Homosexuality is an anomaly

[leonardcohen]

As I said before, it is the terminology which is the issue. The term "marriage". To some it is a sacriment (sacred) term, to others it is just a legal term. Its usage applied to or not to homosexual union only reflects whose sensabilities you wish to offend. Liberals wish to offend the conservative because that is their nature.

As far as the religious definition, yes homosexuals can not be married in most Christian churches, and certainly not in Moslim ones. The churches where they can be married are just ones that were for sale.

Terminology is NOT the issue.

Many Christians find it unacceptable that homosexuals are using the traditional word 'marriage' to describe themselves being just as 'EQUALLY MARRIED' as Christians and other religions that use that word to describe the union of a 'man and a women'. There are other words homosexuals could have chosen to describe their UNIQUE union.

Since homosexuality is not a religion but a 'lifestyle' and to 'BORROW' the word marriage to include homosexuals is seen by many an repulsive anomaly (relating especially in our country) to Christianity.

The federal government has degraded Christianity and Christians by allowing the word 'marriage' to describe the union of two members of the same sex.

Thank You--Exactly the sentiment i was searching for.

[Renegade]

Many Christians find it unacceptable that homosexuals are using the traditional word 'marriage' to describe themselves being just as 'EQUALLY MARRIED' as Christians and other religions that use that word to describe the union of a 'man and a women'. There are other words homosexuals could have chosen to describe their UNIQUE union.

It is not homosexuals who made the choice. The government and society usurped the word "marriage" and wrote it into law to denote a civil union between two people, quite outside a religious context. Society has used the word "marriage" to confer recognition of a commitment and relationship between two spouses. Since that is the word society and government uses, homosexuals quite rightly should be using the same term.

No doubt you will also object to their use of the word "family" to describe themselves. Do you object to two single people living together who call themselves "common-law married", or is this something you'd like them to invent a new word for as well?

Since homosexuality is not a religion but a 'lifestyle' and to 'BORROW' the word marriage to include homosexuals is seen by many an repulsive anomaly (relating especially in our country) to Christianity.

It is quite plain that the word marriage has been used outside a religious context for quite some time. Homosexuals for the most part care about the legal and societal definition of marriage and don't give a damn about the religious definition of marriage. Any religion is free to define marriage in as restrictive and bigoted a way as they choose. They are free to not recognize a marriage which falls outside those restrictions, just as some religions today do not recognize "divorce".

The federal government has degraded Christianity and Christians by allowing the word 'marriage' to describe the union of two members of the same sex.

Since, by your own admission, marriage is a term which is used by multiple religions, I am curious that you now single out Christianity and Christians as being degraded.

[bk59]

How are you distinguishing between equal rights and human rights? Equal rights are a subset of human rights.

'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' as been recognized and adopted by most modern civilized countries.

Equal rights are an artificial fabrication of rights determined in Canada's case in a undemocratic fashion excluding Canadian citizens and are NOT universally recognized or adopted by civilized countries.

From the very beginning of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Equal rights are human rights. Stop trying to split a hair that doesn't even exist.

[Leafless]

I am saying like many other Canadians who believe moralistically 'SSM is an act of perversion' and ...

Yes I believe you, however since we live in a secular state where the majority of Canadians support a separation of church and state, there is no reason for imposing what one group thinks is "immoral" and "an act of perversion" on others who do not feel the same.

What does 'separation of church and state" have to do with Canadians who think homosexuality is a perversion as one does NOT have to be religious to have morals? Is this not taking one's right away to be moral if one chooses?

What your saying is not logical concerning those those who's morals are part of religious beliefs.

If this is the case with religious morals pertaining to any law, logic etc. relating to separation of church and state, then government should have no other option than to BAN all religions that interfere with laws based on our constitution.

But more importantly it shows homosexuals who are intolerant of concerns related to (a) a persons private belief of morals as a constitutional right relating to 'freedom of conscience and religion'( a persons private religious beliefs of morals coupled with their constitutional right to think this way makes intolerant homosexuals who think this way bigots and unadoptable to the ways of the majority conscience.

[Leafless]

The federal government has degraded Christianity and Christians by allowing the word 'marriage' to describe the union of two members of the same sex.

Since, by your own admission, marriage is a term which is used by multiple religions, I am curious that you now single out Christianity and Christians as being degraded.

Is Christianity not the the major religion of both Canada and the U.S.?

[Leafless]

How are you distinguishing between equal rights and human rights? Equal rights are a subset of human rights.

'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' as been recognized and adopted by most modern civilized countries.

Equal rights are an artificial fabrication of rights determined in Canada's case in a undemocratic fashion excluding Canadian citizens and are NOT universally recognized or adopted by civilized countries.

From the very beginning of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Equal rights are human rights. Stop trying to split a hair that doesn't even exist.

Equal rights (relating to Canada) are NOT INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED as human rights and therefore DO NOT constitute a U.N. international human right.

"What are Human Rights?

Human rights standards have been established by international agreement. They are based on universal norms, applicable to every society. (For the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights see www.unhchr.ch.) "

[Liam]

I would like to see the reaction in the U.S. if the Democrats somehow managed to convince the Republicans that amending the U.S. constitution to include 'sexual orientation' would be a desirable thing without including U.S. citizens as part of that decision.

Constitutional amendments in the US are not subject to public referendum. The process you describe, where elected official propose and approve amendments, is the way the Constitution gets amended in the US. There may be an outcry from some quarters over the subject matter, but there would be no outcry over the process since they would be following the required process.

[Liam]

The only problem is they want elevated or special rights...

Precisely, what special rights do gay people want? What rights would they get that straight people don't already have?

[Leafless]

I would like to see the reaction in the U.S. if the Democrats somehow managed to convince the Republicans that amending the U.S. constitution to include 'sexual orientation' would be a desirable thing without including U.S. citizens as part of that decision.

Constitutional amendments in the US are not subject to public referendum. The process you describe, where elected official propose and approve amendments, is the way the Constitution gets amended in the US. There may be an outcry from some quarters over the subject matter, but there would be no outcry over the process since they would be following the required process.

"There may be an outcry from some quarters over the subject matter"- That is an understatement to say the least, because you will NEVER see 'sexual orientation' as part of the U.S. Constitution.

Their whole process to amend their constitution basically consist of a referendum anyways, since there are so many states represented in Congress.

On top of this twenty-four mostly western states provide for referendums to amend their individual state constitution.

Federal referendums in Canada are allowed and can be granted if the federal government chooses to take that route.

"Some argue that, in light of the precedent set by the Charlottetown Accord referendum, this may have become an unwritten convention"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Canada

[Leafless]

The only problem is they want elevated or special rights...

Precisely, what special rights do gay people want? What rights would they get that straight people don't already have?

Why are you trying to divide the country on the basis of 'straight' and 'gay'.

Constitutional rights are the rights of all multicultural Canadians and should not include EXTRA rights for sub-groups who might think they are of 'special status'.

Are you trying to establish a national precedent on the importance of being 'straight' or 'Gay'.

Are the only SPECIAL OFFICIAL CANADIANS are those who are French, living in the NATION of Quebec, along with their French cousins scattered throughout Canada, with the GAYS and ABORIGINALS.

Maybe the rest of us should consider forming a country of our own. We could call it BANNEDADA!

[Liam]

Why are you trying to divide the country on the basis of 'straight' and 'gay'.

I am? That's a laugh. Actually, YOU are the one who is dividing the country. Simply by insisting that there is a different status called "SSM", you are automatically separating legally and equally married people into separate camps: gay v straight.

Constitutional rights are the rights of all multicultural Canadians and should not include EXTRA rights for sub-groups who might think they are of 'special status'.

Well, that was my question. What EXTRA rights would gay people get that isn't already bestowed upon straight people? Please tell me, because you seem to have the answers.

Are you trying to establish a national precedent on the importance of being 'straight' or 'Gay'.

Are the only SPECIAL OFFICIAL CANADIANS are those who are French, living in the NATION of Quebec, along with their French cousins scattered throughout Canada, with the GAYS and ABORIGINALS.

Maybe the rest of us should consider forming a country of our own. We could call it BANNEDADA!

If you would like to leave a country that treats all its citizens equally and that gives equal access to full participation in their society, you are free to do so. Perhaps you'd feel more at home in a less equal place? Saudi Arabia, maybe, is more to your liking?

[reffric]

Well, that was my question. What EXTRA rights would gay people get that isn't already bestowed upon straight people? Please tell me, because you seem to have the answers.

Straight people aren't allowed to marry people of the same gender. That is the right that would need to be added. Of course, straight people didn't want to marry people of the same gender, but you asked what extra right would need to be added.

I am really torn on this issue because I can see both sides. I support my gay friends who want the right to be with someone that they care for and I hope that they have the right to show each other their commitment for one another, but on the other side I can see how we would need to redefine the word marriage. I say we give consenting adults the right to marry whoever they want and live in happiness or misery whatever that union may bring.

[Renegade]

What does 'separation of church and state" have to do with Canadians who think homosexuality is a perversion as one does NOT have to be religious to have morals? Is this not taking one's right away to be moral if one chooses?

Anyone can be as moral or immoral as they choose. The separation of church and state means that a "moral" person, doesn't have the right to IMPOSE that morality on others who don't agree.

Please answer a simple question. Do you agree with the principle of the separation of church and state?

If this is the case with religious morals pertaining to any law, logic etc. relating to separation of church and state, then government should have no other option than to BAN all religions that interfere with laws based on our constitution.

No there is no need to ban religions itself, only religious practices which interfere with our laws.

But more importantly it shows homosexuals who are intolerant of concerns related to (a) a persons private belief of morals as a constitutional right relating to 'freedom of conscience and religion'( a persons private religious beliefs of morals coupled with their constitutional right to think this way makes intolerant homosexuals who think this way bigots and unadoptable to the ways of the majority conscience.

No, I think you have it backward. People have the right to believe what they want and act according to their conscience. Nothing the homosexual community is asking for is impuning that right. People's right to "freedom of conscience" doesn't allow them the privilege of banning actions of others even if it is abhorent to their own conscience.

[Liam]

Well, that was my question. What EXTRA rights would gay people get that isn't already bestowed upon straight people? Please tell me, because you seem to have the answers.

Straight people aren't allowed to marry people of the same gender. That is the right that would need to be added. Of course, straight people didn't want to marry people of the same gender, but you asked what extra right would need to be added.

I am really torn on this issue because I can see both sides. I support my gay friends who want the right to be with someone that they care for and I hope that they have the right to show each other their commitment for one another, but on the other side I can see how we would need to redefine the word marriage. I say we give consenting adults the right to marry whoever they want and live in happiness or misery whatever that union may bring.

I appreciate your post, thanks for writing it.

One issue, though, is the matter of extra rights. One of the more common arguments against any law that does something for a minority is the "special rights" (extra rights, special treatment, etc.) argument. Without stating what special rights or extra rights the minority gets, the accuser simply stonewalls by saying he's not in favor of granting special rights to certain people. It's catchy and it spurs the opposition of those outside the minority class because they're led to believe that someone else is getting special treatment from the state, kind of a "citizenship-plus". In reality, all the minority is getting is the equality the majority was born into, the equality the majority didn't have to work or sue or struggle to get.

Anyhow, you said that an additional right was that people of the same gender would need to be added. I disagree: what you state is a specific act, not a legal right. A special right would be something like preferential treatment in hiring for state jobs, tax exemptions, added benefits that no one else in the society gets. This is clearly not the case with equal marriage rights -- gays would be treated exactly the same as straights. But opponents of equal marriage rights imply that gay people are getting something special that is denied to straight people. When you question them and ask what specific extra right gay people are getting, they can't answer because there is no extra right, there is no special treatment, there is no citizenship-plus. Gay people would just simply be allowed to have the state issue them a license, hold a civil ceremony and have the state recognize them as having legal obligations to one another: exactly the same way it looks upon the thousands of other married couples who wed on the same day. It is no less and no more special treatment than straight people get automatically by means of birth.

[bk59]

How are you distinguishing between equal rights and human rights? Equal rights are a subset of human rights.

Equal rights (relating to Canada) are NOT INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED as human rights and therefore DO NOT constitute a U.N. international human right.

"What are Human Rights?

Human rights standards have been established by international agreement. They are based on universal norms, applicable to every society. (For the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights see www.unhchr.ch.) "

Repeating your statement that equal rights are not human rights does not answer the question. Within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it says:

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. ...

There are numerous other examples where it says "Everyone is entitled to...", etc.

So how are you defining equal rights? It seems pretty clear to me that human rights include saying that everyone should be treated equally...

[bk59]

Well, that was my question. What EXTRA rights would gay people get that isn't already bestowed upon straight people? Please tell me, because you seem to have the answers.

Straight people aren't allowed to marry people of the same gender. That is the right that would need to be added. Of course, straight people didn't want to marry people of the same gender, but you asked what extra right would need to be added.

I'm not sure that's an extra right though. Technically, under SSM, straight people are allowed to marry people of the same gender. The same is true of marriage before SSM and gay people - they were allowed to marry people of the opposite sex.

[Renegade]

Is Christianity not the the major religion of both Canada and the U.S.?

It expect it is. However your alleged affront is only to those people of ANY religion who believes SSM is immoral and should not be allowed by anyone. My feeling is ALL Christians believe that SSM is wrong, as much as ALL Christians believe pre-marital sex is wrong.

[reffric]

I'm not sure that's an extra right though. Technically, under SSM, straight people are allowed to marry people of the same gender. The same is true of marriage before SSM and gay people - they were allowed to marry people of the opposite sex.

I guess I am little confused. I think we might be arguing on two different lines of thought. Someone asked what rights do gay people gain by allowing gay marriage that straight people didn't already possess. I said straight people gained the right to have a same sex marriage which until same sex marriage was legalized they didn't have. I don't think that is wrong unless you are saying that straight people always had this right. If that were the case I think gay people would have figured out the loop hole and just claimed to be straight before the marriage certificate was given.

I do not disagree with the other point that if same sex marriage was allowed that straight people would also be entitled to the same rights, allowing them to have same sex marriages. I don't think they want the right, but they do have it.

[bk59]

I think we might be arguing on two different lines of thought. Someone asked what rights do gay people gain by allowing gay marriage that straight people didn't already possess. I said straight people gained the right to have a same sex marriage which until same sex marriage was legalized they didn't have. I don't think that is wrong unless you are saying that straight people always had this right. If that were the case I think gay people would have figured out the loop hole and just claimed to be straight before the marriage certificate was given.

We definitely interpreted the question in two different ways. I think the original point made by some people on here was that by giving homosexuals the right to SSM they are infringing on heterosexuals' rights. Some have claimed that SSM gives homosexuals rights that heterosexuals do not have (i.e. they have gained rights that heterosexuals do not have). My point was that with SSM there are no extra rights. Homosexuals can marry one another and heterosexuals can marry one another. Equal.

I think you interpreted the question as what rights did homosexuals have to gain in order to get SMM, or in order to become equal to heterosexuals. So yes, they did gain something to achieve equality, but after this gain they have no more rights than heterosexuals. The only reason there was a gain was because they were being treated unequally to begin with.

[guyser]

The only problem is they want elevated or special rights "as well impose one view of sexual morality (sexual relativism) on all peoples and then enforce this code of morality on constituents of other groups holding other beliefs and legislation's."

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06053102.html

You quote the Vatican talking to the UN as your premise for what Gays want? Oh come on. We all know what the Vatican wants, the standard quo as they have their head so far in the sand its not funny. I am surprised you didnt want to quote NAMBLA too !

Gays want access to the same things heterosexuals have.

If one is gay and in a long term relationship , they STILL dont have rights should the spouse become ill and decisions must be made. The hospital can claim no standing on the spouses part.

A man and woman co-habitating beyond 3 years has that access. A man and woman having a child are granted that status. Business' have decreed it okay as benefits can go to the gay spouse. It is the govt that wont do it.

Thus we need to grant them equal rights not special rights.

A marriage is a marriage. Be it two men, two women or one of each. It is laughably absurd that we are in 2006 and people still want to deny them equal access.

Get over it....Gays are no threat to you. They wont harm your kids (anymore than a Hetero will) they wont wreck society.

[Leafless]

But more importantly it shows homosexuals who are intolerant of concerns related to (a) a persons private belief of morals as a constitutional right relating to 'freedom of conscience and religion'( a persons private religious beliefs of morals coupled with their constitutional right to think this way makes intolerant homosexuals who think this way bigots and unadoptable to the ways of the majority conscience.

No, I think you have it backward. People have the right to believe what they want and act according to their conscience. Nothing the homosexual community is asking for is impuning that right. People's right to "freedom of conscience" doesn't allow them the privilege of banning actions of others even if it is abhorent to their own conscience.

BTW- Conscience is NOT the right to believe want you want. It is a moral sense of right and wrong felt by a person and affecting BEHAVIOR.

Your homosexual behavior in Canada relates to 1% of the population and therefore unequivocally is WRONG.

Well, what we have then is a 'clashing of constitutional rights'. Fundamental freedom of conscience and religion vs. equality rights. These equality rights are freebie government generated constitutional rights to a perverted group without reverting to the 'will of the majority'.

Kind of makes it useless for anyone to vote in this country, when only the political elite get a chance to voice their opinion relating to a most important democratic issue a 'clashing of constitutional rights'.

[Renegade]

BTW- Conscience is NOT the right to believe want you want. It is a moral sense of right and wrong felt by a person and affecting BEHAVIOR.

I think you left out an important part. Your sentence should be revised to "It is a moral sense of right and wrong felt by a person and affecting their own BEHAVIOR." Conscience can dicate how a person behaves, but it should not dictate the behaviour of others.

Your homosexual behavior in Canada relates to 1% of the population and therefore unequivocally is WRONG.

So if it was 40% would that then make it "RIGHT"? No? How about 60%? What % makes it right?

BTW, what do you mean by "Your homosexual behavior"? Do you infer that I am homosexual because I defend SSM?

Well, what we have then is a 'clashing of constitutional rights'. Fundamental freedom of conscience and religion vs. equality rights. These equality rights are freebie government generated constitutional rights to a perverted group without reverting to the 'will of the majority'.

You seem to misunderstand freedom of religion. "Freedom of religion" refers to the right to believe what you want. It doesn't give you the right to impose your belief system on others. It is completely irrelevant whether the majority believes the same thing you do. It is doubtful in any case that they do.

Kind of makes it useless for anyone to vote in this country, when only the political elite get a chance to voice their opinion relating to a most important democratic issue a 'clashing of constitutional rights'.

Clashes of rights for the most part are settled in court. In the case of SSM there was no clash of rights, just blatent discrimmination, so it was an easy decision for the court to make.

[Leafless]

BTW- Conscience is NOT the right to believe want you want. It is a moral sense of right and wrong felt by a person and affecting BEHAVIOR.

I think you left out an important part. Your sentence should be revised to "It is a moral sense of right and wrong felt by a person and affecting their own BEHAVIOR." Conscience can dicate how a person behaves, but it should not dictate the behaviour of others.

I didn't leave anything out as that is the primary FULL definition of conscience.

What you are saying though is totally false, as laws are written and based on good and bad behavior.

Behavior RULES!

Ask any murderer who is serving 25 years and ignored his own morals, but still figures he did nothing wrong because in his mind the guy had it coming to him. Good behavior...pays.

But not so in the case of SSM as government supports bad behavior and are to gutless to procure the proper documentation to prove otherwise.

[Leafless]

Your homosexual behavior in Canada relates to 1% of the population and therefore unequivocally is WRONG.

So if it was 40% would that then make it "RIGHT"? No? How about 60%? What % makes it right?

BTW, what do you mean by "Your homosexual behavior"? Do you infer that I am homosexual because I defend SSM?

To obtain the proper criteria to justify SSM, firstly you must acquire a 'STANDARD'.

Now in the case of homosexuality and SSM, this 'STANDARD' would have to be based on 'principles of behavior'. Looks like we are back to conscience and morals again.

This 'Standard' must be established by society, meaning all citizens of Canada since morals have nothing to do with 'legalities' nor 'government'.

Once that 'Standard' has been established so has the criteria to determine if SSM would be made legal or not.

Relating to "Your homosexual behavior', yes I assumed you are homosexual due to your anti heterosexual enthusiasm. But if your not, my apologies.

[Leafless]

Well, what we have then is a 'clashing of constitutional rights'. Fundamental freedom of conscience and religion vs. equality rights. These equality rights are freebie government generated constitutional rights to a perverted group without reverting to the 'will of the majority'.

You seem to misunderstand freedom of religion. "Freedom of religion" refers to the right to believe what you want. It doesn't give you the right to impose your belief system on others. It is completely irrelevant whether the majority believes the same thing you do. It is doubtful in any case that they do.

Kind of makes it useless for anyone to vote in this country, when only the political elite get a chance to voice their opinion relating to a most important democratic issue a 'clashing of constitutional rights'.

Clashes of rights for the most part are settled in court. In the case of SSM there was no clash of rights, just blatent discrimmination, so it was an easy decision for the court to make.

If freedom of conscience and religion is a protected constitutional right, then the federal government must defend my constitutional right, that homosexuality is not only immoral being against my religion, but also against my conscience as being perverted and wrong.

But it does not defend my rights it only defends the perceived rights of homosexuals. This is based on 'discrimination' which in my view is false since it is not internationally supported and clashes against other constitutional rights.

In reality the federal government is discriminating against the citizens of Canada, since homosexuals all along have all the rights of any other Canadian, but by their own hand refused these rights because these rights did not comply to their immoral perversion and wanted and demanded recognition up and above every other non-homosexual Canadian.

This is why IMO you cannot separate church and state because of that constitutional fundamental freedom (a) freedom of conscience and religion. This is why this type of constitutional clashes cannot be settled in court since courts are not equipped to handle issue's that pertain to 'conscience and religion'.