Mr. Chater Posted September 19, 2003 Report Share Posted September 19, 2003 Look, i have been thinking. If Gay Marriag was aloud, wouldn't it result to a large disaster. I think this because for example; if the Charter is changed wouldn't it affect the Cathlic Churche and the Preist/Minister (whoever it may be) and let them have a hard time? I am a cathlic and i know in our Religion it is wrong for homosexual marriag is it not? Now if a preist reads from the bible and comes across this and talked about it (of how wrong it is) and someone present didn't like what they heard went and reported it..would something happen to the churche? Or the Preist? I'm just curious because this is not the only example. You see, i'm arguing with myself because if the government made it Law for discrimination towards Gays to be stopped, and marriags to be aloud, it would be against the churche. But then again in the Charter section 2 It clearly states that you have a right to your thoughts, beliefs and religion. So i'm quite confused what would go on. Also, Preists and so on and so forth wouldn't marry the couple because it is against the bible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted September 19, 2003 Report Share Posted September 19, 2003 thats bull no one, especially the NDP, will allow the freedom of religion to be infringed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted September 19, 2003 Report Share Posted September 19, 2003 Bill C-250 has been passed, it is now pending approval by the Senate after which it will become law. Once that is done, parts of the Bible will become officially 'hate speech.' To read those parts aloud in public (e.g. a Church congregation) or to publish them (e.g. by printing a Bible) would be considered a hate crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Therefore, yes, you could legally have a priest imprisoned for reading parts of the Bible, just as it was in Stalin's Russia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pellaken Posted September 19, 2003 Report Share Posted September 19, 2003 that's bull sh*t that's a lie and had you named a person, they could sue you for libel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted September 19, 2003 Report Share Posted September 19, 2003 We can see you've really considered this issue. Go and actually read the bill, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chater Posted September 19, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2003 thats hard to believe if you know what i mean. That could change a lot and there would be one hell of an uproar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted September 19, 2003 Report Share Posted September 19, 2003 I doubt it. Too many people share Pellaken's views: they don't believe it and they won't take the time to inform themselves. You never appreciate what you have until it's taken away, and C-250 basically takes away freedom of speech and religion at least regarding the topic of homosexuality. The Big Three monotheistic religions won't be allowed to read or even publish their scripture, countless medical journals will have to be burnt, and "ex-gay" support groups will have to disband and destroy their literature. That's right, throwing priests in jail, breaking up legitimate meetings and clubs, and book-burnings. Let's see... who else can you think of who liked to do those kinds of things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chater Posted September 20, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2003 Well what about in the Chart: Section 2. Everyone has the right to Beliefs and Religion...? Could that also not be argued with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted September 20, 2003 Report Share Posted September 20, 2003 Yes, but now gay-rights groups have the same rights (on paper) that religious groups do. The legal actions are already being drawn up, I assure you. There are pro-gay legal firms who make a living finding suitable cases to advance the gay cause. Please, if you can think of just one incident where a religious group has won a court action against a gay-rights group, let me know. It seems to me that any legal battle between the two is a foregone conclusion. Just witness what gay activists have been allowed to get away with in the last decade or so, against what things that organised religion has been stamped upon for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theWatcher Posted September 20, 2003 Report Share Posted September 20, 2003 Five years ago these same politicans were telling us to read their lips and that gays would never be permitted marriage. Now we have it. How can you believe anything they say? I believe that the bible will eventually be banned, but it won't be the politicians who do it, it will be the courts who decide that one. And all the politicans will shrug and say its not their fault. Think about it, 3 unelected officals (Supreme court judges) ultimately decide what our laws will be. The Liberals purposely left out sexual orientation from the charter of rights, they have stated this many many times. And the judges read it in. Svend has out smarted everyone on this issue. Three strikes, gay marriage, bill C250, and then the challenge. The battle will have started when the first gay couple sues a church after being refused marriage. How many days from now is that going to happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chater Posted September 20, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2003 i find it somewhat funny how the Liberals had said that they will defend the definition and then go back on their word. Though i know Times Change..still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Farrius Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 How insightful and profound, Mr Chater. I find it funny that conservatives do exactly the same. But of course, I know times change... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 we should go back to the days when blacks were slaves and women were property. its the way God wanted it before all those pesky courts, and politicians, and constitutions got in the way. amen Sirriff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nova_satori Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 i find it somewhat funny how the Liberals had said that they will defend the definition and then go back on their word. Though i know Times Change..still. So do conservatives. Your points is.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chater Posted September 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 haha, yes. I know we all do. But this was one of the Liberals big promises in 1999. To hold the true definition of Marriage. I know..i know.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debo Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 we should go back to the days when blacks were slaves and women were property.its the way God wanted it before all those pesky courts, and politicians, and constitutions got in the way. amen Sirriff Pesky courts? what about human rights or maybe God or simply treating people like people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 You never appreciate what you have until it's taken away, and C-250 basically takes away freedom of speech and religion at least regarding the topic of homosexuality. The Big Three monotheistic religions won't be allowed to read or even publish their scripture, countless medical journals will have to be burnt, and "ex-gay" support groups will have to disband and destroy their literature.That's right, throwing priests in jail, breaking up legitimate meetings and clubs, and book-burnings. Let's see... who else can you think of who liked to do those kinds of things? Uh huh. Even if the bill in question did allow the above (how about providing a link or a source?), can you think of a politician who'd be willing to commit political suicide by allowing such actions? Canadians are a tolerant bunch, that's why most support same sex marriage. However, most would draw the line at such stormtrooper tactics. In other words: it won't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 In other words: it won't happen. Pastor Niemoller was heard to say much the same thing. Regardless, the fact is that these things have already started happening. Early in 2000, a group of feminist thugs attacked, robbed, vandalized and desecrated with a burning cross Mary Queen of the World Cathedral in Montreal. The demonstrators yelled anti-religious slurs to protest in favour of abortion and against Catholicism's "patriarchal" doctrines. From the National Post's coverage of the same event: "Secretary of State Hedy Fry, who elsewhere sees two Klansmen in every home and a burning cross on every lawn, did not decry the Montreal desecration. Far from it. The only news release issued by her Status of Women Canada secretariat near the date of the Montreal defilement (March 8, 2000) came two days later and it blew sunshine up Finance Minister Paul Martin's kilt: Women and their families stand to gain in Budget 2000. An actual, egregious example of hateful, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian bigotry had just taken place, and the federal minister responsible for ending prejudice didn't even take notice. She was too busy writing news releases extolling the virtues of her party's government." So there you go, Black Dog. Not only are the things you claim will never happen already happening, but the politicians you say will never allow them to happen, are allowing them to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Hate to revive this old thread but needed to ask a question; Got this lady friend who is married and has a lady lover and they are kinda bored with her husband. Can I legally marry al of them so that I don't split the family up so to speak? Or if I choose her, can I leave him out or is this bigamy? What if she got a divorce can I marry the two girls? What if I married the guy, do I get the girls? While I am on the subject what if the two ladies are married already to guys and this guy is married to each of them? Do I have to marry everybody or is it just a 'one on one' thing? If so, why can't I marry the whole world and have it recognised as my constitutional right here in Canada and have my wedding night nuptuals with any partner I choose? If not, then where is the line? Priest: Krusty Kid, do you solemly swear to ....... KK: Whatever. Koffee Anon: They do. Priest: I now pronounce you, KK, ruler and husband (or bride) of the world. (Only effective in Canada.) KK: World, strip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 No reasonable person can believe that freedom of religion will be automatically trumped by freedom of sexual preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 However, it has been proven that freedom of sexual preference can trump freedom of religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 However, it has been proven that freedom of sexual preference can trump freedom of religion. It has happened in a few cases that I can think of. There was the gay prom case in Ontario that, I think, was dropped before it made it to trial. ( I didn't agree with the court ruling in that case by the way. ) But the deciding factor seemed to be that publicly funded religious schools aren't truly religious. Still, it's an impossible stretch for someone to suggest that sermonizing against homosexuality after the law is passed will result in an automatic jail sentence due to hate crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chater Posted November 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 o god - Yet another one of these threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.