S
SFontaine
Guest
You never know in this Army.
The Merged Thread on Gay/ Homosexual Topics and the CF.
- Thread starter Andyboy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
This isn‘t history. I don‘t like it, but here‘s my piece.
Every other member that attends RMC has the right to be ‘married‘ there. I agree that it goes against many of the religious values of other members and don‘t think that it should be done at the Chapel out of respect for their beleifs and the traditions of the respective churches as institutions. But I do think that, provided they are not doing this to find a way to release after graduation, they do have the right to be ‘married‘ at RMC. I think for the PR aspect, the CF will go with it as it shows the ‘new army‘. Well, if that‘s what Canadians want, the CF is not in the business of enforcing it‘s views, it‘s in the business of enforcing and respecting overall Canadian views, including the respect of individual and minority rights provided they don‘t collide with operational and physical security.
Personally I think they should leave it at home, but that said, shouldn‘t straight members leave it at home then too? If that‘s the case, they might as well get rid of the right to get married at RMC altogether.
Edit by me: Ya Wes, I think the article is too ‘flamboyant‘ (to choose a fruity word). I didn‘t want to know the personal details of their lives as I feel somewhat confused and repulsed by it. But whatever, I gave up trying to understand why and how could it be that way when my cousin turned out to be gay.
Every other member that attends RMC has the right to be ‘married‘ there. I agree that it goes against many of the religious values of other members and don‘t think that it should be done at the Chapel out of respect for their beleifs and the traditions of the respective churches as institutions. But I do think that, provided they are not doing this to find a way to release after graduation, they do have the right to be ‘married‘ at RMC. I think for the PR aspect, the CF will go with it as it shows the ‘new army‘. Well, if that‘s what Canadians want, the CF is not in the business of enforcing it‘s views, it‘s in the business of enforcing and respecting overall Canadian views, including the respect of individual and minority rights provided they don‘t collide with operational and physical security.
Personally I think they should leave it at home, but that said, shouldn‘t straight members leave it at home then too? If that‘s the case, they might as well get rid of the right to get married at RMC altogether.
Edit by me: Ya Wes, I think the article is too ‘flamboyant‘ (to choose a fruity word). I didn‘t want to know the personal details of their lives as I feel somewhat confused and repulsed by it. But whatever, I gave up trying to understand why and how could it be that way when my cousin turned out to be gay.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Oh oh.... I‘m not a Christian... Does that mean I don‘t belong in the military? Too bad. All that training for nothing!
Do you really care what your troops do at home? When we go to work, we‘re all dressed in green. Black, white, Jewish, Muslim, Gay - it DOES NOT matter. If you get the job done well, you‘re OK in my books.
And Christian values? Last time I checked, Christian values represented tolerance, acceptance, and love - regardless of sexual preference.
The only thing upsetting about that article was that they celebrated their vows at a Britney Spears concert... Now that turns my stomach!
N
nbk
Guest
"Religious morals" isn‘t that an oxymoron?
People choose to participate in a religion.
People do not choose to be gay.
Therefore the one that has choice is the one who must bend in order to accomodate the one who does not have a choice.
Its like if you were to be shot at. Are you (the one with the choice) going to move out of the way of the bullet, or will you expect the bullet (which cannot choose to move) to accomodate you, and move out of your way?
I stand by the statement that these guys are just trying to stir up a ruckus and trying to get attention so they can scream "discrimination!" as soon as the cook gives them 2 scoops of mashed potatoes instead of 3. Its not a big deal and we should not give them the attention that they seek. They should be concentrating on their duties.
But I must say that the disgusting, bigoted replies that some of the members make on this board, reflect quite poorly on the CF in general.
We do not live in the Holy Roman Empire. This is not the 12th century. Have we not evolved a little bit in the last thousand years? In my experiences members of the Canadian Forces have been intelligent and honorable men and women.
If you allow heterosexual marriages in the Military chapels, then there *is no excuse* not to allow homosexual marriages in the same chapels. No excuse what so ever. Besides of course blatant unfounded bigotry. Or they are attempting to cover up their own latent homosexuality, and believe if gay marriages are allowed in a military chapel, then that will turn them 100% homosexual and this will somehow be a negative thing. If the religious beliefs do not accept the sexuality of some people, then the government should should be boycotting these bigoted religions until they do get with the times.
It is no different then if you were to request seperate chapels for African Americans or Asian Americans or what have you. People of different races do not choose to be the race that they are, so condemning or judging them for being that way makes no sense at all, and is entierly pointless. The church has had to bend before, allowing people of different races to get married to eachother and soforth. Everything that exists must evolve and change in order to survive, sicne times do change. The king james version of the bible was not the first incarnation of the book to be dreamed up.
You are in Canada, alright? If you wish to fight for ancient, embarassing, outdated, unjust and oppressive religious views, I believe the Taliban is still looking for new recruits.
Yes, don‘t forget our brothers and sisters are fighting and dying to bring civil liberties to a country which had come to embrace these exact same outdated appalling religious beliefs that you are condoning.
Your religious beliefs are your own. This means they have no relevance when dealing with how others should act, when they are not harming anyone. So long as they do not affect anyone else negatively, then beleieve whatever the **** you want.
I hope the mods don‘t get too sensitive and lock this thread, because people should be registering their opinions.
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
nbk, I want to marry my dog. There is no reason - no reason whatsoever - the military shouldn‘t allow me to do so, and provide full spousal benefits. And I think you are are closed minded and insensitive if you disagree.
What about a dude who wishes to marry his sister, or a 12 year old girl?
Seems to me there ARE reasons not to allow these things, they are called traditions and values, and they were what the nation was built on. I don‘t find these values "embarrassing", but they certainly are ancient. Another word for ancient is "time honoured".
Frankly, we shouldn‘t be concerned how people express themselves in their own bedrooms, it is when they demand public attention for its own sake that we need to be more decisive. Sometimes, we do have to say "no" in this country, and don‘t do it often enough. Too many parolees out there still raping and murdering, too many special interest groups demanding "equality" instead of earning it.
Civil Liberties are one thing; throwing out the baby with the bathwater is quite another.
What about a dude who wishes to marry his sister, or a 12 year old girl?
Seems to me there ARE reasons not to allow these things, they are called traditions and values, and they were what the nation was built on. I don‘t find these values "embarrassing", but they certainly are ancient. Another word for ancient is "time honoured".
Frankly, we shouldn‘t be concerned how people express themselves in their own bedrooms, it is when they demand public attention for its own sake that we need to be more decisive. Sometimes, we do have to say "no" in this country, and don‘t do it often enough. Too many parolees out there still raping and murdering, too many special interest groups demanding "equality" instead of earning it.
Civil Liberties are one thing; throwing out the baby with the bathwater is quite another.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Mr. Dorosh,
I expect better from you.
I can only assume that you are not comparing gay marriage to marrying a dog.... Throwing "the baby out with the bath water" seems a little harsh.
Your analogy is faulty to the core. A dog does not have the sense or abilty to enter into a marriage aware of the reprecussions. Nor does a 12 year-old child.
Two grown, fully competent people, entering into a marriage is something entirely different.
Yes, I agree with you, this country was founded on a certain value set. Some of those values were decent - some were not.
When this country was founded, women did not have the right to vote and jews and muslims were not permitted to hold office. Black people were considered sub-human. Racism and prejudice were some of the ‘values‘ this country was founded on. I hope that we can all agree that those ‘old values‘ aren‘t valid anymore.
We have come along way. Our value set has evolved. 50 years from now we might look back on some of the things said in this forum and be morally repulsed at our ‘backwards behaviour.‘
Marriage IS a time-honoured tradition. It is a tradition that initially required dowries and not the consent of the woman. It is a tradition, like all good traditions, that is evolving with the times.
You may not like it, but one of the time-honoured traditions in Canada is allowing people to make reasonable choices for themselves without the fear of persecution.
I expect better from you.
I can only assume that you are not comparing gay marriage to marrying a dog.... Throwing "the baby out with the bath water" seems a little harsh.
Your analogy is faulty to the core. A dog does not have the sense or abilty to enter into a marriage aware of the reprecussions. Nor does a 12 year-old child.
Two grown, fully competent people, entering into a marriage is something entirely different.
Yes, I agree with you, this country was founded on a certain value set. Some of those values were decent - some were not.
When this country was founded, women did not have the right to vote and jews and muslims were not permitted to hold office. Black people were considered sub-human. Racism and prejudice were some of the ‘values‘ this country was founded on. I hope that we can all agree that those ‘old values‘ aren‘t valid anymore.
We have come along way. Our value set has evolved. 50 years from now we might look back on some of the things said in this forum and be morally repulsed at our ‘backwards behaviour.‘
Marriage IS a time-honoured tradition. It is a tradition that initially required dowries and not the consent of the woman. It is a tradition, like all good traditions, that is evolving with the times.
You may not like it, but one of the time-honoured traditions in Canada is allowing people to make reasonable choices for themselves without the fear of persecution.
N
nbk
Guest
Mr. Dorosh: I do not know weather marrying an animal is against the law in this country, but if it is indeed not, then more power to you (or whoever would do that). As long as the relationship is not hurting anyone else (eg. the dog is not biting people) then why is it any of my business what you want to do with your personal life? As long as it does not affect your performance or anything I rely on you for, it is none of my concern.
With a 12 year old girl, I believe that is against the law in Canada (14 I believe is the age?). So I would understand the military chapel being opposed to that, as if they were to marry a 12 year old they would be breaking the law.
If one wants to marry a 14 year old girl (or whatever the legal age is) and the 14 year old wants to marry them, then best wishes you guys. Its not my forte, but this would not make me want to deny it to someone else who may truly be in love.
For example I cannot stand the taste of coffee. Does this mean I should try to get it banned? The profits from the buying of the premium Columbian ground funds terrorist revolutionaries in South America after all...hey I even have an unresearched and shoddy case to back my argument up with.
OR I could just not drink coffee, and not care if other people do, cause what they do does not affect me.
As a heterosexual person, one does not have any right to condemn homosexuals or prevent them from getting married and doing what they want. What they do will not effect you at all. Some gay guys decide to get married on the other side of the country...how will this harm you at all? Fact is it wont. People just like hating, especially when in a group where the ycan feed off eachother. So that is why the targets of hatred are always a different group of people then the ones doing the hating.
How many gays do not want gay marriage? Their opinion counts on this subject, as they are the only ones to be effected by the outcome.
If a law is never going to effect me, then why deny it to people it would effect, and would prosper from it? This is the simple thing that my mind cannot get over.
Its like banning the use of your left hand in schools. As a right handed person why do I care if people use their left hands or not? Its not going to effect me. So I could really care less. Its like picking on a group of people for a completely arbitrary trait they have and cannot do anything about. Its stupid, pointless and is a waste of everyones time.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Mr. Dorosh, I‘m going to have to step forward and join the ranks of people who think this is the most unabashedly ignorant thing I‘ve seen on this board to date.
It‘s common to see those on the hard right make the argument that you have, but it‘s the most foolish argument in the world.
Marriage is in a sense a contract, one which can be entered into only by those with a capacity to contract and only under similar terms to any other contract. That is to say, the only people who can enter to marriage are consenting adults making a free choice to do so. A dog does not qualify, neither does a twelve year old girl (except in Quebec if she has reached puberty and has her parents‘ consent - though they may have changed that). That doesn‘t necessarily exclude an incestuous relationship, but clearly that is something that there is a legitimate reason to exclude, you‘d be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with it.
I‘m extremely anti-marriage of any sort, by virtue primarily of watching my idiotic friends get married and divorced rapidly. I do think this particular cadet might be out for attention, publicity, or whatever, but on the broader scale, who the **** cares who can and can‘t get married, so long as they are consenting adults. Traditions, "time honoured" or otherwise, change.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
I am coming up on my 12th anniversary with my wife and having two men or two women marry each other has no affect in the slightest on our vows, our commitment or our love for one another. Why should it matter to the rest of us if gay and lesbians want to be treated the same as the rest of us. I don‘t agree with their lifestyle choice but it is their lifestyle choice to make. Same as if someone wants to go to school, join the military or sit on Spring Garden road begging for spare change. I don‘t think we have the right to judge people that much and when we do then the flames of hate begin to burn ever more brighter. Interracial marriages at one time were frowned upon and in some circles are stil greeted with hate and disgust. I feel that the reaction that gays and lesbians get these days is a new form of racism. You might not think so but if you think long and hard and compare it to what African Canadians (and now Arab Canadians) have experienced and still experience amounts to the same.
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
So allowing more people to get married is your solution? I would have expected the opposite, if your argument is to have any kind of inherent logic whatsoever.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
It‘s not a solution - if more people want, of their own free will, to engage in such endeavours, why stop them, if they are freely consenting adults? What bearing does it have on your life? None. What bearing does it have on mine? None. My point is merely that my opposition to marriage of any sort doesn‘t (and shouldn‘t) decide the course of anyone else‘s life.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Wow, i can not believe you said that:
I don‘t oppose the two men getting together on their own time, after all, the state has no business in their homes.
But expressing it in a Christian chapel? I draw the line there.
Lets say that they are Catholic and they want to get married in a Catholic chapel. This affects soldiers who are Catholic, if they do get married there, the chapel no longer stands for its Catholic value, and we can persume that it does not stand for any of the others. Us Catholic soldiers would see no point of going there. Then there‘s no point of having a Catholic Chapel.
I would really like to suggest that you think before you say things!!!
But that‘s alright, i‘ll turn the other cheek.
I don‘t oppose the two men getting together on their own time, after all, the state has no business in their homes.
But expressing it in a Christian chapel? I draw the line there.
Lets say that they are Catholic and they want to get married in a Catholic chapel. This affects soldiers who are Catholic, if they do get married there, the chapel no longer stands for its Catholic value, and we can persume that it does not stand for any of the others. Us Catholic soldiers would see no point of going there. Then there‘s no point of having a Catholic Chapel.
Yes there is, the excuse is our salvation. As a catholic, i believe that if we allow this to happen in our holy chapels, then we are damed to eternal punishment.
What the heck is that suppose to mean? That the government should follow the path of Hitler? Boycott us according to our religion?
I would really like to suggest that you think before you say things!!!
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
I disagree with this statement. I don‘t think the state has any business boycotting any religion per se for any of their beliefs. Saying that, legal marriage and religious marriage should be separated. If you choose to be married religiously, please do so in the religious chapel that you choose. If you wish to be married legally no religion is necessary. Homosexual marriage should be deemed a legal marriage. If homosexuals wish to pursue a religious marriage they should attempt to do so if they wish but the state has no business interfering with religious ideals.
As for this case, if the military chapel is catholic (I have no idea if it is) and has been allowing RMC students of other faiths to marry there they have no reason to ban homosexuals from marrying there. If only catholics have been allowed to marry there then they should have the right to refuse this marriage. Again, I have no idea if this chapel is catholic or multi-faith, I‘m sort of using this as an example.
As someone of no religion, I personally couldn‘t care less who is marrying who in any religious building.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Wasn‘t Hitler a devout Catholic? I seem to remember this from someplace.
Ex Ranger Instructor
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 48
- Points
- 330
The right of a church or other such group to exercise discretion in who it will or will not perform services for is a completely separate issue. The thing is that the military chapel at RMC is not a Catholic church, nor a Muslim mosque, nor a Mormon temple, etc. It isn‘t the exclusive province of any denomination, it‘s a multifaith facility that exists for the benefit of all RMC students. The chapel wouldn‘t turn away a Wiccan or an atheist, so why should they turn this guy away?
