The Merged Thread on Gay/ Homosexual Topics and the CF.

[c4th]

What about padres? A Catholic padre will be bound by his beliefs to not recognize or perform a same-sex marriage. However, as a Federal Government employee liscenced to perform weddings, he would be required to perform them (IIRC).

Padres are not required to perform marriage services contrary to the rules of their denomination.  As all service members are entitled to marriage services the padre is responsible to find an alternate to perform the service.

 

[dutchie]

As all service members are entitled to marriage services the padre is responsible to find an alternate to perform the service.

And I guess that's the key. Thanks.

BTW, I assume this responsibility to find alternate means originated not in same-sex unions/marriages, but in marriages of non-Christian people? As in, the Padre could not marry two Buddhists or Muslims in a ceremony of their faith, so they were to find alternate means?

 

[LF(CMO)]

Just another sign of the continuing depravity and degradation of society and the CF in general.  Other examples are the refusal of the soldier to remove his headcover on Remembrance Day, women in combat roles and the reluctance of the Canadian electorate to rid themselves of the corrupt, immoral Liberal Govt.

BTW: I could care less what anyones 'sexual preference" is.  Gay marriage is illogical and simply stupid.  It is merely an attempt to add 'normalcy' to something they know is inherently wrong!  I find it very amusing to see how people can come on here and justify anything.  Soon they will be 'marriying' people and animals or some such wiedo thing and guaranteed someone will come on here and find some way to justify it!

 

[Island Ryhno]

Why don't you tell us how you really feel there (LF)!   I say; whatever turns your crank. If a couple of Joes or Janes are in it for the long haul (no pun intended) then have at er, jeez maybe they can make marriage a lasting institution again. Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go find a blowup doll who will say "I do"  

 

[c4th]

BTW, I assume this responsibility to find alternate means originated

See QR&O Vol 1 Art 33.01 through 33.03

 

[Gramps]

[glow=red,2,300]Quote from Infanteer. "I'm not gay and I'm not married, so I could care less what these guys (or gals) are doing.
Seriously, is this something that will have any real affect on anyone?"[/glow]


I couldnt agree more. All I have to say is "Who Cares".

 

[Trinity]

I'm rather shocked by the intolerance by some of the members of this board.

The insults without any facts = discrimination. 

Its not about whether the government wants it or the people want it.  Its
about individual rights.  Even if they are a minority, if we are supressing or deny
a right to them allowed to others then it must be corrected under law.

No one is going to force churches to marry anyone.
No one is going to start marrying sheep.
No one is going to do anything they don't have to do.

And as for the Co-ed shower comment. Please.. 
1) The likelihood of that happening is small to none.  I think the would have more
self control than that.
2) I think you could handle it by excusing yourself and telling a Sgt or officer. 

Why would a gay person hit on you in the shower. Why not the mess, why not your office?
How does being married = having shower with members of the same sex. 

If you recognize my avatar then you know my trade.
Irregardless of my PERSONAL position, it is a JUSTICE ISSUE plain and simple.
We are denying them rights that we have ourselves. 

Ive actually studied this issue and discussed it for years.  These boards do nothing
but spread hatred and mis-information. 

 

[winchable]

Infanteers got it right on the money, let's all give a great big whooooooo caaaaaaares.
I suppose that all a gay person wants is to be regarded as equal, no more no less, the kind of media attention this sort of thing puts the "no more" idea right out the window.

That being said, if someone actually wants to give a marriage... union...jumping over a broomstick...tying the knot, commitment ceremony (honestly have no idea what the correct term is) a go with skyrocketing divorce rates, the acceptance of marital infidelity into mainstream society, the prospect of custody battles....and the number of other wonderful benefits of being..unionized..married (if someone knows the correct term, please tell me) I dont care what parts they're operating in their drawers; as long as they don't trick me into picking them up at a bar...taking me back to their place...feeding me a lovely meal complete with a bottle of nice wine...telling me how handsome I am only to spring Mr. Kanish out at the last minute............*Che regresses inward as repressed memories flood to the surface*

Seriously though, I suppose everyone has a right to be against it, that's one of those big bonuses of living in a society with liberties, but if anyone truly values liberty they'll take it like they would an interacial/interreligious, rare (though getting less and less rare of course) but nothing to get consumed over.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Same arguments were made against interracial marriages years ago.   The state of marriage is in dire straights as it is caused by exclusively heterosexuals so let them have a crack at it.

 

[HItorMiss]

To add some levity and a sense of shock I give to you:


http://web.archive.org/web/20020811022657/home.wanadoo.nl/mh/artworks/cv2.htm


See Trinity people are already marrying sheep, or in this case a Horse.....

 

[Trinity]

yeah...  OK... i can't believe he admitting to having sex with a horse

Lets clarify this...

humans can consent to marriage

Marriage is not a church thing, but a legal/contractual agreement made through the state/city/town/etc.

I don't know what country would legally/contractually accept a marriage between a human and an animal.
Thus, doubt can be raised about this and other animal cases due to
1) no legal contract
2) no consent

(that goes for the guy with the blow up doll too)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Bigotry in any form is wrong plain and simple. Whats the difference between you disgareeing with gay marriage and serving with an African Canadian? 30 years ago the notion of doing so would have invoked the same degree of horror you seem to be showing over what should be a basic human right.

 

[andpro]

Who cares people get married evry day. This was just a bit different. Like others allready said I does not affect any off us so we should let it go. As for the sheep I have been talking to one he is appaled by your comments Joe Gunner. 

 

[limyjack]

I don't care if you like to date poodles while wearing a dress - just as long as you don't come to my house asking to date my poddle or borrow my wife's dress.

 

[muskrat89]

My personal views on this have shifted slightly over time, more to what Trinity suggests. That is thanks, in part - to the discussions on this board, actually. Taking into account, all of the great points made by the voices of reason, I am interested in their views as applied to polygamists. Should we not treat the individual rights of say, 3 people the same as we should be considering the individual rights of 2 people? Is it logical to say "Yes" to same-sex couples, but "No" to polygamists?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Muskrat....I agree. If 3 people want to form some sort of union then why cannot we let them? I think polygamy gets a bad rep in a lot of cases due to the sickos that marry 12-14 year old girls. If 3 adults wish to do so then why not? The only problems I see is if one or more want out and then if money, children, property are involved , then you will have a major cluster*uck.

 

[Infanteer]

Just another sign of the continuing depravity and degradation of society and the CF in general.   Other examples are the refusal of the soldier to remove his headcover on Remembrance Day, women in combat roles and the reluctance of the Canadian electorate to rid themselves of the corrupt, immoral Liberal Govt.

Well, seeing how I am a morally depraved individual who seems to get by serving in a military that allows gay couples to receive the same treatment as heteros and that women are allowed to stand up and serve their country as well, I guess I'll be satisfied with moving on to more important things (ie: things that are operationally relevent and focus on real issues of defence) and leave you behind to bemoan the end of society.

BTW: I could care less what anyones 'sexual preference" is.   Gay marriage is illogical and simply stupid.   It is merely an attempt to add 'normalcy' to something they know is inherently wrong!   I find it very amusing to see how people can come on here and justify anything.   Soon they will be 'marriying' people and animals or some such wiedo thing and guaranteed someone will come on here and find some way to justify it!

There certainly needs to be a firm line, in terms of legal definitions, drawn on who can and cannot be married, if anything to end the controversy.  However, I can't see any reason (in a legal sense) for putting it on sex.  Every reason used to argue it as needing two people of the opposite sex seems to fall flat on its face (love, children, tradition, etc, etc).  I think the line can be safely drawn at two people (thus eliminating polygamy from the debate).

In the end, mind your own business, because getting wrapped around the axle with other people's personal life is just being foolish.  If you are worried about being around gay men then, as my buddy used to say, "Don't worry, cause you ain't that hot anyways...."

 

[NavComm]

As long as they don't allow the sheep serving in the canadian forces to get married.
>

I think that's only legal in Scotland and some parts of Wales (just kidding!)  >

 

[Infanteer]

I could really care less about polygamy - if consenting adults who care for each other are willing to form a "household" and accept the legal obligations to eachother, then so be it.  If their religious authority wishes to spiritually bless the affair, then all the best to them; it is none of my concern.

As far as I understand it, the "legal" definition of marriage concerns the relationship of the married people to the state.  The "spiritual" defintion of marriage concerns the relationship of the married people to a higher plane/power; and that is up for them and their religion to decide.  As far as the legal definition goes, all I am really concerned about is consent (thus eliminating animals, children, and inanimate objects), no criminal code violations (I think we can stick incest here), and a legal framework of obligations and entitlements.

Think about it, other than that, there are no "hard lines" that we can legally hold married people to; consider all these "man and woman" things:

- Love (prearranged marriages certainly aren't based on this, although it is hoped that it will later form)
- Children (many couples get married and choose not to have children)
- Tradition ("man and woman" is not the only "tradition"; certainly in our past somewhere, men have taken on multiple wives, while in many ancient societies, marrying within the family was "traditionally acceptable" and preferred)

 

[honestyrules]

IMHO,
I think it is more a political situation than anything else. Ok, there is a lot of homosexuals in Canada (not more than anywhere else though), and the government has to make them happy (they are taxpayers and voters!).

DND always implement Government rules and laws, so it's normal that this happens now. It was just a matter of time.