Lets dispell this gay myth

[larry Strong]

Close to my heart....not really. If the Lord dosen't like what I said He will sort me out all in due time. I dont have a problem with what they call it, I asked what right's were denied to gays if we don't call it marriage. RTFQ!!!

 

[childs56]

Infanter, no one is forceing me to get married or other. But the fundemental of the term marraige is what is the issue here and then the forcing of priest and such to perform such acts against their beleifs. That is discrimination to wards those people.  I personally dont care. I am tired of wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars through my taxes to keep these topics alive and open for debate. Really we have gone no further other then to tell peopel whom do not beleive in the term gay marraige that they are wrong and they had better toll the line or be labeled as a sexist, rascist  or other. We in our our own way are discriminating agaisnt those people. 

 

[childs56]

sorry about the spelling i hit the post button before the spell check

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

This is from your article

Churches WONT be forced to perform gay marriages

Provincial Marriage councilors might.. heck, 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

     Churches (Christian or other) cannot, and should not be compelled to marry anyone.  Civil authorities, on the other hand, are bound by provincial laws to grant marriages to anyone who qualifies under the laws of their province.  For civil authorities to deny marriage to those (gay/straight) who are legally entitled to wed under the laws of their province and nation would be discrimination.  Churches can exercize freedom of association, and not obligated to serve those anyone they do not choose to.

 

[Sheerin]

...but the fundamental (sic) of the term marriage (sic) is what is the issue here and then the forcing of priest and such to perform such acts against their beliefs (sic). That is discrimination to wards (sic) those people.

Have you read the language in the bill?  Section 3 of bill C-38 specifically say:

It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

and section 3.1 states:

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/index.asp?Lang=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=13&Type=0&Scope=I&query=4381&List=toc-1

 

[Infanteer]

I asked what right's were denied to gays if we don't call it marriage. RTFQ!!!

What right are you being denied if we do?

I would venture that the answer would be yes if the Canadian state recognizes gay couples as they do straight couples.   In this thread we've shown "marriage", as a social construct, to be slippery in terms of prerequisites (love, nope - children, nope) as well as being far from traditionally Christian (ie: Roman marriage laws prior to the rise of Christianity, polygamist traditions).   If the Canadian Charter enshrines the rights of gays and recognizes them as legitimate "households" (or whatever you want to call it) than there is no reason for us to not apply our laws recognizing monogamous relationships to them - especially when nobody can give me a really compelling reason why marriage should legally remain the domain of "man and woman".

Did Black's really lose out in the South when they were given "equal but different status" under segregation laws?   They had to sit at the back of the bus, but hey, they got to ride the bus, didn't they?

But the fundemental of the term marraige is what is the issue here and then the forcing of priest and such to perform such acts against their beleifs.

If you would have bothered to read the thread, you'd notice that nobody has advocated forcing a Church to marry gays - for the umpteenth time we are referring to marriages as a state-recognized, legal concept.   Read mainerjohnthomas's post - it represents the view of most on this thread.

Thanks for the link Sheerin - helps to dispel alot of fear-mongering.

 

[larry Strong]

What right are you being denied if we do?

Did I say I was going to be denied some rights???? Everyone up to and including mr dithers says that its a "Rights" thing. So instead of trying to turn the question onto me tell me,   What rights do gay people lose if they don't get to use the word "Marriage"

 

[Sheerin]

Well it would create a two-tiered marriage system, and thus violate their right to be treated equally. 

How does it violate your rights if two guys get married? 

 

[Trinity]

For the record

If i had a same sex couple ask me to marry them...
under the blessings of god
and i felt they were compatable for eachother with no major issues
and they met the values of the church

then.. Game on...

I don't think I'll see it much.. and my church doesn't allow
for it anyways right now.  So I'm not really worried about it.


What do gays lose if we don't call a marriage a marriage..
A word..  thats it...

Can we call it a WEDDING?!  instead of marriage...

Wedding for church..  civil union for legal way

BOTH are considered forms of MARRIAGE

HEY.........  I think i'm onto something

 

[Infanteer]

I like that, Trinity.

 

[atticus]

What right are you being denied if we do?

I don't think people are afraid of loosing their rights if you do so much as being afraid of what could happen; what this could open the doors to.

 

[Infanteer]

What exactly could it open the doors to?  As I discussed elsewhere, it is fairly clear that marriage needs to be consensual - thus eliminating animals, children and innanimate objects (although arranged marriages border on this idea with social pressure - but ultimately the paired couple sign the documents).  Incestuous marriage?  Well, that notion was never really included in the definition of "man and woman" anyways, so it is another debate altogether.

The only debatable issue is polygamy, however if we are defining marriage as a monogamous relationship forming a co-dependent household, I think the case can be made for drawing a firm line at "two people".  I am not to sure the State is legally obligated to recognize the harem (maintaining consistency with the line of argument, religion X is free to do what it wants, as long as it doesn't violate the Criminal Code).

 

[jmacleod]

Support for the homosexual community in the Liberal Party of Canada has nothing to do with
human rights, lifestyles, same-sex marriage or anything of consequence except, that the Party
knows the gay community votes as a bloc - which fits neatly into the Liberal's strategy of providing
goverance to Canada on a permanent, for life basis, forever. They will easily win another Federal
election, which is now focused on early 2006. MacLeod

 

[Infanteer]

Although I'm not the biggest fan of the Liberal Party, I'm not going to be that cynical - it is a big party, and I am sure there are many in it who ground their politics in the Charter of Trudeau.

 

[dutchie]

Support for the homosexual community in the Liberal Party of Canada has nothing to do with
human rights, lifestyles, same-sex marriage or anything of consequence except, that the Party
knows the gay community votes as a bloc - which fits neatly into the Liberal's strategy of providing
goverance to Canada on a permanent, for life basis, forever. They will easily win another Federal
election, which is now focused on early 2006. MacLeod

Like Infanteer, I am no fan of the Federal Liberals, however, I think you might be a little off here. The majority of Canadians don't support same-sex marriage, and most people feel fairly strongly about it on both sides (IMHO). So I think they will probably lose more votes than they will gain by pushing this agenda.

Why they are doing this, well, I don't know.

 

[c4th]

So I think they will probably lose more votes than they will gain by pushing this agenda.

Why they are doing this, well, I don't know.

Remindes me of a quote:

The majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper. - Larry Flynt

 

[Sheerin]

Like Infanteer, I am no fan of the Federal Liberals, however, I think you might be a little off here. The majority of Canadians don't support same-sex marriage, and most people feel fairly strongly about it on both sides (IMHO). So I think they will probably lose more votes than they will gain by pushing this agenda.

what are you basing that on?  All the polls I've seen have shown that both camps had roughly equal support and the differences were generally aways within the margin of error.  These polls have also shown that younger Canadians are almost overwhelmingly in favour of it while older (ie: those of retirement age) are against it.. 

And why are they doing it?  I would like to say because they feel that current policies are discriminatory.  However I suspect it has more to do with the fact that younger Canadians support it, and are thus more likely to vote liberal. 

But all this talk about polls reminds me of a Benjamin Disraeli quote - There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics

I don't think people are afraid of loosing their rights if you do so much as being afraid of what could happen; what this could open the doors to.

I've never understood this argument by opponents of same sex marriage.  I know they always say that the next 'logical' step is for the government to legalize polygamy.  Personally, I have nothing against it, assuming of course everyone consents to it.  You also have to remember, that our western notion of marriage, that is marriage  between two people to the exclusion of everyone else is not what is practiced by most cultures throughout the world.

 

[neuromancer]

I know this was discussed early on in the thread.

Q: Why do gays flaunt it so much when doing parades (i.e. bondage, chaps, other stuff)

A: Because its their right to do so.

Well.. I would like to just take a little exception to that, what does parading around the street half naked with your
ass hanging out of a pair of chaps have to do with same-sex relations??? I've never understood that.

Someone mentioned that if you love scotch you could go have a parade about it because thats your right, well if your parade
involved midgets in chaps I would have to question how much this parade is really about scotch and how much of it
is just trying to bring attention to yourself by shocking people by presenting material that has little or nothing
to do with the actual theme of the event. I think that in itself is wrong.

All Im saying is that there should be some censor board for parades and other marketing, for example what do breasts have
to do with beer? But what do we see in 99% of beer comercials, breasts.

I dont agree with those types of advertising.

Freedom of speech is one thing, but when it becomes a matter of false advertising I think we need to draw a line.
Thats all Im going to say.

 

[dutchie]

I've never understood this argument by opponents of same sex marriage.   I know they always say that the next 'logical' step is for the government to legalize polygamy.   Personally, I have nothing against it, assuming of course everyone consents to it.   You also have to remember, that our western notion of marriage, that is marriage   between two people to the exclusion of everyone else is not what is practiced by most cultures throughout the world.

Most cultures? Really? Well, we live in the Western World, so really in order to compare, you should compare us to other Western nations. Name one Western society (not cult) that supports polygamy? I realize some African and Middle Eastern cultures do have polygamy, but they also have other 'customs' that we would find very abhorrent. Stoning of a woman for alleged adultery, the raping of children to 'cure AIDS', the list goes on. Shall we base our laws/beliefs on what is 'normal' in cultures we share little in common with?

Further, most polygamist 'marriages' in North America are of the Fundamentalist Mormon variety (ie, Bountiful BC, Utah, etc.). It is debatable whether this is consentual or not. There is immense pressure on the young women (or children) in these communes to marry much older men who already have 1 or more wives. IIRC, they beleive that men may enter heaven only if they have 7 wives. Again, if you feel that this C-48 will lead to legalized polygamy, then you should be informed on what it actually is. Whether it actually will lead to it is a whole other matter, and certainly up for debate.

 

[Sheerin]

Most cultures? Really? Well, we live in the Western World, so really in order to compare, you should compare us to other Western nations. Name one Western society (not cult) that supports polygamy? I realize some African and Middle Eastern cultures do have polygamy, but they also have other 'customs' that we would find very abhorrent. Stoning of a woman for alleged adultery, the raping of children to 'cure AIDS', the list goes on. Shall we base our laws/beliefs on what is 'normal' in cultures we share little in common with?

Further, most polygamist 'marriages' in North America are of the Fundamentalist Mormon variety (ie, Bountiful BC, Utah, etc.). It is debatable whether this is consentual or not. There is immense pressure on the young women (or children) in these communes to marry much older men who already have 1 or more wives. IIRC, they beleive that men may enter heaven only if they have 7 wives. Again, if you feel that this C-48 will lead to legalized polygamy, then you should be informed on what it actually is. Whether it actually will lead to it is a whole other matter, and certainly up for debate.

First of all, i never said that bill C-38 would lead to polygamy.  I suggest you reread what I wrote. 
As for your extreme examples... yeah, so what?  Why don't we look at our culture.  Up till relatively recently it was believed by many western governments that we need to sterilize those members of society who were defective in  some way.  Our neighbours to the south feel/felt it was acceptable to execute people who committed crimes as minors.  Again, till relatively recently, it was believed that women who enjoyed sex were mentally ill.  I could go on with extreme examples from our culture, but I suspect you get the point.

As for your example of the Mormons, well, it goes show that marriage is a social construct.  You were brought up in a culture that dictated that marriage is between two people, a man and a woman.  One can even say that you were indoctrinated with that believe.  Whereas people brought up in Mormon communities are indoctrinated with the notion that marriage is between one many and several wives.  Then there are cultures out there than practice polyandry where one woman has several husbands.  It may seem wrong to us, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is.