Thought on homosexuality and same sex marriage

[RoaCh of DisCord]

-I think you might be wrong. I believe that homosexuals and straight people should be considered under the goverment as a "Civil Union" not the term "married" that way it makes them both equal. They should be entitled to the EXACT same tax cuts as straight people do when they have this "Civil Union." But as for letting them be "Married" That is a church term and shouldn't even be part of the governments vocab. Via the seperation of Church and state ammendment (first ammendment).

Does that make more sense?

....

The church doesn't own the word "marriage". .

Quoted for truth and the fact that right now I'm too lazy to type anything else.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Since when has the government owned the word marriage? Marriage has always been and always will be a religious terminology. All the government performs are "civil unions" go to your city hall and ask them yourself. People just call it marriage. But it is called by the government a civil union.

 

[Korittke]

It doesn't even matter if you say marriage or civil union. Jesus, this is far from funny already.

 

[Lights]

-I think you might be wrong. I believe that homosexuals and straight people should be considered under the goverment as a "Civil Union" not the term "married" that way it makes them both equal. They should be entitled to the EXACT same tax cuts as straight people do when they have this "Civil Union." But as for letting them be "Married" That is a church term and shouldn't even be part of the governments vocab. Via the seperation of Church and state ammendment (first ammendment).

Does that make more sense?

Uhh.. I am talking about real life, and not fantasy. All State marriages are not going to be turned into just "unions". That's a nice very valiant idea, but what I am saying deals with reality. :/ As before, despite your beliefs, marriages are secular, though they can be religious also. You must have a legal (aka - government) marriage license to be married. Hell, you even have to pay for it. It isn't as simple as running to a church and instantly becoming married.

Seperation of Church and State is EXACTLY what I am trying to get across to you. Religious ideas belong SEPERATE from the State. :/


*I never said the government owns the word. I am simply saying the church does not.

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

Since when has the government owned the word marriage? Marriage has always been and always will be a religious terminology. All the government performs are "civil unions" go to your city hall and ask them yourself. People just call it marriage. But it is called by the government a civil union.

Maybe so, but none the less..."marriage" is no longer a religious term *if it ever was*..because obviously it has been adopted by the government. You can say it's a "religious" thing all you want...but really it isn't anymore.

 

[Tipsy]

Maybe so, but none the less..."marriage" is no longer a religious term *if it ever was*..because obviously it has been adopted by the government. You can say it's a "religious" thing all you want...but really it isn't anymore.

Actually if the government adopted a religious term of marriage, it wouldn't stop becoming a religious term, it would just become a religious term and a term used by government. And it is a religious term due to the fact that the Hebrew were actually the ones who invented marriage, even though not in the fashion of today until the ten commandments came down and now I am rambling so I'll stop.

It doesn't even matter if you say marriage or civil union. Jesus, this is far from funny already.

It matters to a lot of people, one of them being me. I could care less about the benefits and such, I and a lot of others just want the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage to be preserved, which would happen if there weren't any more same-sex government marriages, or mariages all together, and instead there it is replaced by civil unions.

As before, despite your beliefs, marriages are secular, though they can be religious also. You must have a legal (aka - government) marriage license to be married. Hell, you even have to pay for it. It isn't as simple as running to a church and instantly becoming married.

Seperation of Church and State is EXACTLY what I am trying to get across to you. Religious ideas belong SEPERATE from the State. :/

This whole post goes back to one thing that we discussed oh so many pages ago, but guess it is coming back. The truth is, unless religion is completely irradiated, the government will never be able to obtain a true separation of church and state or secular government. And if there is always that little religious thing, whether is be homosexual marriage, their special tax things, or even a priest being able to not answer questions in the court of law that would break the seal of the confessional, that will always keep the state and church together. And there is also the influence that religion has on every single one of our leaders, whether it is his religion that influences him, or his lack or one. There is always going to be a religious influence on government, especially if the majority of the people in the country agree with it. Is it suppose to happen, maybe not, but it does.

Posting in this thread brings back memories...

Edit: As Lights said after after this post, this thread seriously needs to die again, new people come in with opinions that were on page 1-10 and just repeat over and over again.

 

[Lights]

We are just running circles here, Korittke is right. =/

This thread needs to die.

 

[Laharl]

Ok. No more mr. nice Bfh.

I'll start by actually CITING a quote I said earlier.

The government has no business in the beds of the nation

I believe, that same-sex marriage should be legalized. Not forced, but legalized. Churches (yes churches, Tipsy. There are CHURCHES in Canada that want to allow same-sex marriage in Canada) that want to marry same-sex couples can - but those who don't want to won't be forced to. This will honour both the rights of the same-sex partners (yay!) and the rights of churches to practise their religion in peace.

As for the church preaching against homosexuality; the book that the law in question is in (Leviticus) talks about how men can't shave their beards, eating pork, and wearing mixed cloth is wrong. Yet the church (catholic too, Tipsy) ignores these rules so readily. Why? Because they are no longer applicable!

(example: the law against eating pork was because people way back when the old testament was written couldn't cook it properly - and would die of food poisoning. The law wasn't for morals, it was for health. Perhaps the ban on homosexuality was just out of hatred?)

Besides, the supreme court of Canada has rules that it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL to ban same-sex marriage. Point-blank range, (In Canada) marriage cannot be denied to "gays and lesbians"!

4. Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Quebec in s. 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?

The court declined to answer this question. Their reasons for not answering were quite logical. First, they said that there is no point in answering as the government has made it clear that they plan on going ahead with the legislation to allow same-sex marriage regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling. Second, they stated that five provinces and one territory have already defined marriage as a union between two people, regardless of sexuality. And third, they noted that the federal government had already decided not to challenge these lower court decisions (the provincial and territorial superior courts and courts of appeal).

Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs?

The Court recognizes the churches' rights to refuse to perform same-sex marriages if it goes against their beliefs.

There you have it folks. :grunt
(The full ruling http://www.radio.cbc.ca/news/context/rea.pdf)
Note:

May 1, 2003: B.C.'s Court of Appeal says limiting marriage to heterosexuals violates equality rights. It gives Ottawa two years to recognize same-sex couples before the judgment takes effect.

Again with the 'violates equality rights'. This is too easy.

It appears that everyone here seems to have forgotten what the entire debate is about anyways. When you go get married, you obtain a document from The Warden of the Peace (government official). You fill it out, and if you wish you may have a religious figure bless your marriage. Voila! Married. The church wants to stop even being able to get a certificate from a _GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL_ which is -_STEPPING OUT OF LINE_-.

Should same-sex marriage be legalized? Ask "Free to be Church".

I've ranted for long enough. I'm out for now.
:yum

 

[Lizardbreath]

And with that Lizardbreath leaves this argument and goes to fight another argument.

*runs to abortion thread*

 

[Sogeking]

the quetsion is:

is it truely possible to obtain equality among humanity?

 

[Emperor Pan I]

the quetsion is:

is it truely possible to obtain equality among humanity?

Not with the catholics involved

 

[Tipsy]

Why can't this thread die in peace...

I believe, that same-sex marriage should be legalized. Not forced, but legalized. Churches (yes churches, Tipsy. There are CHURCHES in Canada that want to allow same-sex marriage in Canada) that want to marry same-sex couples can - but those who don't want to won't be forced to. This will honour both the rights of the same-sex partners (yay!) and the rights of churches to practise their religion in peace.

I don't see how this addresses the whole reason why I am against same sex marriage. You have the right to be homosexual even though I might not agree, but I believe destroying the sanctity of the sacrement of marriage is why I fight against it.

As for the church preaching against homosexuality; the book that the law in question is in (Leviticus) talks about how men can't shave their beards, eating pork, and wearing mixed cloth is wrong. Yet the church (catholic too, Tipsy) ignores these rules so readily. Why? Because they are no longer applicable!
(example: the law against eating pork was because people way back when the old testament was written couldn't cook it properly - and would die of food poisoning. The law wasn't for morals, it was for health. Perhaps the ban on homosexuality was just out of hatred?)

There is more than that. The same reason the church is against premarital sex, masterbation, etc, is roughly the same reason it taught against by the church. All of the 'pleasures' that we have are wonderful things, but they can easily be used wrong. Sex (and basically sexual pleasures) by Catholic Doctrine, should only be done when it is being done between two consenting people and for the purpose of procreation. If you can tell me how two men or two women having sex can procreate, please do. This is just the tip of the arguments, the Catholic Church doesn't say 'the bible says this literally, so we must take it literally', like I have posted in threads about the bible.

Besides, the supreme court of Canada has rules that it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL to ban same-sex marriage. Point-blank range, (In Canada) marriage cannot be denied to "gays and lesbians"!

I have already addressed this:
"What I was going after is if separate but not equal is applied to homosexual marriage rights like it does to skin color rights it can be applied to any conditional right. It will have to be applied so that no matter if you are different in any way, gender, age, skin color, etc, you have to have the same rights as everyone else. So you would have your rights infringed on for the first 18, 21, or however many years of your life until you qualify for a law. And, believe it or not, in at least a few states (not sure of the exact number), you can change what gender is shown on your birth certificate, so technically speaking, your age changes for you to get age requirement laws, if you really must, you can change your gender to get what should be a gender requirement law (1 man and 1 woman). I am by no means saying everyone should go out and legally change their gender, but just as your age changes, you can change your gender and you will be 'given those benefits'. And I would like to see a source for you saying that homosexuals are stuck being homosexuals and that it cannot change."
It is explained in futher detail if you need to look at my other posts when it was questioned.

It appears that everyone here seems to have forgotten what the entire debate is about anyways. When you go get married, you obtain a document from The Warden of the Peace (government official). You fill it out, and if you wish you may have a religious figure bless your marriage. Voila! Married. The church wants to stop even being able to get a certificate from a _GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL_ which is -_STEPPING OUT OF LINE_-.

Addressed this as well:
"This whole post goes back to one thing that we discussed oh so many pages ago, but guess it is coming back. The truth is, unless religion is completely irradiated, the government will never be able to obtain a true separation of church and state or secular government. And if there is always that little religious thing, whether is be homosexual marriage, their special tax things, or even a priest being able to not answer questions in the court of law that would break the seal of the confessional, that will always keep the state and church together. And there is also the influence that religion has on every single one of our leaders, whether it is his religion that influences him, or his lack or one. There is always going to be a religious influence on government, especially if the majority of the people in the country agree with it. Is it suppose to happen, maybe not, but it does."

What I am saying, is that it is not unconstitutional, and in the end, all it comes down to is the people of the country.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

I don't see how this addresses the whole reason why I am against same sex marriage. You have the right to be homosexual even though I might not agree, but I believe destroying the sanctity of the sacrement of marriage is why I fight against it.

religious bullshit, your just saying u can do whatever you want but you cant do what I can do because your different.

There is more than that. The same reason the church is against premarital sex, masterbation, etc, is roughly the same reason it taught against by the church. All of the 'pleasures' that we have are wonderful things, but they can easily be used wrong. Sex (and basically sexual pleasures) by Catholic Doctrine, should only be done when it is being done between two consenting people and for the purpose of procreation. If you can tell me how two men or two women having sex can procreate, please do. This is just the tip of the arguments, the Catholic Church doesn't say 'the bible says this literally, so we must take it literally', like I have posted in threads about the bible.

you can ban gay marriages, when sex without procreastion becomes banned and two adults are sent to jail for having sex and not having a child.
Does a man and a woman who are sterile have the right to marry? they cant procreate, yet they can get married, gays can't procreate, but they cant get married. IT is just more discrimianting

This whole post goes back to one thing that we discussed oh so many pages ago, but guess it is coming back. The truth is, unless religion is completely irradiated, the government will never be able to obtain a true separation of church and state or secular government. And if there is always that little religious thing, whether is be homosexual marriage, their special tax things, or even a priest being able to not answer questions in the court of law that would break the seal of the confessional, that will always keep the state and church together. And there is also the influence that religion has on every single one of our leaders, whether it is his religion that influences him, or his lack or one. There is always going to be a religious influence on government, especially if the majority of the people in the country agree with it. Is it suppose to happen, maybe not, but it does."

Canada has done a good job of removing church and state. Russia's offical religion was athiest. The United states is just far behind the world moraly, and obviously don't even realize it.

 

[Sogeking]

is it even possible to seperate church and state when voters vote based on their religious morals?

 

[Tipsy]

Once again, this looping needs to stop, let it die.

religious bullshit, your just saying u can do whatever you want but you cant do what I can do because your different.

My reason like my stance on abortion may be religious, but the facts I present are legal examples, not just 'religious bullshit'

you can ban gay marriages, when sex without procreastion becomes banned and two adults are sent to jail for having sex and not having a child.
Does a man and a woman who are sterile have the right to marry? they cant procreate, yet they can get married, gays can't procreate, but they cant get married. IT is just more discrimianting

Well I am not 21, but is it infringing on my rights to have the United States make it illegal for me to drink. Just because it is gender and not age, doesn't mean that they are exempt from being conditional rights. Everybody (in general) has the right to marry, it is just marriage is between a man and a woman as in stated in my opinion and some constitutions. Other say that this is wrong and they believe marriage can be done between same sex couples. From a legal perspective, it is the people that will decide, because it is very constitutional to ban same sex marriage. Could it be caused by 'religious bullshit', maybe, but is it constitutional, yes.

Canada has done a good job of removing church and state. Russia's offical religion was athiest. The United states is just far behind the world moraly, and obviously don't even realize it.

I find that hard to believe considering it is impossible to completely remove religion from government without irradicating religion, such as is shown in books like "Brave New World".

is it even possible to seperate church and state when voters vote based on their religious morals?

Not to mention the leaders they vote for.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Here we go again

The bible was written by man. The bible was passed down by man. The bible was translated and reworded countless times by man. Man is imperfect according to the bible. This is a huge contradiction. The bible can be wrong. Accept it. Im not saying it IS wrong, but the unwillingness to accept that it could be... well, just look at my sig for my thoughts on that.

The bible says being gay is an abomination, this is true. Has anyone here every played football? Raise your hands. Everyone with their hands up might as well be gay. To touch the skin of a dead pig is an abomination as well. The bible also says that Christians are not to be involved in politics. Last time I checked, this is a political issue.

Marriage should not be a political issue, end of story. Everyone should be allowed to get civil unions with whoever they want that is mentally capable of making that decision (had to include that clause before some below-adverage-iq person said "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO WILL MARRY ANIMALS AND CHILDREN!). If you want to sanctify your civil union, you go to a church that allows you to and have a marriage, a handfasting, or whatever your religion call it. Marriage as a state institution is insulting to the religious and the non-religious. There is absolutely no reason for a marriage (a religious institution) of any caliber to have anything to do with government.

Ive also noticed a comment or two about this: Gay marriage does not mean "The fags are gonna come to our church and get married!" It means that a church who ACCEPTS them can marry them at their own discretion. If your church doesnt accept it, it doesnt have to. Nobody is arguing that.

The fact is that animals have gay sex all the time. Monkeys masturbate the leader of their group. Ive seen more than one male dog mount another male dog. Anyone who disputes this is ignorant and hasnt taken the five minutes it will take to look it up.

The Quran is the most well written book in history. It is flawless in writing style. It is so perfect that the changes made to it (which are EXTREMELY few) are blatantly obvious. The book is extremely close to it's original version, unlike the bible which has been rewritten to the point of it contradicting itself beyond all possible cohesion. Whether jesus was the son of god or not, he never said ANYTHING about gays (he befriended a prostitute though, what does that tell you about his tolerance?) and anything he truly said has most likely been lost in the thousands of rewrites that have happened. He was most likely a great man who was able to give people hope and was a fantastic speaker. Whether he was the son of god or not, I dont know and I wont until I die, but the message has been lost.

That opinion is invalid because it is based on completely false information. This country was not founded on christian anything. FREEDOM OF RELIGION is not a christian principle. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe were all Deists. Thomas Jefferson can be quoted speaking against Christianity on many accounts. In fact, all seven of our first presidents were well regarded to not be Christians and were referred to as "infidels" by The Reverend Bird Wilson who was a very important Christian spokesman of the times.

You really believe that a country that was founded with a FREEDOM OF RELIGION was founded on Christian principles? That is just silly and ignorant.

This country was founded by people who wished to seperate themselves from the religiously oppressive British regime so please tell me what "Christian principles" you see this country founded upon.

 

[Tipsy]

And tell me how any of your argument has anything to do with why it is unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage. If you want what I think on the bible, go to one of the countless threads that have claimed what you have and then try to understand what I say. And continuing on, why does it even matter. This is not a religious discussion, religion may be my reason, but I am pursuing this on a legal basis, not a religious basis. Everything I have said has legal backing, what you say is opinion. I am saying it is constitutional to ban same sex marriage, but it will be up to the people to decide if it should be. I have yet to see anything to discredit this.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Nvm...that was for a different argument in this thread....

If you want I can give you one good ideal reason as to why there is no constitutional backing against gay marriage. Where in the constitution does it mention marriage? enough said.

 

[Laharl]

In the Canadian constitution it says "or any other difference".

'nuff said.

edit:

Just for the sake of it; I can get married as soon as I want, if you want me or not Tipsy. Right or wrong - in Canada I'm winning.

 

[Tipsy]

In the Canadian constitution it says "or any other difference".

In that context, it looks like it is illegal in Canada to set age limits, stop blind people from driving, etc.

Just for the sake of it; I can get married as soon as I want, if you want me or not Tipsy. Right or wrong - in Canada I'm winning.

I've got to start somewhere, and I am starting where I live.