Social Conservatives

[Goober Mcfly]

Obviously, despite the fact that you beat me in every aspect of this argument, I outplayed you in the end.

Yes. Because that can easily happen.

My point, though carefully obscured, is that you can find differences in all marriages when you look. You went on further to point out that the examples illustrate a marriage between two of the opposite sex. Why not go further still and see that they are all marriages between two human beings within the confines of the law. Both truely equal in the eyes of the law.

Stop farking making sense!

My Judaeo-Christian ethic tells me homosexuality is evil. Evil! I tells ya! Stop it.

*sticks his fingers in his ears and starts saying La-la-la-la-la!*

 

[Goober Mcfly]

And it's "truly", not "truely".

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I'd just like to point out that the last sentence in my post was not supposed to be there. I felt I really "hit this one out of the park" and I decided to try one more swing as a cockpunch to Goober.

It cost me.

 

[red]

at least he agrees with you

 

[Cardinal Fang]

No he doesn't!

You should see the PM's I get from this guy on a daily basis. It all starts out the same way.

"Have you seen Kathleen's ass lately? Would you like to be saved? I want another naked picture of Kathleen? Would you like to repent?"

 

[Goober Mcfly]

No, you misunderstand...

I actually wrote:

"Have you seen Kathleen's ass lately? I wonder if she's shaved? I want another naked picture of Kathleen? They make me tight in the pants"

 

[n_v]

well we don't call the sikh turban a ceremonial uniform - its part of the uniform of the mounties

Which it shouldn't be. Which makes it not related to this thread.

 

[n_v]

Why not go further still and see that they are all marriages between two human beings within the confines of the law. Both truely equal in the eyes of the law.

Because I respect the rights of religions who hold 'marriage' to be a sanctity between a man and wife. Fuck the law. There are religious freedoms that are being intruded upon. And how dare you to decide if 'marriage' is to include 2 of the same.

 

[Cardinal Fang]

Because I respect the rights of religions who hold 'marriage' to be a sanctity between a man and wife.

As do I. And my respect for them doesn't deminish by extending that right to two of the same sex.

Fuck the law.

There are religious freedoms that are being intruded upon.

Where? Explain to me how this occurs. The legislation in it's current form being proposed does not mandate that churches MUST perform these ceremonies. How does two people of the same sex intrude upon me as a Catholic?

And how dare you to decide if 'marriage' is to include 2 of the same.

With all due respect, how dare you decide what the definition of marriage is to the rest of us.

 

[Ranger68]

n_v
"Fuck the law."
LOL
Whatta guy!

 

[n_v]

Where? Explain to me how this occurs. The legislation in it's current form being proposed does not mandate that churches MUST perform these ceremonies. How does two people of the same sex intrude upon me as a Catholic?

With all due respect, how dare you decide what the definition of marriage is to the rest of us.

I am not a religious expert, as I am sure you are not. But if religious denominations
have expressed concern over the reconfiguring of 'marriage' the word then I would respectfully confer to them. Just the same I would confer to a doctor or nurse about something medical, an accountant for tax and accounting issues. I respect the right of religions to protect these things that are dear to them and not have a court or politician, who are not religious experts, to decide that.


PS. I came across to harsh with the 'fuck the law'. What I meant was the courts/politicians shouldn't decide things of religous matters.

 

[n_v]

LOL
Whatta guy!

Comments from the peanut gallery. I thought you put me on ignore??

 

[Cardinal Fang]

I am not a religious expert, as I am sure you are not. But if religious denominations have expressed concern over the reconfiguring of 'marriage' the word then I would respectfully confer to them..

Blind faith, a very nice concept n_v. But I would advise you to question it and not just accept it as Gospel. There are many examples of things being done in the name of religion that turned out to be travesties.

I respect the right of religions to protect these things that are dear to them and not have a court or politician, who are not religious experts, to decide that.

Again I ask. Show me where in the current legislation proposed that it says that Churches are OBLIGATED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES? The supreme court was asked: " Are religious institutions protected against marrying people that they don't believe should be married? And they replied yes! I envite you to read the decision yourself.

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc079.wpd.html

I came across to harsh with the 'fuck the law'. What I meant was the courts/politicians shouldn't decide things of religous matters.

On this I agree with you. Within reason though.

 

[islandboy]

No one has noticed in this entire thread that is there one whit ot difference between "marriage" and a "civil union" that there will nothing to stop hetreosexual couples from electing "civil unions" instead of "marriage: else they will be discriminated against.

My suggestion - only call Church marriages "marriages", call all non religoius cerimonies "civil unions". Then each religion may decide for iteself what it will and will not permit in the way of homosexual "marriages".

 

[antaeus]

12 pages in and the discussion begins to point out differences of "traditional" religious and civil union.

The "law" does not mandate what is traditional. Time does that. "Laws" do not delineate marriage as man-woman, recent court decisions have established this precedent. Some religious tracts do establish union of man-woman but our statutes are not taken verbatim from sacred text. Harper is attempting to encode in statute a heretofore traditional religion based definition. Why? The cynic in me says because he and like minded have agenda.

Thankfully now we live in the era of inclusionary public policy, regardless of legal or traditional name: marriage, union or whatever.

 

[slowpoke]

Listen, my point is this. Why does the gay community feel compelled that society must understand and respect the gay community's wishes, while they are not required to respect traditons et al of society's. Seems hypocritical to me.

No matter how you perfume it up and try to sell it to the gay community as "just as good", the term "civil union" is going to seem second best. It would be a special category, created to appease those Canadians who claim to believe in equality but still have strong feelings that their traditional definition of marriage should be somehow sacrosanct. Civil union wouldn't necessarily be recognised abroad in the same way that marriage is and it reeks of compromise.

 

[red]

first harper gets all friendly with the separatists and now this

 

[onthebottom]

No matter how you perfume it up and try to sell it to the gay community as "just as good", the term "civil union" is going to seem second best. It would be a special category, created to appease those Canadians who claim to believe in equality but still have strong feelings that their traditional definition of marriage should be somehow sacrosanct. Civil union wouldn't necessarily be recognised abroad in the same way that marriage is and it reeks of compromise.

Again, Seperate but equal is usually more the first than the last. Just get over it and go worry about a real problem, there are plenty of them.

OTB

 

[slowpoke]

Again, Seperate but equal is usually more the first than the last. Just get over it and go worry about a real problem, there are plenty of them.
OTB

Get over what? Equality for gays, including the right to marry, is proceeding nicely up here. This, IMHO, is a solution to a real problem for gays and the country itself. Canada's reputation as a socially advanced and compassionate place will be further enhanced and, to top it all off, we get to have this stimulating and educational debate.

 

[langeweile]

You're forgetting something - there are more red neck, gun toting, bible thumping freaks in Ontario than there are in Alberta.


bbk

I agree with that statement.
This summer I went camping in Timmins, yeeeehhhhaaaa I thought I was back home in Texas.
It is nice to see that Canada suffers the same cultural divide in their own country, than the USA.
Rural people in Canada are very different from the urbanites in Toronto.
Perception is reality.....