Gay Marriage in Canada

Remove all ads!

Do you seriously think that the Gay community want marriage JUST so they can mock Christian fundies and other fundamentalists? If you believe that they do not do this to be able to have a healthy, monogamous, relationship and just do this to mock you, you really need to grow up from your single-minded views. Not everyone is out to get you, and to think otherwise is just pathetic.

Exactly. That is the basis of this whole thing. The moralic thing to do for one group may be atrocious for another. I am a Christian, and being so single-minded and quick to judge as the American Fundamentalists are, that is what I consider completely wrong and stupid.

And Chev, not everyone is a Catholic. It's VERY usual for non-Catholics to get married because they love eachother, not because they want kids. Me and my girlfriend are planning to get married, but we have no plans whatsoever to get kids, rather, the reverse.

You seriously want a goverment ruled by the Curch who oppress those who are not Christian? Please don't tell me you will ever run for a public office.

[ July 06, 2005, 11:24: Message edited by: Rutkowski ]

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.html

Do you remeber this ? This is quite old, but even today there are many gays not quite friendly to the rest of world. In fact many of them hate christianity, pure and simple. Desecration of Notre-Dame cathedral on June the 5th (month ago) is one recent example...

 

Arendil, sure, but do you want me to bring up links such as this, this, and this?

Yeah, *******s goes both ways.

 

[rant]
Holy f***!!! Being an ass about such things is amusing only to a point.
Reggie White was a saint! They have NO right to disparage such a great man! They are the ones who will be burning in Hell, and it can't happen soon enough for me.
[/rant]
(Guess who's a Packers fan. )

 

My uncle is gay also. He recently got "married" to his partner of 10 some odd years. Why did he do it? Not to prove a point, not to laugh in the face of Christianity, not to say "Screw you society". He did at the suggestion of his lawyer of all people.

He and his partner co-own many things together, property, assests etc...They chose to enter into a civil union simply because if something should happen to one or the other, the surviving partner would be legally entitled to the deceased partners assests with no arguments. Just like a man and woman could in the same situation.

Up until his lawyer counseled him to do so, he never really cared about marriage. He was happy just being with someone. They didn't need a word to validate their feelings for each other.

I see the whole gay marriage issue as more of a legal issue not a political or religious one. It's not like all gays are going to go out and get married, a large portion of the community may not simply because they don't need to, they're happy with what they have.

All this does, is entitle your partner of however many years have an easier time after the loss of a loved one get their affairs in order. No more fighting over stupid things when you should be mourning the passing of someone you loved.

All the fuss is not about the legal rights of gays, it's about a word. Marriage. A word that has been adopted by certain groups and defined as a union between a man and a woman. A word!!!

Please, I wonder if half the people who are so dead set against this issue would be complaining if they called it homosexual civil union? Besides, the government isn't forcing churches to marry gays, churches still have the right to refuse to perform a ceremony if it contradicts their beliefs.

I have no problem with this law, in fact I'm glad that Canada has the compassion to recognize the rights and needs of all it's citizens. We have given equal rights to people who deserve them and haven't violated others rights by forcing them to do something they may not want to.

I'm proud (for the first time in a long time) of my government and proud to live in a country that tries not to discriminate against anyone.

 

I'm for adoption dmc, my uncle would be a wonderful father to a child and would teach them right from wrong. You judge people on who they are, not who they do. It's almost like saying a murderer is a bad person, but a gay murderer is worse...

Judge people on their actions and convictions, not on their sexual preference. Since when is love immoral or a crime?

 

Well being Buddhist that's kinda the way it is. Live and let live. It doesn't matter if you're straight, gay whatever. It's your actions that define you. The only sexual conduct that they dissaprove of is beastiality, adultery and kids.

I agree with you about arguing morality. Each side believes that it's the right side. It's like the immovable object vs. the unstoppable force. Neither one wins. Now having said that I bet someone will pray for my soul. lol

Overall though the law that was passed was from a legal stand point like I explained earlier not a religious one. I know many people who go to churches who will not perform ceremonies, and frankly because of those attitudes most gays that I know would rather have a service performed by a Justice of the Peace to avoid the hassle.

In the news today I read that an NDP member of Parliament was essentially shunned from his own church because he voted for the bill. I think that is ridiculous, why shun the man who is voting on the behalf of the memebers of his riding. He may be against it but he did his duty and represented his riding. This is taking things a bit too far...

Morally right or wrong is totally subjective based on the individual. Love it or hate it's here to stay.

[ July 06, 2005, 20:53: Message edited by: Istolil ]

 

Two questions;

1. Did something else get pushed through along with the law that made homosexual marriage legal?

2. Is there some part of the Canadian legal system that I don't know about? Edit: Clarification - regarding the loss of your personal freedom, as in... Because homosexuals can get married now, I can't _______.

Otherwise, regarding the loss of personal freedoms, or equal rights - well, I'm not sure how you lost out. Seriously.

As far as, 'faggot' being politically incorrect... well here you are saying it, although I'm not sure why. What have they been calling you?

[ July 06, 2005, 20:51: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

 

Now if the government has said that religious groups HAD to marry these couples despite their beliefs, then those people's rights would be infringed and there would be a legitimate argument.

But as it stands if I were gay and say Baptist and wanted to get married in a Baptist church, the pastor has a right to refuse. Seems fair to me.

 

I agree. Separation of church and state also means that churches have the right not to accept practicing homosexuals as clergy, or as teachers in private church-run schools (tho the State does maintain some control over teaching standards), or to marry gay couples, etc. And of course, people have every right to find homosexuality distasteful.

 

Istolil - thank you for bringing a real life example into this discussion. Your story illustrates exactly the sort of point I have been trying to make.

 

*@HB- Anytime, hopefully this clarifies things more.*

I think that there's been a big missconception that with the passing of this law churches MUST marry gay couples. But just like the church doesn't dictate foreign policy, the government has no right to force the church to marry someone.

Like I said previously, this is more of a legal issue than social/religious issue. It's just allowing gay couples to have the same benefits as a married couple when it comes to the law, inheritance, health and insurance benefits etc...

Take the example I used before about my uncle. He did it so that if he died his partner would have fewer legal roadblocks to deal with when settling the estate. His choice had nothing to do with sticking it to anyone.

Now, that being said, there are those who will use it as a tool for attention, but I believe they are a minority. Unfortunately because they scream the loudest, that's the only thing people will hear and will base their opinions on the subject solely on a minority of the group.

It's like saying that all african-americans are criminals because we see it on tv all the time. It's not even close to being true, but the negative sells papers and gets ratings.

Just on a personal note. I have a really hard time with people who take a hardline approach to gays. My uncle is one of the most caring, kind, generous, loving, MORAL men I have ever known. And for someone who doesn't know him to claim he'll suffer for all eternity because he loves a man is sickening and hypocritical.

A person who on one hand says that we are all some creator's children (I'm not singling out any religion here) and that he/she loves us all (except you homos)is revolting.

It's hard line fundamentalist attitudes like this that are the cause of some of the bloodiest and darkest times in all human history.

Now that being said, I respect the fact that everyone has an opinion and has a right to an opinion. Just remember, times change, ideals change, morals change. It wasn't too long ago when women weren't considered people under the law, should that not have happened?

[ July 06, 2005, 23:40: Message edited by: Istolil ]

 

Failure to teach children proper morality is a sin which falls on the head of the parents. If you start teaching certain things as morally acceptable that are sins, then those teachings count against you at the last day.

No, but it does mock traditional marriage whether that is their intent or not.

You can spin just about anything to be morally right. Just look at the record of the Nazi's in WWII. They had their own people believing that they were the master race and that certain groups ought to be forcibly relocated, enslaved and even exterminated, and that that was morally good. Does it make it Morally good? Further, Christian Doctrine forbids Homosexuality and claims it to be such an abomination, and any legitimization of such is blasphemy. There is a significant portion of the Religious community that will not forget this betrayal come the next election...

I would rather see a government that will stand for morality rathern than ease the transition from a benevolent State to an uncaring nation that cares little for any depravity as long as people seem happy in their sins...

You're right, it hasn't changed anyone's mind yet, nor is it likely to, but that doesn't relieve me of the moral obligation to defend Christian Morality.

I agree that not all such couples are trying to achieve some illusion or make some statement. But that's not important from my stance either...

Could those ends not be addressed with other, less offensive legislation? If he had lived with a woman for those 10 years and not cared about marriage, would she not have certain spousal rights? If they never legally married, but such rights were granted, then it is logical that these rights would extend to same sex couples. That would satisfy legal concerns and not mock the Religious community.

A Key point in Doctrine of some religious dogma. By changing that word, you ultimately change the dynamics of what is acepted as a family, and if the Family is core to a Religion, then that religion is being mocked unintentionally, and somewhat eroded...

Remember that some definitions (specifically Christianity, I can't speak for other religious groups) only consider sexual relations acceptable between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married.

Arendil, Rutkowski, there are extremists on both sides. Arendil points out my worst fear (I'll expand on that when I get to ArtEChoke's post). Rutkowski cites a fear that's close behind it. It is a sin to claim that God wants one thing when you really have no way to be certain. Christianity teached that God is our Father in Heaven, and for him to hate any of his children unconditionally based on certain criterion is absurd. But that said, while he still loves his wayward sons and daughters, he does not condone their sins. That is the position that I wish Government would have taken on this matter--We don't hate the Gays, but we don't support what they do either.

Not really, If someone were to enter your uncle's home and start rattling off hatred from that God Hates Fags site that Rutkowski pointed out (which I do not accept as true doctrine), Would he be unwelcome? JUst as that NDP member that voted in favour of Gay Marriage was unwelcome because he betrayed the religious community that he claimed to be a member of. To them that was an act of Hypocrisy...

Actually there was a Hate Crimes legislation that was passed about a year ago, that on the surface looks like a good thing. The Intent, which I agree with, would mean an increased jail term for someone that used terms like "Nigger" or "Faggot" or other racial, sexist, anti-religious term while committing a violent crime (implying that it is a crime of hatred). Ultimately, it could pave the way to sensuring Scriptural references condemning homosexuality as immoral. Which leads to...

Gay Marriage, whether it is intended or not, mocks traditional marriage, which Christianity holds sacred, but for us to mock homosexuality (like a "Straight Pride" parade) would be a violation of that Hate Crimes legislation. The Rise of Gay Rights erodes traditional Christian morality. This is what I have opposed all along.

I don't know about the things that some of you might mumble under their breath about me when you read my posts.

That challenge could be made somewhere along the line under Anti Discrimination laws.

Theoretically, it should, but The separation of Church and state can be used to erode freedom of religion, and ultimately the influence of the church in general. While this may appeal to some of you, this is intolerable to others of us.

Despite the preamble which recognizes the Supremacy of God, the Court ruled something that a particular group contrends would violate that clause of the Charter. That clause suggests that Religious objections SHOULD be a valid reason to maintain a certain difference in rights. But that precident meand that a judge can rule that it is unconstitutional to deny a Gay Marriage under Religious grounds...

Actually, Earlier I tried to cite a reasonable alternative that would have been less intrusive, but nobody gave a rat's ass, did they?

Then they have no place granting legitimacy to Gay Marriage either...

 

Maybe that's why they called it "Civil Unions" in New Zealand instead of Gay Marriage, to avoid mocking the church. So in NZ, everybody is happy.

 

Riiight. That's healthy and all. I take it you enjoyed the Crusades and all that? After all, they were teaching the 'Christian morality' for the 'greater good', and that's all that counts, right?

You wouldn't survive a minute in Sweden.

 

@Harbourboy, must be a lot smart people in NZ. Civil Union is the correct term.

Actually no priest, minister or Justice of the peace performs a marriage; they witness it. Marriage is performed by the two people getting married.

 

Beren, thanks for the background.

@Gnarlfflinger,
The word/institution of marriage doesn't inherently belong to any religion. Christianity doesn't have a patent on it, and did not create it.

It was around before christians were.

Do you get offended that different cultures and religions use it too? Non-christian ones. When a muslim marries 4 wives, is this a mockery of "marriage" as well?

As far as the hate crimes legislation, its unrelated to the gay marriage law, isn't it? So the recent ruling (gay marriage, that is) really doesn't affect your freedom. It definately doesn't impact on your rights to be a practicing christian.

I suppose one could look at it, as denying you the ability to impose your religion on others. So in that regard you would have lost something.

Why can't you have a straight pride parade? It seems to me as long as it didn't focus on hating someone else, and was uh... centered on how great, er... "straightness" is, there would be no grounds to stop it.

And you never will know!

I was asking why, "faggot" being politically-incorrect, impacted on your equality. It seemed to me, that someone was allowed to call you names, but you weren't allowed to return the slur... or something. Why would you even want to call someone, "faggot?"