Lets dispell this gay myth

[mainerjohnthomas]

um

the religion is Christianity...   culture.. doesn't matter... cause its all part of the same history.  

Do you mean Denomination (as opposed to religion) which doesn't matter cause its still Christian

You could mean religion as in other religions.. but.. I'm was talking about Christianity cause thats what
I studied.   I have no idea of who else has claimed marriage at what time/date in history.

      I am a practicing Asatru, or Norse pagan, and we had marriage long before we bumped into the Celts and Romans and entered recorded history.  Come to think of it, the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Summerians, Babalonians, Chinese all seem to have had legal marriage long before the Jews stumbled out of the desert with the seeds for later Christianity.  Marriage predates Christianity, and should remain independant of it.

 

[Infanteer]

Yeah, your right - I remember studying the legal system surrounding Roman marriage in university.  Interesting topic - sure, there was ceremony and ritual, but Rome's religion was a State one and marriages in Rome (IIRC) were largely legal affairs.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

As far as the issue is concerned I couldn't care less about people's sexual preferences. Just don't expect me not to tease them about it.

That is so idiotic.I bet you get the crap kicked out of you a lot with an attitude like that, if not you should. Word of warning...if you do that against another service member I would be expecting a harassment complaint filed tout suite which could affect you career. Grow a brain.

As far as I am concerned, nothing is sacred when it comes to fun at others expense. Naturaly there are reasonable limits to what is funny, but genneraly any topic is fair game.

:

 

[BDG.CalgHighrs]

So walking up to someone and calling them a 'fag' is perfectly acceptable?

And by extension of that, calling someone 'the n-word', 'kike', or 'chink' is perfectly acceptable in your book too, because its something thats different about them from you, and thats 'fair game' too I assume? Hey, its differnent, lets make rude and 'funny' comments about it.

Lowest of the low posts on this site I'd say. Congradulations.

*Mods: excuse the strong language, trying to get a point across.

I didn't say it was there, did I? None of what you are talking about is remotly funny or even related to the spirit of the coment I was making. There is a line between teasing and mean-spirited harrasment. But hey, let's crucify me because jumping to conclusions is easy.

To address the rest of the coments I have been rcieveing along these same lines, there was a very real point about the hardon everyone seams to have for political corectness these days. As far as limits go, SHARP works fine, and I am perfectly happy to abide by it. There is, however, a huge difference between randomly harrasing anyone, and teasing people you know.  I was reffering to the latter.

 

[Sheerin]

I didn't say it was there, did I. None of what you are talking about is remotly funny or even related to the spirit of the coment I was making. There is a line between teasing and mean-spirited harrasment. But hey, let's crucify me because jumping to conclusions is easy.

[qote] As far as the issue is concerned I couldn't care less about people's sexual preferences. Just don't expect me not to tease them about it.

As far as I am concerned, nothing is sacred when it comes to fun at others expense. Naturaly there are reasonable limits to what is funny, but genneraly any topic is fair game.
What conclusions did you expect us to draw?  and from what you say it sounds like its acceptable to go up to anyone and make fun of them.  Do honestly except people to take you seriously after saying something like that?  God, grow up.

 

[BDG.CalgHighrs]

It was worded badley and probably not the best way to make the point I was intending to make, and that's my problem. Feel free to make it yours too though. I was wrong, there I said it.

 

[Infanteer]

It's not that people are "PC", it is that the internet is a hideous forum for making your point - when it is simply written dialogue by someone who is not known by others on a Bulletin Board, you have to tread a little lightly because the chance of someone else misunderstanding you is high (which is the case).

 

[BDG.CalgHighrs]

It's not that people are "PC", it is that the internet is a hideous forum for making your point - when it is simply written dialogue by someone who is not known by others on a Bulletin Board, you have to tread a little lightly because the chance of someone else misunderstanding you is high (which is the case).

I agree, and I probably should apologise for the s***-storm this created. Initially my reaction to the hostility I was drawing on that comment was to be equally hostile, but then upon re-reading it, I became aware that it was not the most well-considered comment. Anyhow, I hope this clears things up. I don't harass people. I don't have a problem with people's differences, but I do have a problem with having third parties tell me I can't poke fun at my friends and cohorts in crime because the subject is not politically correct. As far as I am concerned If I am OK with it, and so is the other guy/gal, then there is no problem.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Acutally, I just finished a sacramental theology class.  Marriage only became a real sacrament of the church around the 1600's.  Marriage
up until then did not involve a minister performing the ceremony, but would sit in the crowd if one was in attendance.  It was a civil union between two people. You could ask the minister to bless the marriage.. but thats about all the role he took.

We already re-defined what marriage is by including it into a religious sacrament.  I don't disagree with it as I quite enjoy the sacrament
of marriage.  However, marriage was a contract between two people.  Granted, it was a man and a woman, but it was still two people.

...

I think I answered your question here.  It wasn't invented by faith per say.  It is now claimed by faith groups, but most faith
groups do not know the history of their own denomination which leads to mis-informed opinions.

I am a practicing Asatru, or Norse pagan, and we had marriage long before we bumped into the Celts and Romans and entered recorded history.  Come to think of it, the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Summerians, Babalonians, Chinese all seem to have had legal marriage long before the Jews stumbled out of the desert with the seeds for later Christianity.  Marriage predates Christianity, and should remain independant of it.

Yeah, your right - I remember studying the legal system surrounding Roman marriage in university.  Interesting topic - sure, there was ceremony and ritual, but Rome's religion was a State one and marriages in Rome (IIRC) were largely legal affairs.

And yet the claim is made that the Supreme Court would rule that a Church/Minister refusing to perform a same sex marriage was somehow not a case of blatant (illegal) discrimination ... how does that logic work?

 

[c4th]

..... a Church/Minister refusing to perform a same sex marriage was somehow not a case of blatant (illegal) discrimination ... how does that logic work?

The Canadian legal system cannot force a minister to perform any marriage.  Because there is a right to marriage, it does not follow that every official legally able to perform a marriage service is legally obligated to.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

The Canadian legal system cannot force a minister to perform any marriage.  Because there is a right to marriage, it does not follow that every official legally able to perform a marriage service is legally obligated to.

I'd be tempted to believe you if the Justice Minister wasn't directly contradicting you (quoted on page 3 of this thread) ...

 

[Trinity]

Churches won't be forced to perform gay weddings, he says.

But it's beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away same-sex couples, he conceded Wednesday.

This is from your article

Churches WONT be forced to perform gay marriages

Provincial Marriage councilors might.. hell, they should since its not on religious grounds, but civil.

I would like to see someone come after the church in a civilian court for discrimination.
I say again, the church turns away STRAIGHT couples for not meeting the the values of
the church.  So, gay or straight, if you fail to meet the values of the church, you aren't getting married.

So its NOT DISCRIMINATION...

PLUS... you CANT force me to marry you if I DONT THINK you aren't ready to get married.  It would
be irresponsible on my part to do so.

So.. yeah.. you have a point..  we could be sued.. so ... bring it on.. We're going to win that argument

 

[Trinity]

btw... lets examine what the supreme court would do if they tried to force same sex marriage on churches

Marriage in a church = blessings of God onto a marriage

Thus, a court would be ruling that God, through ministers, must bless same sex union.

Essentially, the court would be telling God that he/she (yes.. god as male/female) must do bless.

Last time I checked, no court in the land had authority over god.


Sorry.. thought of that one right now...  it makes for a very interesting point if someone thinks that
the courts could actually impose gay marriages on churches.  I know the government thinks its all powerful
but I think it would be stepping out of its league on this one. 

(yes, I recognized you conceded the point on being forced to marry... just had an afterthought)

 

[dutchie]

Marriage in a church = blessings of God onto a marriage

Thus, a court would be ruling that God, through ministers, must bless same sex union.

Essentially, the court would be telling God that he/she (yes.. god as male/female) must do bless.

Last time I checked, no court in the land had authority over god.


Sorry.. thought of that one right now...   it makes for a very interesting point if someone thinks that
the courts could actually impose gay marriages on churches.  

Ok, I'll suspend my common sense for a moment. To push this scenario to the next logical step....

The Supreme Court may not be able to force a Church to marry someone, fine. But could the Government (Provincial or Federal) not take away the authority to marry from the Churches that 'discriminate' based on sexual orientation?

'I can't force your God to abide by The Rules, so I will not allow him/her to break The Rules.'

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Look at the two statements:

1. {PAUL MARTIN BOLD HEADLINE}the federal government won't pass a law that says that Churches won't be compelled to perform same-sex marriages; however,
2. {ssshhh! we don't want to talk about this part} if the Supreme Court decides that Churches are compelled to perform same-sex marriages, the federal government is powerless (as in not even Notwithstanding) to protect the Churches.

The Churches are essentially being told to cross their fingers and trust that the Supreme Court won't decide that same-sex marriage is included in the new definition of marriage, should someone decide to sue them over it.

According to the Justice Minister, these are the consequences of the proposed legislation.  I'm not claiming that they are good or bad or the relative value of one good over another.  I just think we are confusing what we want and the way things 'should' be with how our political & legal system works.

Just saw your next post ...

Thus, a court would be ruling that God, through ministers, must bless same sex union.

Essentially, the court would be telling God that he/she (yes.. god as male/female) must do bless.

Yes.

Last time I checked, no court in the land had authority over god.

This is a theological argument, not a legal one.  Even so (for the sake of argument), why wouldn't the Supreme Court rule that the inherent (God-given) Rights of the individual (i.e., to have their marriage blessed by the Church, a practise accepted as 'normal' part of getting married) outweigh the traditions of the Church?

I know the government thinks its all powerful but I think it would be stepping out of its league on this one.

They would be, but then that's the crux of the argument.

 

[dutchie]

Provincial Marriage councilors might.. heck, they should since its not on religious grounds, but civil.

I think you might see some legal challenges to any Government that forces it's JP's to marry same-sex couples if it violates their religious beliefs. How that would pan out, I don't know, I can see it going either way.

 

[DogOfWar]

  2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

I can get together with my buddy the minister and all my friends and marry the lamp and the couch. I dont care what the "legal" definition of marriage is. I dont care what the mooks in Ottawa think about my married appliances. If my "god" is cool with them being married and I believe he has blessed the union I dont care what Paul Martin says.

Freedom of Conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. THe supreme court cant argue with a religion who does not endorse homosexual marriage. They are entitled to think that way. Gays can find a church that doesnt disagree or can have a civil ceremony. I cant go get married by a catholic priest- because Im not catholic. It doesnt matter if its to a man or women. The supreme court answers to the people and the Charter. Not the other way around.

But as far as the government recognizing gay marriage for benefits and taxes- yes. I dont care if I believe the lifestyle is wrong. These people tie there finances together and are dependant on each other.

 

[childs56]

What i am seeing is what is called reverse discrimination by those who feel it is their right to enforce their beliefs on others. to marry means to  unite man and women in a church under the eyes of God this is the definition, and has been for many years. If a person's beliefs are such then they are entitled to that right. Now if two members whom are male and male  or female and female want to unite themselves then by all means they have that right. But should it be called marriage? Many millions of people through out time have held sacred their beliefs of their religion and the sacred ceremony of marriage between husband and wife. Now for us to infringe upon those peoples lives is as bad if not worse then the discrimination towards Gays and lesbians that is perceived. It is wrong to force a person against their beliefs of what they define as marriage to appease another person. This is what discrimination is. We have gone so far to one side that we have forgotten about the rights and privileges of those whom we deam as the ones that are discriminating.  Is this right. Then as one person mentioned above, how about the government removing the right of a priest or such to marry people if they do not treat gays and straights the same. Why would you do this. Once again you are now forcing another person into a point of discriminating against them. Should the term marriage be used, not sure, does it infringe upon another's rights if you do, not sure of that one. Should we use the term united, or some other term? My opinion. i am neither for or against this. I do feel thought that trying to force a way of living upon a person that goes against their beliefs is wrong and this is what we are trying to fight for.

 

[larry Strong]

should we ban the Santa Claus Parade for fear of upsetting non-Christians, or maybe that huge Caribbean parade they have in T.O. every year.  If you don't want to see it don't bother watching it.  Its one day.  I do agree that the floats should be tasteful mind you and therefore fall under indecency laws.

Jezzus where do you live....it's already been happening for years now. "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" on cards. Many big stores don't even mention Christmas, Schools hold Christmas events without mentioning the religious side of it.

As for the religious provission, it will only last to the first court challenge. If you don't believe me look at the history, religious schools taken to court, Halls and camp grounds taken to court on a regular basis, How many of those court challenges were in favor of the Groups....JP's in I believe Manitoba and Sask have already been fired or forced to resign because of their religious beliefs.

Also could anyone te4ll me exactly what right's Gays are loosing by not being able to use the term "Marriage"

And as for pride parades, what do you think the reaction would be if I went to City Hall and asked for a permit to hold a White Pride or a Staight Family Parade.

 

[Infanteer]

What i am seeing is what is called reverse discrimination by those who feel it is their right to enforce their beliefs on others.

Why, is somebody forcing you to get married to another guy or something?