant for was not Christ a guest in a marriage where-in he performed a miracle?

Unfortunately for your side of this argument, Betsy, it is the state, not the churches, who issue marriage licenses. Churches always could and will always be allowed to determine who meets the standards of their sacraments, but where the state has taken upon itself to begin issuing licenses, it *must* treat its citizens fairly and equally.

There was an interesting exchange that circulated via email down here in the US this past week regarding gay marriage. I don't know if it made its way up to Canada:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/raskin.asp

Exactly how would the charter be violated if SSM was not allowed and instead civil unions were in place, with exactly the same spousal rights as a marriage?

Riverwind · March 27, 2006

Exactly how would the charter be violated if SSM was not allowed and instead civil unions were in place, with exactly the same spousal rights as a marriage?

Exactly how would having the gov't call gay marriages 'civil unions' affect hetrosexual marriages? Society is changing. People will call same sex unions marriages if that is what they want. Some churches will hold marriage ceremonies for gay people and will not distinguish them from hetro marriages no matter what the gov't says. In short, having two definitions for the same thing is a big waste of gov't time and money that accomplishes nothing other than giving a few bigots the illusion that they are living in a society that does not exist anymore.

JerrySeinfeld · March 28, 2006

Exactly how would the charter be violated if SSM was not allowed and instead civil unions were in place, with exactly the same spousal rights as a marriage?
Exactly how would having the gov't call gay marriages 'civil unions' affect hetrosexual marriages? Society is changing. People will call same sex unions marriages if that is what they want. Some churches will hold marriage ceremonies for gay people and will not distinguish them from hetro marriages no matter what the gov't says. In short, having two definitions for the same thing is a big waste of gov't time and money that accomplishes nothing other than giving a few bigots the illusion that they are living in a society that does not exist anymore.

"A few bigots?"

check the poll - it's 42% of the population.

Typical lefty drag queen stuff to say we should change the definition "because we want to".

There really is no good reason.

Riverwind · March 28, 2006

check the poll - it's 42% of the population.

How many really care that much about it? Answering a poll question does not count as caring.

There really is no good reason.

There is no good reason to fight the change since no hetro marriage will be affected by the change in definition.

Renegade · March 28, 2006

Exactly how would the charter be violated if SSM was not allowed and instead civil unions were in place, with exactly the same spousal rights as a marriage?

The charter would not be violated if civil unions were offered, providing they are offered to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. So, if the government, instead of legislating "marriage" only legislated "civil-unions" everything would be fine.

Renegade · March 28, 2006

check the poll - it's 42% of the population.

Yep, slavery and segregation had a lot of support too at one time.

JerrySeinfeld · March 28, 2006

check the poll - it's 42% of the population.

Yep, slavery and segregation had a lot of support too at one time.

This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights.

Renegade · March 28, 2006

check the poll - it's 42% of the population.

Yep, slavery and segregation had a lot of support too at one time.

This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights.

Actually it does, that's why the SCC ruled that gay's rights as protected by the Charter were violated.

JerrySeinfeld · March 28, 2006

check the poll - it's 42% of the population.

Yep, slavery and segregation had a lot of support too at one time.

This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights.

Actually it does, that's why the SCC ruled that gay's rights as protected by the Charter were violated.

Show me amnesty's section on gays please.

JerrySeinfeld · March 28, 2006

check the poll - it's 42% of the population.

Yep, slavery and segregation had a lot of support too at one time.

This has absolutely nothing to do with human rights.

Actually it does, that's why the SCC ruled that gay's rights as protected by the Charter were violated.

Correction: please show me where "gay marriage" is listed as a Human Right in Amnesty International?

Renegade · March 28, 2006

please show me where "gay marriage" is listed as a Human Right in Amnesty International?

What's the matter, SCCs interpretation of the Charter of Rights not good enough for you?

Here's what AI specifies:

Article 16

1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Note that it doesn't limit the right of marriage to only hetrosexual couples.

JerrySeinfeld · March 28, 2006

please show me where "gay marriage" is listed as a Human Right in Amnesty International?

What's the matter, SCCs interpretation of the Charter of Rights not good enough for you?

Here's what AI specifies:

Article 16

1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Note that it doesn't limit the right of marriage to only hetrosexual couples.