Lets dispell this gay myth

[BDG.CalgHighrs]

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.

 

[dutchie]

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

That is a matter of much debate. I find it funny that the Justice Minister refuses to confirm that the Bill will allow Churches to refuse to marry homosexuals. The provision of which you speak of is perhaps the most vague part in the whole Bill. Even if the Government's intent was to allow Churches to refuse to marry homosexuals, it does not stop someone from launching ANOTHER Charter challenge to it. How could a SECULAR Court stop a Church from excluding Homosexuals from marriage when the definition of marriage includes Homosexuals? The short answer, I believe, is they cannot. One Charter challenge is all it wil take.

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.

Boy, that was intelligent. Why don't you go play in the sandbox with the rest of the children?

 

[Sheerin]

That is a matter of much debate. I find it funny that the Justice Minister refuses to confirm that the Bill will allow Churches to refuse to marry homosexuals. The provision of which you speak of is perhaps the most vague part in the whole Bill. Even if the Government's intent was to allow Churches to refuse to marry homosexuals, it does not stop someone from launching ANOTHER Charter challenge to it. How could a SECULAR Court stop a Church from excluding Homosexuals from marriage when the definition of marriage includes Homosexuals? The short answer, I believe, is they cannot. One Charter challenge is all it wil take.

Section 33 of the Charter.  
But I would also hope that the Human Rights Commisions would be able to balance the two freedoms effectivley.

And as Trinity has already mentioned, churches already turn away a large number pf people for whatever reason.  No one has filled a HR complaint against that yet. 

 

[Infanteer]

Boy, that was intelligent. Why don't you go play in the sandbox with the rest of the children?

+1 on that one.

If you have nothing to contribute, don't be an idiot and put stupid and inane posts up.

Now, as for Caesar's idea, I'm not really liking it.  My aunt and uncle never got married in a church, but they've been married for 26 years.  I'm not going to tell them that, since they avoided a religious ceremony, they are "unionized" rather than married and that they are not husband and wife.

Marriage is defined in the dictionary as "legal union".  The State has the authority to issue and recognize marriage licenses to those who wish to become (I like the term) a "household".  What the Church does is up to them, and they can call it whatever they want, but the state should offer the "household" to whomever can accept the responsibility of it.

 

[dutchie]

Now, as for Caesar's idea, I'm not really liking it.   My aunt and uncle never got married in a church, but they've been married for 26 years.   I'm not going to tell them that, since they avoided a religious ceremony, they are "unionized" rather than married and that they are not husband and wife.

Neither would I. That is why you could visit a church to have your marriage 'certified' if your original wedding was done by a JP. Were talking about a formality here, not a new ceremony. To avoid sticky hassles like this, we could also 'Grandfather' in existing marriages (pun intended).

What the Church does is up to them, and they can call it whatever they want, but the state should offer the "household" to whomever can accept the responsibility of it.

A State cerified 'houshold' is a Union, and Church certified 'household' is both a Union and a Marriage.

 

[Sheerin]

Neither would I. That is why you could visit a church to have your marriage 'certified' if your original wedding was done by a JP. Were talking about a formality here, not a new ceremony. To avoid sticky hassles like this, we could also 'Grandfather' in existing marriages (pun intended).

So why can't I get married?  I'm agnostic and no a big fan of organized religion.  Why must me union be just a union rather than a marriage?  I know its all a name, but my point is you're creating a divide when there really shouldn't be one; you're creating a form of social stratification by saying only religious people can get married and non-religious get civil unions.

 

[dutchie]

So why can't I get married?   I'm agnostic...  

You just answered your own question.

you're creating a form of social stratification by saying only religious people can get married and non-religious get civil unions.

No. I'm redefining (he-he) marriage to it's original and less confusing meaning. Marriage is religous, like it or not. A State certified marriage is a hanger-on from the days where there was no seperation between Church and State. I am proposing we continue to seperate Church and State by removing marriage from the State's domain, where it doesn't belong. This should have been done hundreds of years ago. Do you hear of State certified Baptisms? Of course not, but marriage is no less a religous 'rite' than baptism.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
So why can't I get married?  I'm agnostic and no a big fan of organized religion.  Why must me union be just a union rather than a marriage?  I know its all a name, but my point is you're creating a divide when there really shouldn't be one; you're creating a form of social stratification by saying only religious people can get married and non-religious get civil unions.

Isn't that what it is now if you do it in front of a JP, we just let people call it marriage.....listen, if you think calling it something else will hurt your " together years" [ maybe we should call it that] you  probably should reconsider.
We are discussing a way to separate it from the church, which you have already nixed[ or you would just be a hypocrite], so it should be easy for you.

 

[Infanteer]

You are going to have to go far to prove that marriage was invented by the [insert your faith here].   I don't feel I have to justify my marriage in the future to a sanctioned religious figure.   Humans have always been coalescing into pairs (for whatever social and emotional reasons) - we've surrounded them in ritual, ceremony, and pageantry, but this in no way gives organized religious groups monopoly on the term "marriage".

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Haven't we done this in about 30 other pages in another thread.
We turned another thread into he/she said, he/he said, she,/she said, etc......

 

[Sheerin]

Or we could, you know, just scarp the word marriage all together and call everything a union.

I understand what your saying, but I don't agree with it for reasons I've previously stated.  I really don't like the idea of creating a two-tired marriage system; in my mind it's only a hop, skip and a jump away from institutionalized religious apartheid 

Humans have always been coalescing into pairs (for whatever social and emotional reasons) - we've surrounded them in ritual, ceremony, and pageantry, but this in no way gives organized religious groups monopoly on the term "marriage".

Actually the idea of a nuclear family (ie: husband/wife etc) is not the norm, really.  The majority of cultures out there practice some other form marriage be it polygamy, polyandry, etc.

 

[Infanteer]

I guess your right Bruce - I just want someone to give a perfectly good reason why it is necessary for the Church to put the stamp on someone so they can be married.  I'm not talking about gays or anything, just the concept of marriage in general.

 

[Polish Possy]

I don't care what your sexuaility is and I am not bothered by people that choose different lifestyles, they aren't affecting me in any way,  I think if a person loves some one enough to make a commitment to get married or have a child thats great I don't care if it is a man and a women or a man and a man or a women and a women

Everyone deserves the respect and right to be who they are and what the stand for ......except for Polish people ....they deserve nothing..... :

Edited*

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Polish,
Inane sweeping comments like yours are what drives someone like myself insane, think about what you just spouted off . Here I'll quote you " I think that every one should just be given the same rights as every one else and if you have nothing better to do then complain and stamp your feet about what is going on around you maybe you should take your hands of your ears and come into the 21st century."
Now I just got back from driving my 12 year old to karate class, but wait why should I have to do that, she should have the same rights as me to drive,...this is the 21st century isn't it?

As Steve Martin said " Heres an idea, when you speak, have a point, it makes it so much easier for the listener"

 

[Tpr.Orange]

the americans say it best...


"DONT ASK DONT TELL"

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

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. 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?

    Not bad.  What vows are sworn between people (marriage), before such gods as they honour, are for them alone.  Matters of honour have little to do with courts, honour and lawyers are seldom found in close association.  The property rights, pension and benefits eligibility, etc are best left to the courts (union).

 

[Trinity]

I guess your right Bruce - I just want someone to give a perfectly good reason why it is necessary for the Church to put the stamp on someone so they can be married. I'm not talking about gays or anything, just the concept of marriage in general.

Why?  Would you marry two people under God, if you felt they couldn't handle the commitment and
contract they are submitting to under God?  The minister is kinda spiritually on the hook on that one.  I wont
marry two people if I think they have problems. Let me tell you, the people who approach ministers to get
married have so many weird problems that they need to fix before getting married it isn't funny. (well it is)


from Caesar

No. I'm redefining (he-he) marriage to it's original and less confusing meaning. Marriage is religous, like it or not. A State certified marriage is a hanger-on from the days where there was no seperation between Church and State. I am proposing we continue to seperate Church and State by removing marriage from the State's domain, where it doesn't belong. This should have been done hundreds of years ago. Do you hear of State certified Baptisms? Of course not, but marriage is no less a religous 'rite' than baptism.

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.

You are going to have to go far to prove that marriage was invented by the [insert your faith here].  I don't feel I have to justify my marriage in the future to a sanctioned religious figure.  Humans have always been coalescing into pairs (for whatever social and emotional reasons) - we've surrounded them in ritual, ceremony, and pageantry, but this in no way gives organized religious groups monopoly on the term "marriage".

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.

Hope this helps clarify some points and helps steer the conversation a little neater.

Please guys..  you've been good.... but no knucklehead comments... this has been very enlightening
for some people. 

but if they wished to have their marriage blessed, then the minister

 

[atticus]

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.

Wouldn't that depend on the culture and religion?

I went a googled the history of mariage and I found this which provided some insite:

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

It seems that I gather from this that marriage being a sacrament and a contract is traced back to Paul who was around about 1550 years before the 1600's.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I just got divorced from a hetero marriage, and got royally hosed.  Why shouldn't my gay brethren and sistren get an equal oportunity to get screwed?  Just think, the divorce lawyers income potential just doubled!

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[Trinity]

Wouldn't that depend on the culture and religion?

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.