Homosexuality is an anomaly

[ft.niagara]

Remember that marriage is a legal term, defined, regulated, and recognized by the state

Please remember, Long before it was a legal (state) term, it was a religious (legal) term.

[Melanie_]

Remember that marriage is a legal term, defined, regulated, and recognized by the state

Please remember, Long before it was a legal (state) term, it was a religious (legal) term.

I'm going to assume you are referring to the Judeo-Christian forms of religion, although certainly most religions have their own versions of marriage. Of course, the Judeo-Christian traditions also allowed polygamy (how many wives did Jacob have?) and incest (Job and his daughters).

Each religion has it's own version of marriage, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the word. In a pluralistic society like Canada, where freedom of religion and freedom from religion are protected rights, no religion has any bearing on marriage outside of the confines of its own believers.

EDIT: I meant Lot and his daughters, not Job. Job's kids were just pawns to be killed off so god could prove a point.

[Leafless]

Remember that marriage is a legal term, defined, regulated, and recognized by the state

Please remember, Long before it was a legal (state) term, it was a religious (legal) term.

I'm going to assume you are referring to the Judeo-Christian forms of religion, although certainly most religions have their own versions of marriage. Of course, the Judeo-Christian traditions also allowed polygamy (how many wives did Jacob have?) and incest (Job and his daughters).

Each religion has it's own version of marriage, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly on the word. In a pluralistic society like Canada, where freedom of religion and freedom from religion are protected rights, no religion has any bearing on marriage outside of the confines of its own believers.

It should be noted practically all faiths throughout the world have used the word marriage to signify the heterosexual union of a 'man and a woman'.

In Canada it was twisted politicians who pursued the legal emphasis on marriage to remove any perceived right religion has on the word in order to pacify homosexuals.

Perhaps Christianity especially has failed in that respect and not realizing to include a PATENT on the word 'marriage' making it the exclusive property of churches throughout the world to recognize the union of a 'man and a woman'.

Maybe society will learn from this unauthorized intrusion of government intervention into defenceless churches universal trademark 'marriage' and legally protect all other religious interest that might or could be abused by government.

It really amazes me how governments can be so cruel and irresponsible to give perverts this right to 'marriage' and at the same time allow these perverts to be sheltered and live among the general majority Christian population of Canada.

[Melanie_]

In Canada it was twisted politicians who pursued the legal emphasis on marriage to remove any perceived right religion has on the word in order to pacify homosexuals.

Perhaps Christianity especially has failed in that respect and not realizing to include a PATENT on the word 'marriage' making it the exclusive property of churches throughout the world to recognize the union of a 'man and a woman'.

Christianity has no patent on the word marriage, and no right to claim it for their exclusive use. Marriage is found in all religions, and in the absence of religion as well - people can be married without any religious ceremony at all.

It really amazes me how governments can be so cruel and irresponsible to give perverts this right to 'marriage' and at the same time allow these perverts to be sheltered and live among the general majority Christian population of Canada.

It really amazes me how the intolerant can be so cruel and irresponsible as to try to deny people basic respect for no reason other than ignorance.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Live and let live. Who will assume responsibility for their neighbor? To each their own, and trust in one another.

Respect and forgiveness, acceptance and tolerance, what is the moral barometer in this regard? Who is to say and who is to judge?

Who wants religion to enter into politics in this nation?

[bk59]

There were basic reasons why women were initially denied the right to vote.

First and foremost was women were not interested in politics and did not really understand what was going due to dedicating their full time to family obligations, which was back then the norm. Secondly most did not pay taxes or own property. Women having the right to vote is an international human right.

Complete BS. They were not interested? So every single woman had no interest in voting? The fact is they were not allowed to vote, whether they were interested or not. They were also not allowed to own property. None of what you said is any justification for not giving women the right to vote or own property.

You have not addressed the problem with your international human rights argument. If something must be an international human right before a country grants that right, then how can you justify giving women the right to vote? At one point in time no country did this. The first country to extend voting privileges to women would have violated your argument about international human right standards since the standard at the time would have been to deny those rights.

Equality and human rights are not on the same level and cannot or should not be associated with each other since equality as in the case of Canada is a 'dictated right as seen by government' and therefore can be seen as 'corrupt' for the benefit of government and not the citizens of the land or for that matter the world.

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

[bk59]

Neither play has any potential societal benefit except pleasure.

So is your argument that marriage should only be valid where there is a societal benefit?

[bk59]

Remember that marriage is a legal term, defined, regulated, and recognized by the state

Please remember, Long before it was a legal (state) term, it was a religious (legal) term.

This is exactly the point. Even though you state it here, you seem to miss its importance.

SSM legislation in Canada refers to the legal definition of marriage. It has no affect on the religious definition. Every religion is still free to practice marriage as it sees fit. All of the arguments about religious freedoms, etc. seem to miss this point.

[Charles Anthony]

Perhaps Christianity especially has failed in that respect and not realizing to include a PATENT on the word 'marriage' making it the exclusive property of churches throughout the world to recognize the union of a 'man and a woman'.

A patent on a word?

I believe the words "spam" and "troll" should be patented. Many people mix them up.

Some people believe they mean a type of delicious meat and a creature that lives under a bridge, respectively. However, but those people are mistaken.

Both "spam" and "troll" represent fishing techniques and gratingly annoying forms of digital communication. Paradoxically, the latter one serves up a beneficial effect by making the rest of us feel at ease and less extreme when we speak our minds.

[Leafless]

In Canada it was twisted politicians who pursued the legal emphasis on marriage to remove any perceived right religion has on the word in order to pacify homosexuals.

Perhaps Christianity especially has failed in that respect and not realizing to include a PATENT on the word 'marriage' making it the exclusive property of churches throughout the world to recognize the union of a 'man and a woman'.

Christianity has no patent on the word marriage, and no right to claim it for their exclusive use. Marriage is found in all religions, and in the absence of religion as well - people can be married without any religious ceremony at all.

It really amazes me how governments can be so cruel and irresponsible to give perverts this right to 'marriage' and at the same time allow these perverts to be sheltered and live among the general majority Christian population of Canada.

It really amazes me how the intolerant can be so cruel and irresponsible as to try to deny people basic respect for no reason other than ignorance.

All I am saying is Christianity or any one of its denominations for instance could claim a group of words pertaining to a motto or trademark such as 'Christianity is good for marriage'. This way at least the church would be able to defend themselves legally, concerning some form of infringement on Christianity and marriage from government relating to marriage. Whoever imagined the word 'marriage' pertaining to religions in Canada would be attacked by their own federal government to include a group alien to most Christian denominations.

Relating to, "to try to deny people basic respect for no reason other than ignorance" is garbage as they already had the same rights as any one else prior to SSM. What they got is elevated rights above everyone else pertaining to a perversion as being equal to heterosexual marriage.

[Leafless]

Live and let live. Who will assume responsibility for their neighbor? To each their own, and trust in one another.

Respect and forgiveness, acceptance and tolerance, what is the moral barometer in this regard? Who is to say and who is to judge?

Who wants religion to enter into politics in this nation?

Who wants politicians to infringe on traditional trademarks pertaining to the word 'marriage' in this country.

[Leafless]

You have not addressed the problem with your international human rights argument. If something must be an international human right before a country grants that right, then how can you justify giving women the right to vote? At one point in time no country did this. The first country to extend voting privileges to women would have violated your argument about international human right standards since the standard at the time would have been to deny those rights.

The right to vote as a 'human right' does not compare in anyway shape or form to the 'promotion of a perversion' as a human right.

[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.

Some of us are aware of homosexual groups pressuring the U.N. to revise the 'Declaration of Human Rights' to include perverted groups, such as 'Transgender Petition to the United nations'

http://transgenderunity.blogspot.com/

[Black Dog]

Can we kill this perverted thread, plases? As much as I loce to see bigots like Leafless broadcast their true colours, enough is enough.

[Electric Monk]

All I am saying is Christianity or any one of its denominations for instance could claim a group of words pertaining to a motto or trademark such as 'Christianity is good for marriage'.

But that would be lying.

[ft.niagara]

Remember that marriage is a legal term, defined, regulated, and recognized by the state

Please remember, Long before it was a legal (state) term, it was a religious (legal) term.

This is exactly the point. Even though you state it here, you seem to miss its importance.

SSM legislation in Canada refers to the legal definition of marriage. It has no affect on the religious definition. Every religion is still free to practice marriage as it sees fit. All of the arguments about religious freedoms, etc. seem to miss this point.

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.

[Leafless]

All I am saying is Christianity or any one of its denominations for instance could claim a group of words pertaining to a motto or trademark such as 'Christianity is good for marriage'.

But that would be lying.

'Christianity is good for marriage' is only a suggestion to form a legal defense against abuse from an external source, in this example concerning the word 'marriage'.

Your statistics really prove nothing as both Canadian and U.S. societies are majority Christian societies.

You know as well as I do external pressures, societies materialistic influence and the lack of financial governmental support for families is the root cause for divorce and not Christianity itself.

[Leafless]

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.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

societies materialistic influence

Sounds like commie...er, socialist talk...

and the lack of financial governmental support for families

Again, a very socialist notion...but given your previous rants against communism, that only leaves Facism as the evident source of your position.

[Renegade]

I am quoting the definition of 'man' from 'The Concise Oxford Dictionary' Item 3-a, reads, " a person showing characteristics associated with males."

So by your accepted definition then, a person with XX chromosomes "showing characteristics associated with males." would be considered a "man", correct?

Similarly would a "man" not be a "man" if he was lacking some of the "characteristics associated with males."

Say he didn't grow facial hair, or have a deep voice, does he cease to be a "man"?

Here is the definition of man from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Definition of "man"

man

• noun (pl. men) 1 an adult human male. 2 a male member of a workforce, team, etc. 3 a husband or lover. 4 a person. 5 human beings in general. 6 a figure or token used in a board game.

Homosexual males clearly fall into that definition.

You are correct pertaining to your understanding, that I do not consider homosexuals traditionally male or female as in comparison to the traditional role of male and females.

I'm not surprised you feel this way. I assure you that most people don't feel this way. Except for the most bigoted, even people who are strongly against the concept of SSM will still concede that homosexuals are men and women.

Proof of this is in a homosexual or lesbian relationship, usually one of the same sex partners, invariably assumes the traditional heterosexual role of a member of the opposite sex.

This is proof of nothing. Even in hetrosexual relationships there are some men who assume the "traditional hetrosexual role of a member of the opposite sex." So if a man stays home and cooks, does that make him a "woman"?

It's clear homosexuals and lesbians could be identified as members the third sex in which they play act heterosexuals.

It is unfortunately not clear to anyone but yourself.

[Renegade]

Are you that naive, relating to 'marriage' to interpret that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' refers to 'an act of perversion' relating to the activities of diverse homosexuals and lesbians.

What "act of perversion" are you taking about? I never referered to an "act of perversion" and neither does the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. There is in fact no mention of a requirement for any type of sexual activity whatoever.

Again you are making a nonsensical statement suggesting diverse or perverted Canadians reserve the right to marry whoever they choose.

Yes those "perverted Canadians" can marry whomever they choose even if they happen to choose someone of the opposite sex.

Does this include brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, dogs, cats, sheep etc. being defined as a suitable candidates for marriage?

brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers are all either categorized as either "man" or "woman", so yes they all have the right to marry. "dogs, cats, sheep etc." do not fall into that categorization and as such are not accorded that right according to the declaration.

[uOttawaMan]

Since we will become a Asian / Middle Eastern majority society anyway, I say : careface.

[Leafless]

Dear Leafless,

societies materialistic influence

Sounds like commie...er, socialist talk...

and the lack of financial governmental support for families

Again, a very socialist notion...but given your previous rants against communism, that only leaves Facism as the evident source of your position.

My comments were directed to reasons why marriage was failing, pertaining to heterosexual divorce rates.

Let's get something very clear. If the government of this land chooses NOT to support heterosexual marriage and the family that in turn supports basic society, so be it.

Personally I can do without either, so in effect its no skin of my back.

If government chooses, rather than support families would rather support massive immigration and perverted lifestyles, what can I do??

I don't vote as it is, because of other important reasons excluding these ones.

BTW-I don't support Fascism.

[Leafless]

Are you that naive, relating to 'marriage' to interpret that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' refers to 'an act of perversion' relating to the activities of diverse homosexuals and lesbians.

What "act of perversion" are you taking about? I never referered to an "act of perversion" and neither does the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. There is in fact no mention of a requirement for any type of sexual activity whatoever.

I am saying like many other Canadians who believe moralistically 'SSM is an act of perversion' and that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' does not include or support by definition homosexuals and SSM.

If you think the U.N. declaration does support homosexual marriage as a human right, why then are homosexual groups trying to pressure the U.N. to change certain wording in the declaration to include homosexual or lesbian concerns, such as this one.

http://transgenderunity.blogspot.com/

If you have documented proof that the U.N. 'Declaration of Human Rights' supports homosexuals and related activities including SSM as 'human rights', please post it.

[Renegade]

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.

that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' does not include or support by definition homosexuals and SSM.

You have not shown that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' excludes homosexuals from the right to marriage. I have repeatedly shown that as written it does do so.

If you think the U.N. declaration does support homosexual marriage as a human right, why then are homosexual groups trying to pressure the U.N. to change certain wording in the declaration to include homosexual concerns, such as this one.

http://transgenderunity.blogspot.com/

LOL. You have now confused transgendered with homosexual. The link you provided shows the transgendered want to generalize the term "Men and women" to "All people". I can understand that there might be some concern that the transgendered would clearly be considered a "man" or a "woman", but clearly non-transgendered homosexuals clearly fall into being considered a "man" or a "woman".

My guess is the reason the transgendered are asking for the generalization is to avoid the narrow interpretation of the terms by those who are not broad-minded enough to accept an inclusive society.

If you have documented proof that the U.N. 'Declaration of Human Rights' supports homosexuals and related activities including SSM, please post it.

I already have. Unfortunately your blindness doesn't allow you to see it.