Gay vote....Why?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next
Blue_Nose @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:28 am
Ripcat Ripcat:
Are you saying my marriage infringed on the rights of religious people because God and religion were not invited to my wedding and took no part in it?
The Province of Ontario approved my marriage, not some religious order. If marriage is strictly religious then why is my government involved?
The Province of Ontario approved my marriage, not some religious order. If marriage is strictly religious then why is my government involved?
In light of a few historical facts posted in this thread, I'd have to rethink that position. I'd originally thought that it was a fair trade; that religion could have their sacred "marriage", and gays could have their "civil unions". As far as I know, the church didn't disaprove of marriages that weren't in a church, for some reason.
But if the church never had any rights to 'marriage' in the first place (as I'd assumed), then maybe it's them that should come up with a new term - "sacred union" or something.
Something tells me they'd never agree to that, though
.
Blue_Nose @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:32 am
Banff Banff:
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Why is it that if two men want to commit to one another in a formal ceremony recognized as legitimate by both government and more importantly, general society, that is a beautiful selfless act, but three or more men is sick and wrong?
Don't you mean ...Why is it that Elk can screw on public golf courses and screw as many females as he can and even practice on his male counterparts which is a formal ceremony recognized as legitamate by both government and more importantly , general society , that is a beautiful selfless act , but three or more men is sick and wrong ?
I don't favor gay sex but I'm not about to sit here and say that there are not reasons why people choose it nor condemn them to hell and back for choosing it because life hands different relationships to people and elk, even without the JP, church involvment or government ....but can't those elk go find an apartment or go make out in the bushes .
No, you won't condemn it, but you'll compare gays to rapists, murderers, and now animals. Go to hell and back yourself.
Banff @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:57 am
Ya know Bluenose , I have to say the world is in a big fight to legislate healthy environments and individuals in all corners of the globe . The world steps up to plate for victims of floods , earthquakes , disasters , famine , physical and mental health and also poverty and oppressive leadership , and even the poor drunken homeless person on our own streets . Groups such as the Gay community and Pedophiles want their own peace and recognized freedoms with the world and we certainly know that women , slaves etc have recieved their own form of rights to finally find some distinguishable peace in their roughly 75 years of life and like any other group the gay community is stepping up to the plate .Gay people have fears or issues with the opposite sex and sometimes even favor being the opposite sex while Pedophiles have weaknesses against their own piers . Definitions of rape and Murder sometimes bend within society to absolve the acts from being acknowledged as a wrong doing( "you yourself will have to decide if that is dangerous to society "). The Gay community is gradually finding their own peace and will continue to do so and finally succeed to some degree or another and why shouldn't they ? Many Gays have tried so hard with the opposite sex and failed so why should they be punished for it or not acknowledged and they are even holding the government hostage with their votes to succeed .Personally I don't think defining it as marriage is appropriate because that one is already serving a common purpose .A free vote in parliament for marriage would fail quickly but civil union would have a very good chance simply because of rights and definitions which have already been fixed into marriage and developed over history for the common purpose it serves today. Regarding the Elk ....well I suppose they were doing it on golf courses long before man had any say in it and so were gay and heterosexual people " before man had any say in it "
themasta @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:06 pm
dimoreien dimoreien:
Funny you say 'most' USA-AOK, you're far off the mark with that one.
Is he though? I've never seen any polls or studies to indicate one way or the other. I tend to believe that rather than being for or against it, most Canadians are indifferent. Do not confuse indifference with a position of condemnation or acceptance.
Zeipher @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:28 pm
Having the state involved with marriage regardless of anything is ridiculous. The government should view all marriages as simply contracts between consenting parties.
PluggyRug @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:30 pm
themasta themasta:
dimoreien dimoreien:
Funny you say 'most' USA-AOK, you're far off the mark with that one.
Is he though? I've never seen any polls or studies to indicate one way or the other. I tend to believe that rather than being for or against it, most Canadians are indifferent. Do not confuse indifference with a position of condemnation or acceptance.
Eggsactly.
Zeipher @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:16 pm
IceOwl, it seems like you are suggesting that the state should force religious groups to recognize/preform gay marriages. That's a big, big no-no and unconstitutional even.
SJ-24 @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:27 pm
Wow! Not your usual dry reading here. Some actual discussion mixed in with name calling! What I do see here is that most are just indefferent to the Gay issue. I'm not indifferent, but i am concerned that we don't need to be as angry about it as we are. I personally don't care what two people do in privacy of their home. It's what they do in public that I have a problem. Also, in some places rape and murder are acceptable behaviors. Danfur is a good example. i don't see people freaking about that.
As far as gays are concerned, let God deal with them and lets free up the SCOC and HofC for more important shit.
Virgil @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:40 pm
1.Gay marriage should be legal.
2.No religion not believeing in ssm should be forced to marry people of the same sexe.
3.Ministers should lose the ability to marry, and instead have the ability of civil union.
4.The issue of gay marriage should then be taken up with the churches and not the government.
Tricks @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:55 pm
Virgil Virgil:
1.Gay marriage should be legal.
2.No religion not believeing in ssm should be forced to marry people of the same sexe.
3.Ministers should lose the ability to marry, and instead have the ability of civil union.
4.The issue of gay marriage should then be taken up with the churches and not the government.
agreed
2.No religion not believeing in ssm should be forced to marry people of the same sexe.
3.Ministers should lose the ability to marry, and instead have the ability of civil union.
4.The issue of gay marriage should then be taken up with the churches and not the government.
Banff @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:58 pm
Virgil Virgil:
1.Gay marriage should be legal.
2.No religion not believeing in ssm should be forced to marry people of the same sexe.
3.Ministers should lose the ability to marry, and instead have the ability of civil union.
4.The issue of gay marriage should then be taken up with the churches and not the government.
2.No religion not believeing in ssm should be forced to marry people of the same sexe.
3.Ministers should lose the ability to marry, and instead have the ability of civil union.
4.The issue of gay marriage should then be taken up with the churches and not the government.
1.whatever
2.
3.
4.
but the only problem with that is the churches are recognized by the government therefore.....
IcedCap @ Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:00 pm
Zeipher Zeipher:
IceOwl, it seems like you are suggesting that the state should force religious groups to recognize/preform gay marriages. That's a big, big no-no and unconstitutional even.
what about religions that support gay marriage (like some reform Jews and the United Church of Canada), by not allowing it the govt infringing on their religious freedoms as well
SJ-24 @ Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:19 pm
1.Gay marriage should be legal.
Yup!
2.No religion not believeing in ssm should be forced to marry people of the same sex.
Yup!
3.Ministers should lose the ability to marry, and instead have the ability of civil union.
Not sure of this one...But I see where you are going. I'm not sure the Far right would agree with it...Whinners! 
4.The issue of gay marriage should then be taken up with the churches and not the government.
Disagree. I think individual faiths should have a say. I know that the teachings of my faith do not agree with gay marriage, but I'd say a majority of those teaching the prayers don't feel it's their place to pass judgement on this issue...That's the big guy's job. Allow the preacher and individual churches the right to say no. By having the backing of the government it lends a legal enforcement that our society needs.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next