1  2  Next

Well they polled (no pun intended) a small number of people on this issue ...back in Jan.
The results say that the gay...should have the right to marry.

   

wow convergence between church and state... thanks stephan harper for brining us all together.... (dripping of sarcasm)... this guys is a complete joke.... disregard election promises.. appointing people to the cabinet... a more accountable and transparent government... yea right.. looks that way to us you lyin' weasel.....

   

"traditional definition of marriage is between one man and one woman"

With this I agree.
I believe in marriage.
Been working at it for over 20 years.
I think if you have something to be proud of, then wave your flag.

If 2 guys want to live together forever, let them.
If 2 women can do the same, fine with me.
Just don't call it marriage.
Call it a legal union or whatever.
Give all the same rights to the happy couple.
And all the same problems.

But to my way of understanding,
and I do think this one is universal on this planet.
Marriage is 1 guy and 1 girl.

3 guys and 2 girls....no
1 guy and 5 girls....no
1 guy and his pet sheep....no
1 girl and her sheep dog....no

just 1 woman and 1 man.
About the most difficult mix to put together.
Opposites.
That compliment each other.
So let them have their "word" for their special situation.
The rest of you can make up your own word for your problem.

The rest of us married folks have to live with ours.

   

I've been married nearly as long as you have, heliho. It can be a lot of work, but Mrs. Rev is a patient woman and seems to have almost unlimited tolerance.

Anyway, I see absolutely no reason why SSM would diminish my marriage or why it would matter to me in the slightest. I don't care if people are married or who they are married to. I don't care whether they like innies or outties. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. It also doesn't affect the churches, who are protected under freedom of religion from performing any marriage they don't want to.

Denying somebody a human right, and marriage is a right, because of their sexual orientation is silly. Denying them the use of a word is petty and, well, weird.

   

well said Rev thanks for some good input to the thread.Do me a favor and check out the Chez harper thread...fat

   

How can you say that? Since gay marriage has been allowed in Canada, the very fabric of our society has become unglued.....

Canadian families are under attack, and men are divorcing their wives and turning gay by the thousands. There's been rioting in the streets, looting, killing, and all sorts of mayhem.

Look at the Katrina diaster.....Think the Big Guy didn't have a reason for that?

With all this marriage hooplah going on I'm sure all the children adopted by gay people are totally confused.....I mean for a long time they've been adopted by two people who live together, but now all of a sudden those two people are MARRIED. OH WHAT WILL THEY DO!?

   

Marriage is a fundamentally religious notion, so why can't they have some form of control over its use? Religious institutions have the right to define their own religous unions, so why should they be the ones to change to distinguish themselves from the 'other' forms of marriage?
We deny certain people the use of plenty of "words".... (engineer, doctor, guardian...). Religous institutions deserve the ability to preserve their traditions and values, and undermining those efforts by removing the significance of those "words" to them isn't right.

   

Thank-you Blue Nose.
And I thought I was the last CKA contributor to believe in religion.
Marriage is a religious practice.
Always has been, and always will be.
This country was founded on certain beliefs.
One was the protection of the right to religion.

Do the rights of one group superseed the rights of another.
Just because it's the flavor of the week,
it should have no greater importance in the laws and actions of a people.
Some societies are more tollerant of change.
Some are not.

I have no problem with 2 guys wanting to stay together forever.
But my religious beliefs, the ones I was married under,
are being told to shut up and bend over (and take it like a man).
I refuse to accept gay marriage, on religious grounds.

Now, if you want, go and ban my religious beliefs.
I'll see you in HELL!

   

I did. Very well done.



I have an old farm equipment manual that refers to marrying two pieces of machinery together and a an old carpentry that speaks of marrying planks together to make a beam. The usage is a little archaic...from the early 20th century...but the word obviously does not have a history of strictly religious use.

Marriages are commonly performed for non-religious couples by officials who do not represent any church, and have been for a very long time. Judges, Justices of the Peace, ship captains and so on have been performing weddings for a very long time.

There is nothing in the present SSM legislation that keeps religious institutions from preserving their traditions and values. They are not required to perform SSM. Freedom of religion allows them to refuse to perform weddings for any reason, or no reason at all. The cry of religious freedom in this matter is a complete non-issue.

   

I belive in religion myself...I also believe in other peoples rights
There is no easy answer to this question my reason for posting it was to point out that Mr Harper needs to be carefull on what he tries to push to the masses when the polls say the masses are not in favor.

   

"I have an old farm equipment manual that refers to marrying two pieces of machinery together and a an old carpentry that speaks of marrying planks together to make a beam." - Rev_Blair

The old manuals you speak of were right in it's use.(marriage)
You "married" 2 planks.
That means to put 2 things together that were designed to go together.

Sorta like men and women.
And when they come together,
sometimes you get children.
2 guys can't make a kid.
2 women can't make a child.
Some things were designed to be married.
Some were not.

   

What right do you have to decide who goes with who or what goes with what, heliho?

   

On a scale from 0 to unreligious, I'm unreligious, but I guess you can say that I believe in religion.... just not in God

I value a community's right to have their own values, and I recognise the value of having a "union in the eyes of God". I don't want to be 'married' in a church, because I would feel as though I was imposing on the faith and beliefs of others. If 'religion' decided they didn't want my unreligious union to be called 'marriage', I wouldn't object - it's just a word to me. That being said, the church doesn't seem to object so much to my use of the word 'marriage', for whatever reason.... I'll use it for the sake of familiarity.

Rev: if it's just a word, why not appease the religious, and call it a legal union, or something that can allow the religious values to remain with marriage? From the arguments I've heard, the issues surrounding SSM were largely based on the legal implications of the union... insurance, dependant custody, etc etc.

   

What right do you have to ask that question?


We can do this all night little castro.

   

I didn't say that it was just a word, I said that religious institutions don't have control over the word or what it means. It has no bearing on their institutions or religious values. It is not strictly a religious word.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that if another term (i.e. civil union") is used, it amounts to discrimination. What the Supreme Court refused to rule on was if marriage could be restricted to heterosexuals. It was too hypothetical a question because they didn't know exactly what the law would be, basically.

Even if the Conservatives draft a new law, it is highly unlikely that it will withstand a constitutional challenge. That would leave Harper having to invoke notwithstanding or piss off his core constituency.

It is also unclear how the provinces will react. Several jurisdictions allow SSM, will they want to go back?

The feds and provinces can either get out of the marriage business, in which case same sex couples can get married by whoever they want and have the same status as church-married couples, or they can allow same sex marriages. Either way, those who argue that marriage is a religious institution will lose and be all sulky and childish. Or we can waste a bunch of time and money writing new laws, fighting court challenges, and letting those who would force their religious beliefs on others look like fools.

   

1  2  Next