Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

Leafless · September 15, 2006

Homosexuals wanted equality and the court found that denying them the benefit of marriage under Canadian law breached their rights as citizens.
Ther is no 'right' to marriage so marriage was not the issue at court.

Please advise me on where I lied.

Alternatives were available to gays other than 'marriage' that probably would have resulted with the same benefits has heterosexuals concerning equality.

Gays wanted marriage as they didn't want to feel different.

Guess what?

They ARE DIFFERENT both mentally and biologically relating to the difference marriage is designed for mainly by churches throughout the countries of the world. The church supports and promotes heterosexual marriage especially for procreation concerning the creation of families.

That's why they pursued the matter in court.

They wanted to be able to marry each other the same as heterosexuals and be seen in the same light even concerning families ..which is impossible anyways.

geoffrey · September 15, 2006

Well said Leafless. I don't think any Canadians have a problem with extending civil benefits and tax discounts to homosexual couples in long-term arrangements. That's all the state has to do, treat everyone equally. What they call their arrangements, that's up to them.

Pressure from EGALE and such groups took it one step further though, and they launched an attack on those of us in Canada that appreicate marraige as a part of our hertiage and tradition. They didn't need marriage to be equal, they need marriage to feel satisfied that they got to kick religion in the pants. Well congrats EGALE, you won, and in the process, distanced yourself from much of Canada's population.

TravellingTimeMachineSalesman · September 15, 2006

Canada needs to stop catering to "special interest groups" ( especially 'gays') who want to impose their twisted illogical values on the rest of society. Far as I am concerned the Pope shoud be the PM of Canada I would vote for him! I am sick and tired of vocal minority groups calling the shots!!

Rue · September 15, 2006

The Pope has no business scolding anyone other then Catholics. The last time I looked 33% of Canadians identified themselves as Catholics according to Statistics Canada. That would make the other 67% non Catholic although no doubt probably most Muslims and conservative and orthodox Jews and Hindus and Sieks probably agree with this kind of thinking.

That said, I would kindly ask this Pople as I would anyone else to keep their religion to their own followers. It has no place in state institutions. Keep your religious opinions out of my face.

If some gay person wants to marry or someone wants an abortion its none of my business and I do not need some man who spent 3 years shuffling Catholic Priests all about the world so they could not be sued for molesting children, lecturing me on what is right or wrong.

Before this Pope lectures anyone he can confess for his sins and his part in covering up sex scandals.

I dunno..... I have absolutly no problem with religious people expressing their views but at the same time I deserve the right to express mine. As a liberal (small l) I believe in freedom of speech. There is nothing wrong with debating issues in public.... everyone has the right to criticize anything they want if they do it in a responsible manner (ie no hate speech allowed). The pope can go right ahead and scold Canada but I have the same right to point out his intolerance and bigotry and blind following of morals written in a book hundreds of years ago that show him to be an inferior intelligence. People of intelligence don't blindly follow anything, they question the logic of everything and expose it to rational thought.

Lol. This means I have to stop checking out Paris Hilton's butt and listen to what comes out of her mouth? Sigh.

Rue · September 15, 2006

Canada needs to stop catering to "special interest groups" ( especially 'gays') who want to impose their twisted illogical values on the rest of society. Far as I am concerned the Pope shoud be the PM of Canada I would vote for him! I am sick and tired of vocal minority groups calling the shots!!

Then following your logic, sinc we have to stop catering to special interest groups, in addition to gays we will also have to stop catering to you and the Pope as well. That suits me just fine. The last time I looked, gay people were not trying to impose anything on me, the Pope was. No gay person has demanded you think like them. All they have asked for is to be treated fairly. No one has asked you to go to any gay marriage. You don't like them, stay at home. I doubt you would be invited anyways.

What you have failed to grasp is gays are not asking to impose their views on society. All they are asking is that society stop imposing their views on them. In a legal system, if it is to be fair, it doesn't take sides and only apply laws or allow rights for certain people as much as you would like that.

More to the point you want to elect this man as PM? I suggest you read up on his role of covering up sex scandals and hiding pedophile priests after they were caught before you suggest anyone vote for him for elected office. We have enough dishonest misfits as it is.

Renegade · September 15, 2006

What they call their arrangements, that's up to them.

How about if they call their arrangements: "marriage"!

TravellingTimeMachineSalesman · September 16, 2006

Then why is the 'gay lobby' trying to get this sordid stuff taught in our public schools especially in kindergarten? Oh, i get they want to condition young childrens' impressionable minds so they can be brainwashed to accept this sick and immoral lifestyle! Things were better when this stuff was kept 'personal' and behind close doors, no wonder our society will eventually go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah, Rome, Greece, and Babylon. Speaking about not learning from history!

jbg · September 16, 2006

I get lost on this frggin invision and only read your post today. It seems particuylarly apropo as I just read a post about a Sudanese man forced to marry a goat.
Are you ready to enact a law and have the RCMP enforce it? LOL ! That would make Canada the envy of even the Dutch and Danes!

My view is that if someone loves their goat, they should be allowed to have carnal relations with that goat, irrespective of gender. I believe anything less represents out-of-touch reactionary conservatism.

Renegade · September 16, 2006

Then why is the 'gay lobby' trying to get this sordid stuff taught in our public schools especially in kindergarten? Oh, i get they want to condition young childrens' impressionable minds so they can be brainwashed to accept this sick and immoral lifestyle!

What exactly are you talking about? Who specificly is the "gay lobby", and what specificly are they trying to have taught in kindergarden? What exactly does this have to do with the issue of SSM?

It is clear that you are completely judgemental of the gay community, and your only argument is based upon your personal belief system. You make no case why your personal belief system should be imposed across secular society or secular institutions.

bradco · September 18, 2006

Well said Leafless. I don't think any Canadians have a problem with extending civil benefits and tax discounts to homosexual couples in long-term arrangements. That's all the state has to do, treat everyone equally. What they call their arrangements, that's up to them.
Pressure from EGALE and such groups took it one step further though, and they launched an attack on those of us in Canada that appreicate marraige as a part of our hertiage and tradition. They didn't need marriage to be equal, they need marriage to feel satisfied that they got to kick religion in the pants. Well congrats EGALE, you won, and in the process, distanced yourself from much of Canada's population.

they need marriage for the same reason everyone else wants to be "married". Most people in society grow up conditioned to believe that getting married/having family is the way to do it and gay people are no different. I dont think it had anything to do with "kicking religion in the pants". When and why did religion get a monopoly on the word "marriage"??

Remiel · September 18, 2006

I imagine the notion of religions monopoly on marriage has something to do with the fact that for thousands and thousands of years, marriage has been celebrated religiously, though it itself may not be a function of religion.

M.Dancer · September 18, 2006

Might also have to do witn the question of property, the role of the church in archiving contracts, and a curious law of bygone times where the property of a childless marriage reverted to the church.

I think when someone trots out the phrase "traditional marriage" their scope of tradition is very narrow. It would have been very rare for instance, for a couple without property to marry in a church.

Others point out that the sociological and historical origins of marriage were not religious, but rather proprietary. Specifically, the institution of marriage was created to govern the transfer of ownership of property, including women and children, between wealthy families. Only later did this contract become sanctified by religion. Thus, some people consider that the very origin of the institution of marriage should divest it of any continuing validity, and some even believe that marriage can never be a truly equal partnership precisely because of these origins. They share the view that the state should cease to play a role in regulating marriage, and that marriage should be left to individuals and their beliefs.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/mar/2.html
And an example of the fluidity of marriage in past...in auld scotland which had 3 forms of marriage...
http://www.virtualimprint.com/burns/contrib/marriage.htm

M.Dancer · September 18, 2006

I get lost on this frggin invision and only read your post today. It seems particuylarly apropo as I just read a post about a Sudanese man forced to marry a goat.

Are you ready to enact a law and have the RCMP enforce it? LOL ! That would make Canada the envy of even the Dutch and Danes!

My view is that if someone loves their goat, they should be allowed to have carnal relations with that goat, irrespective of gender. I believe anything less represents out-of-touch reactionary conservatism.

I agree with you, provided that the goat can prove that it understands the nature of relationship,and will swear so.

Rue · September 18, 2006

The pope can blow me.

Careful he might just take you up on that offer.

Rue · September 18, 2006

I get lost on this frggin invision and only read your post today. It seems particuylarly apropo as I just read a post about a Sudanese man forced to marry a goat.

Are you ready to enact a law and have the RCMP enforce it? LOL ! That would make Canada the envy of even the Dutch and Danes!

My view is that if someone loves their goat, they should be allowed to have carnal relations with that goat, irrespective of gender. I believe anything less represents out-of-touch reactionary conservatism.

So my question is, if you want to sleep with goats, why would I be so preoccupied with needing to innunciate an edict saying screwing goats is yechy bad?

I mean next you will want an edict preventing men from screwing Paris Hilton! Where will it end?

betsy · September 19, 2006

The last time I looked, gay people were not trying to impose anything on me, the Pope was.

Challenging a CATHOLIC SCHOOL to let a gay bring his partner to the prom is an imposition! The nerve!

I would just like to see him try that to a Muslim School!

betsy · September 19, 2006

What exactly are you talking about? Who specificly is the "gay lobby", and what specificly are they trying to have taught in kindergarden? What exactly does this have to do with the issue of SSM?

There had been clashes between parents and school boards in Hamilton and BC regarding the curriculum. It's been in some news not too long ago.

Then there's the parent who saw the kind of reading materials her grade school children were told to read....the subject was about same-sex couples. I heard this on the CBC hourly news radio program sometime this year. It was just a short clip.

There are controversies happening that somehow don't get played prominently on mainstream media....and if they ever make it to the news, they seemed to be "down-played" considerably. They don't get the same massive exposure like say...Dawson shooting, when special interest groups like the anti-gun lobby groups or pro-gun registry liberal thinkers have something to gain.

Charles Anthony · September 19, 2006

I will play the devil's advocate here because I think it is warranted.

The last time I looked, gay people were not trying to impose anything on me, the Pope was.
Challenging a CATHOLIC SCHOOL to let a gay bring his partner to the prom is an imposition! The nerve!
I would just like to see him try that to a Muslim School!

You may be right: Islamic schools may not accept that imposition.

However, if a publicly funded Islamic school taught anti-social behavior, would you not expect a back-lash from the rest of the tax-paying public??? You should.

What exactly are you talking about? Who specificly is the "gay lobby", and what specificly are they trying to have taught in kindergarden? What exactly does this have to do with the issue of SSM?
There had been clashes between parents and school boards in Hamilton and BC regarding the curriculum. It's been in some news not too long ago.

Too bad. Those parents should send their kids to a private school. If you root through the trash can, you will not likely find gold.

If you want publicly-funded daycare -- I mean, school, guess what?? do not be surprised if the tax-paying public sticks its nose in your business.

myata · September 19, 2006

Challenging a CATHOLIC SCHOOL to let a gay bring his partner to the prom is an imposition! The nerve!
I would just like to see him try that to a Muslim School!

I can't disagree. Religions should be allowed to function according to their teaching, within their congregations (with all the appropriate qualifications). By the same token, there's no reason whatsoever to "impose" religous concepts (such as interpretation of what a marriage should be), in a secular society, on the people who have nothing to do with those religions. We should be able to agree here.

Renegade · September 19, 2006

There had been clashes between parents and school boards in Hamilton and BC regarding the curriculum. It's been in some news not too long ago.

I haven't heard of this before, but even assuming this happened, this is a far cry from the "gay lobby" pushing their agenda on to the curriculum, unless somehow you are suggesting that the "gay lobby" has infiltrated the school board.

Then there's the parent who saw the kind of reading materials her grade school children were told to read....the subject was about same-sex couples. I heard this on the CBC hourly news radio program sometime this year. It was just a short clip.

Whether it is objectionable or not really depends upon the context. Was it incidental to the story, was it informative about same-sex couples , or was it endorsing the lifestyle?

Renegade · September 20, 2006

Challenging a CATHOLIC SCHOOL to let a gay bring his partner to the prom is an imposition! The nerve!

I would just like to see him try that to a Muslim School!

I can't disagree. Religions should be allowed to function according to their teaching, within their congregations (with all the appropriate qualifications). By the same token, there's no reason whatsoever to "impose" religous concepts (such as interpretation of what a marriage should be), in a secular society, on the people who have nothing to do with those religions. We should be able to agree here.

The ironic thing here is being homosexual isnt aginst catholic doctrine, only homosexual acts are. So for a Catholic school to ban a gay partner, they would have to assume that the intent is to commit homosexual acts.

Premarital hetroxexual acts are also against Catholic doctrine, however there doesn't seem to be the same presumption that a sin would occur in the case of hetrosexual prom dates.

Charles Anthony · September 20, 2006

Premarital hetroxexual acts are also against Catholic doctrine, however there doesn't seem to be the same presumption that a sin would occur in the case of hetrosexual prom dates.

There is a different way to interpret that irony which may not be so contradictory.

The prom is a form of courtship and pre-marital sex is not permitted.

Since the Catholic church disallows homosexual marriage, it only makes sense to disallow a homosexual courtship.

Renegade · September 20, 2006

The prom is a form of courtship and pre-marital sex is not permitted.

Yet a prom is a form of courtship which is more likely to lead to pre-marital sex than it is to lead ot marriage.

Since the Catholic church disallows homosexual marriage, it only makes sense to disallow a homosexual courtship.

There is no way a homosexual courtship can lead to homosexual marriage since the church does not even recognize this as a marriage. As far as the church is concerned the only thing that homosexual courtship can lead to is homosexual acts.

myata · September 20, 2006

The ironic thing here is being homosexual isnt aginst catholic doctrine, only homosexual acts are. So for a Catholic school to ban a gay partner, they would have to assume that the intent is to commit homosexual acts.
Premarital hetroxexual acts are also against Catholic doctrine, however there doesn't seem to be the same presumption that a sin would occur in the case of hetrosexual prom dates.

It's possible but it's up to the church to interpret its own doctrines. If a Catholic feels they may have been misinterpreted in some cases, there should be (I assume) avenues to appeal. My point is that there's absolutely no reason to impose religious doctrines on the secular society.

Charles Anthony · September 20, 2006

As far as the church is concerned the only thing that homosexual courtship can lead to is homosexual acts.

Therefore, they discourage it.

However, heterosexual courtship does not NECESSARILY lead to sin -- according to the Catholic definition of sin.

If the Church teaches sex only after marriage, there is no contradiction with permitting heterosexual courtship. The prom could also lead to drinking and driving which are sins, I think, maybe ( I confess: I do not know but let us just assume it for an analogy). However, drinking and driving is not NECESSARILY a result of going to the prom.