Lets dispell this gay myth

[Britney Spears]

IANAL*, I don't understand how it could be physically possible to "force churches to perform gay marriages".  The very act and ceremony is symbolic and meant to convey a spiritual/eccleisiastical affirmation of the union, and there isn't any way for the temporal goverment to force the priest to believe it, or believe anything he/she doesn't want to. Can you put a gun to the priests head and make him go through the motions? Sure, but what the heck is the point of that? How does that make the marriage any more acceptable/legitimate in the eyes of the priest? It's not like rainbows and kittens actually fall from the sky when he says the magic words. No offense to Trinity, but he isn't Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The whole idea of marriage is a human construct, and if any of the people participating don't believe in it then it's just a bunch of people in suits and dresses standing around getting drunk. Iit becomes meaningless. What gay couple would possibly want to go thorugh with this absurdity, even if it DID some how come to pass legally?



*I am not a lawyer.

 

[Britney Spears]

I seem to recall that the Church of England took a radical split in the 16th cent in part because the pope refused to annual Henry 8th's marriage (divorce) thus bring about the new churh of England (Anglican).  I think it was because of this heritage in growing with the times that Anglican church's today accept woman priests.  I post this because it shows that at least in some Christian beliefs there is room for growth.

IIRC, the Anglican church was a political construct built by Henry VIII partly due to his need for a divorce, and mostly due to England's then antipathy with Catholic Europe (i.e. France and Spain). As such, they are "Protestant" only in the sense that they are not Catholic and not controlled from Rome. THere wasn't an actual doctrinal schism(apart from that divorce thing) like there was with the German and French Protestant movements.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Its my understanding that were gay weddings are currently legal is that it is up to the church and pastor as to whether they will marry whoever they want.  I believe that is the way the gov't wants to make it permanently.

Next thing you know you'll be telling everyone that Jedi can't get married because it may make them go bad.

 

[Infanteer]

Why are we even talking about the Church - the debate about marriage is, and should, focus only on the relationship of married couples and the state.

 

[Greywolf]

There are also several obviously homosexual teachers at my school but they are descent enough not to talk about it in class or make a big deal of it.   This is the kind of attitude that needs to be more prevalent, nobody gives a flying rats *** what you do in your spare time, so people dont need to take it upon themselves to enlighten the rest of us.

Several people have mentioned that they are fine with gays as long as they don't "flaunt" it or "shove it down people's throats".  I don't think they are fine with it.  It seems people are fine with it as long as gays hide who they are...  What is flaunting exactly?  Holding hands and kissing in public?  Heterosexuals do it all the time.  But when gay people do it, it's flaunting their homosexuality.  

As to not talking about homosexuality in the classroom, I think that's what leads to bigotry and hatred.  Young people are especially impressionable, and their beliefs and attitudes are influenced by the environment.  A lot of young people have negative opinions towards gays and if there happens to be a homosexual teacher who can tell students what being gay is actually about, I think it's a good thing.  And people who think gay teachers will be out promoting homosexuality...I doubt that's going to happen since being gay is still generally regarded as taboo.  The gay teachers wouldn't want to draw that much attention to themselves or invite violence against them (hey, let's face it, it happens).  

There is a correlation that people with more education (academic) are more accepting of homosexuals than those without.  I wonder why?  

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Regardless of what his intent was it has grown into one of the most flexible offshoots of religion out there.

Infanteer we talk about the Church because some wish to state that this is a battle that lost will severly undermine peoples beliefs in their relgion.

I agree with you.  Couples can be married at city hall with a justice of the peace with no religious double speek or trappings.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Why are we even talking about the Church - the debate about marriage is, and should, focus only on the relationship of married couples and the state.

Agreed, but many worldwide leaders of religions have addressed their dissaproval of Canada's descision on gay marriage, and this has had a great influence on peoples' opinon of Homosexuality in general.

Therefore talk of the church is very relevent in this discussion.

dileas

tess

 

[paracowboy]

Several people have mentioned that they are fine with gays as long as they don't "flaunt" it or "shove it down people's throats".  I don't think they are fine with it.  It seems people are fine with it as long as gays hide who they are...  What is flaunting exactly?  Holding hands and kissing in public?  Heterosexuals do it all the time.  But when gay people do it, it's flaunting their homosexuality...There is a correlation that people with more education (academic) are more accepting of homosexuals than those without.  I wonder why?  

well, I for one (uneducated redneck hill-billy that I am, without the benefit of a degree, poor thick bastard) have gone on record as saying that I expect the same sense of decorum in public affection, public nudity, and general carryin's on from BOTH hetero- and homosexuals. That's what my Grade 9 educated hill-billy, redneck daddy and Grade 8 educated half-breed hill-billy Mother taught me. And that seems, to me, to be the gist of the over-all theme.
I dunno, but expecting the same behaviour from everyone sounds a lot like equality to me.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Several people have mentioned that they are fine with gays as long as they don't "flaunt" it or "shove it down people's throats".  I don't think they are fine with it.  It seems people are fine with it as long as gays hide who they are...  What is flaunting exactly?  Holding hands and kissing in public?  Heterosexuals do it all the time.  But when gay people do it, it's flaunting their homosexuality.  
There is a correlation that people with more education (academic) are more accepting of homosexuals than those without.  I wonder why?  

    When I was a student at Douglas College in the 80's, our student paper was called the Other Press.  In one memorable issue, they used our student levy to produce a special issue that was covered with pictures and descriptions of gay sex (oral, anal, other), both graphicly portrayed and described.  This paper is distributed free in stands in all common areas of the college, including several that are frequented by children.  When several students (myself amongst them) protested this, we were called homophobes and hate-mongers.  If this paper had produced pictures and descriptions of heterosexual intercourse, and placed them where they could be accessed at will by minors (because free porn attracts pre-teen boys like unattended firearms), then the makers could expect to be shut down, and possibly charged.  As this paper was "celebrating the beauty of gay love", somehow that makes it uncivilized to object.  Now I am an educated man, with a BSc in Developmental Genetics (UBC),  I am well studied in history and philosophy, but I admit that I respond like any other father and soldier to people who want to put porn into the hands of children, I bloody well object.  There is a segment of the gay community that seems to think they have the right to do anything they want in public, including activities that would land a heterosexul in jail.  I think the double standard that doubtless exists, may be shared just as much in the minds of the gay's as the straights, and its about time they cleaned up their own house, before troubling us about ours.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

IANAL*, I don't understand how it could be physically possible to "force churches to perform gay marriages".  The very act and ceremony is symbolic and meant to convey a spiritual/eccleisiastical affirmation of the union, and there isn't any way for the temporal goverment to force the priest to believe it, or believe anything he/she doesn't want to. Can you put a gun to the priests head and make him go through the motions? Sure, but what the heck is the point of that? How does that make the marriage any more acceptable/legitimate in the eyes of the priest? It's not like rainbows and kittens actually fall from the sky when he says the magic words. No offense to Trinity, but he isn't Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Not literally a "gun to the head" but certainly legally obligated (and one would suspect subject to fine or imprisonment): how does s/he square that with the edicts of the Pope/Church/whatever (not to mention with freedom of religion and his/her conscience)?  Do the Catholic Priests wind-up with the choice of Imprionsment or Ex-communication?  What happens when the Supreme Court tells the RC Church of Canada that they no longer can follow the edicts of the Pope and the Federal Government throws up their hands and says: "don't look at us, it's the Supreme Court's decison" (sound familliar?)?  I'm not saying that this is necessarily all going to come to pass, but the possibility of these and other "complications" have not even been discussed as advocates have been framing it strictly as a 'gay vs. anti-gay' issue.

The whole idea of marriage is a human construct, and if any of the people participating don't believe in it then it's just a bunch of people in suits and dresses standing around getting drunk. Iit becomes meaningless. What gay couple would possibly want to go thorugh with this absurdity, even if it DID some how come to pass legally?

Don't kid yourself: you could've said that females in the Boy Scouts would be an absurdity for many of the same reasons, but it happened, didn't it?  Personally, I don't think I'd want to be a part of a religious (or any other) organization with which I had fundamental disagreements regarding morality (then again Grucho(?) Marx said: "I wouldn't want to be a part of any club that would have me," either), but not everyone's like that: people will challenge the Church (or whatever other instutions) simply to stir-up sh*t.  Why do people challenge the Church's authority on anything?  They could leave at any time (i.e., Henry VIII) ... or, nowadays with ever-encroaching powers of the state, they are instead using the power of the state to change the Church to suit them.  The "flexibility" of the Protestant Church was mentioned above, but I think the bigger point is that there is a HUGE difference between a Church evolving to suit the needs of it's membership/parishioners and a Church being forced to change because of what some politicians think will get them elected. {Does that last part sound cynical?  }

FWIW, I don't think the state has ANY right to define marriage in any form, or to maintain a tax and legal system that discriminates against people based upon their marital/non-marital status.  Clearly a case of bad laws creating the need for more bad laws.

 

[Trinity]

No offense to Trinity, but he isn't Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I'm not?

[me=Trinity]takes off blonde wig and puts down the wooden stakes[/me]

Seriously...  Maybe marriage should be taken out of the hands of the church.

And the supreme court would never rule that the RC's or any church would have to
marry anyone.  The RC church turns down many straight couples.  Many churches
turn down many straight couples for marriage because they do not fall within the
religious values or belief of the church. So how can they force them to marry gay
people when straight people don't match up to the requirments half the time.

The Church will be left out of it UNLESS its wants to do it.

BTW - CHURCH means a group of people gathering together to worship god.
Leadership - are the people in rome, ordained ministers, bishops, deacons etc.

When people throw the word church around.. its really the people, not the leadership.
Just an FYI.

And someone asked WHAT is the myth.. good question.. what is this myth.. and its my thread.

Basically anyone who has any misconceptions or concerns ... to bring them forward.. is what i meant
while others share their stories.

Thanks to all who particpate. 

 

[dutchie]

Seriously...   Maybe marriage should be taken out of the hands of the church.

Actually, I would rather see marriage taken out the hands of our secular government, and have it remain soley the domain of the Church. You want to get married? Go find a church/mosque/temple/synagogue and abide by their rules and customs, with no charter protections. You want to be 'Unioned'? Go see the JP and the Charter rules apply. Take 'Marriage' out of every reference in our secular State, it doesn't belong there, really. If all you care about is a ceremony to publically proclaim your love and life long committment to another person, binding you legally but not religiously, you are 'unioned'. If I am religious, I get 'married' by a priest, and then take my 'marriage certificate' to a JP to get the legal stuff done. I am now 'unioned' as well.

What's wrong with that? Why not follow the ideal of the seperation of Church and State? It's not THAT new of a concept, is it?

 

[the 48th regulator]

Actually, I would rather see marriage taken out the hands of our secular government, and have it remain soley the domain of the Church. You want to get married? Go find a church/mosque/temple/synagogue and abide by their rules and customs, with no charter protections. You want to be 'Unioned'? Go see the JP and the Charter rules apply. Take 'Marriage' out of every reference in our secular State, it doesn't belong there, really. If all you care about is a ceremony to publically proclaim your love and life long committment to another person, binding you legally but not religiously, you are 'unioned'. If I am religious, I get 'married' by a priest, and then take my 'marriage certificate' to a JP to get the legal stuff done. I am now 'unioned' as well.

What's wrong with that? Why not follow the ideal of the seperation of Church and State? It's not THAT new of a concept, is it?

This is the most senesible post so far,  excellent Caesar.  I could not have agreed more.

dileas

tess

 

[Thirstyson]

Actually, I would rather see marriage taken out the hands of our secular government, and have it remain soley the domain of the Church. You want to get married? Go find a church/mosque/temple/synagogue and abide by their rules and customs, with no charter protections. You want to be 'Unioned'? Go see the JP and the Charter rules apply. Take 'Marriage' out of every reference in our secular State, it doesn't belong there, really. If all you care about is a ceremony to publically proclaim your love and life long committment to another person, binding you legally but not religiously, you are 'unioned'. If I am religious, I get 'married' by a priest, and then take my 'marriage certificate' to a JP to get the legal stuff done. I am now 'unioned' as well.

What's wrong with that? Why not follow the ideal of the seperation of Church and State? It's not THAT new of a concept, is it?

I thought you guys were against changing the definition of marriage? Don't tell my wife that we're not married, it won't go over well.

 

[dutchie]

Well, if my plan (wow, I have a plan?) was implemented, there would be a grace (no pun intended) period of say 1 year. During that time, you take your Marriage Certificate to a Church (or whatever), and have a priest (or whatever) certify you as Married. On the expiry of the grace period, everyone not converted to 'Marriage' (only if they were not originally married in a Church) will be automatically Unioned, not Married.

I think this is a good compromise. Gay marriages WILL occur, as the United Church (in Canada anyway) has already stated that they condone same-sex marriage. Everyone will have the same rights under the law, as we all will be Unioned. And religious groups can do as they like regarding acceptance of gay marriage without fear of having their hand forced by the government.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

[me=Trinity]takes off blonde wig and ...[/me]

Well, I suppose this is the appropriate forum (hah-hah  )

Seriously...  Maybe marriage should be taken out of the hands of the church.

And the supreme court would never rule that the RC's or any church would have to
marry anyone.  The RC church turns down many straight couples.  Many churches

turn down many straight couples for marriage because they do not fall within the
religious values or belief of the church. So how can they force them to marry gay
people when straight people don't match up to the requirments half the time.

The Church will be left out of it UNLESS its wants to do it.

Do you really think that the Supreme Court would rule against a same-sex couple claiming that their rights had been violated when Parliament had just determined that Same-Sex Marriages are legal Right under the Charter?  Has any straight couple turned-down by a Church ever challenged it as a Rights violation?  What would happen if they did?  I think that the presumption that the Supreme Court (particularly an unelected and practically unaccountable one) would never do anything is dangerous ...

BTW - CHURCH means a group of people gathering together to worship god.
Leadership - are the people in rome, ordained ministers, bishops, deacons etc.

When people throw the word church around.. its really the people, not the leadership.
Just an FYI.

Absolutely, but why can't that group of people determine for themselves what they want to call a marriage in their minds?

Actually, I would rather see marriage taken out the hands of our secular government, and have it remain soley the domain of the Church. You want to get married? Go find a church/mosque/temple/synagogue and abide by their rules and customs, with no charter protections. You want to be 'Unioned'? Go see the JP and the Charter rules apply. Take 'Marriage' out of every reference in our secular State, it doesn't belong there, really. If all you care about is a ceremony to publically proclaim your love and life long committment to another person, binding you legally but not religiously, you are 'unioned'. If I am religious, I get 'married' by a priest, and then take my 'marriage certificate' to a JP to get the legal stuff done. I am now 'unioned' as well.

What's wrong with that? Why not follow the ideal of the seperation of Church and State? It's not THAT new of a concept, is it?

Awesome post, Caesar:  I was hoping somebody would say something like that ... 

 

[Thirstyson]

Well, if my plan (wow, I have a plan?) was implemented, there would be a grace (no pun intended) period of say 1 year. During that time, you take your Marriage Certificate to a Church (or whatever), and have a priest (or whatever) certify you as Married. On the expiry of the grace period, everyone not converted to 'Marriage' (only if they were not originally married in a Church) will be automatically Unioned, not Married.

I think this is a good compromise. Gay marriages WILL occur, as the United Church (in Canada anyway) has already stated that they condone same-sex marriage. Everyone will have the same rights under the law, as we all will be Unioned. And religious groups can do as they like regarding acceptance of gay marriage without fear of having their hand forced by the government.

I'm an atheist and have no wish to enter a church to keep my marriage license valid. How would you feel if the situation was reversed?

I agree that your proposal would not stop gay marriage (good! let them be wed by any willing priest), but I can't accept being hauled into a church to keep something I already have.


The government legislation is for recognizing same sex marriages, not forcing them to be performed by unwilling churches.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Out of curiosity since you are an atheist do your consider your marriage a religious experience or a something to ensure you and your spouse are legally entitled to all the benefits a married couple are entitled too?

 

[dutchie]

I can't accept being hauled into a church to keep something I already have.

Well, what DO you have?

1- You are unioned legally, life partners, 'soul mates' if you want. You're bound to this person based on your love for her, and your commitment to remain faithful for the rest of your life, etc. ( You took the vows, you know what I'm driving at).

2-All of the above PLUS: you are joined together not solely by legal means, but PRIMARILY by spiritual means. You are joined by God, 'made one flesh' as it were. Your union is bound by God himself - it is God (through the Priest) that bound you to your wife, not a legal document. You believe that since God has joined you, no mortal man can destroy your marriage ('what God has brought together, let no man put asunder').

If you belong to 'Camp #1', you are Unioned. If you are Camp #2, you are Married.

So to answer this:

I can't accept being hauled into a church to keep something I already have.

You have lost nothing. What's in a name if you view marriage as a 'Love Contract'? I view it as a covenant between me, God, and my wife.

The government legislation is for recognizing same sex marriages, not forcing them to be performed by unwilling churches.

Bill C-48 proposes to REDEFINE marriage to read 'two persons' rather than the current 'one man and one woman'. I'm not sure where you got the idea it had something to do with 'recognizing'. Further, if this passes, if you think that religious groups will be able to exclude homosexuals from marrying without repercussions, you're fooling yourself, but not me.

 

[Sheerin]

Well there are provisions in the bill which allow religious institutions to not perform the marriage if they feel its against their religion.

As for your two-tiered system, well, thats exactly what it is, a two tiered system.  Why not just abolish the word marriage once and for all and make everything a civil union?