Thought on homosexuality and same sex marriage

[Emperor Pan I]

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

seriously, age limit has nothing to do with gay people stop bringing that up it is completely differnet no matter how many times u say it is related

 

[Tipsy]

Answer me this question, is there a difference between the ages of 12 and 21? The answer should quite simply be yes, there is a difference of 9 years. By the quote given to me the Canadian constitution says "any other difference", and age is a difference. My point is that this same point can be used for both arguments. Maybe the quote was out of context if what it really means to be doing, I wouldn't know because I am not anywhere near knowledgable in Candian legal rights as I am in the legal rights in the United States. But if that quote applies to homosexual marriage, it surely can apply to any other difference, the example I use is age.

 

[Laharl]

Tipsy, children can't drive because they don't have thbe responsibility. Blind people can't drive because they can't tell where they are going. Homosexuals, however, are capable of expressing a profound love and respect for another person (who happens to be of the same gender). The fact that they are both male (or female) is no reason to prevent them from getting married.

Open comment to my Member of Parliament Daryl Kramp: When is equal not equal? You have stated that the majority 10 per cent of respondents to your <town> (not giving away location) survey do not support same sex marriage. All minorities are extremely nervous to express their views openly! Why? Because the majority has nothing to lose by expressing their view. I was born here, my family settled in Canada in 1770, (some in <location #2>) they fought in the wars, the fought for women's right to vote, they fought for a Charter of Rights, they fought for the rights of the handicapped (my father had MS), they fought so everyone could live in a place called Canada and not be afraid to be themselves.

Being Gay is not a choice, it's who we are. The word marriage is bantered around in this discussion of Same Sex Marriage... being married is not to have children, being married is a commitment to one's life partner; that they will be with each other for as long as is needed. The Pope is married to the Church; the priests are married to the Church. Married is only a word, it is not a state of mind of heart. We the gay community in <location #2> (Sorry. Paranoid) are your neighbours, we own businesses, we contribute to our community. We belong to <list of organizations>, we pay the same in federal, privincial, County, GS, and retail taxes as everyone else. We fund raise for Cancer, we support Alternatives for Women, we create jobs for others. In fact, I have just filed the T4's for my staff, $34,568.60 in employee (all in County), but you say I am not equal.

How dare you, Mr. Kramp. I am as equal as you! My father and mother would have been so sad, so angry to think that the county that they had held so dear will deny to their children and their grandchild their rights. This is about my right as a Canadian. Mr. Kramp. Equal means equal. Not a little equal, or almost equal, but equal. Mr.Kramp, please vote with your head, think about what it is to be Canadian

Note: Oh please don't stalk me *sarcasm* :sly

 

[Tipsy]

Tipsy, children can't drive because they don't have thbe responsibility. Blind people can't drive because they can't tell where they are going. Homosexuals...

I will finish this for you. Homosexuals can’t marry because marriage is between one man and one woman. To put it simply with a quote, "Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage - There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities." The thing is, that in the United States Clinton passed a ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ that defined marriage for the government as “the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wifeâ€. This overwhelmingly passed (Representatives vote of 342 for and 67 against - Senate vote of 85 for and 14 against). This whole thing is not to ‘change the definition of marriage’, but to keep it as it is and protected it. I can’t speak for Canada if it has anything similar to this, because I simply do not know the Canadian legal system. My point with the whole age thing and such is simply that unrestrained liberty causes more harm than good in a democratic society. I do not see how this is not equal. Any ‘homosexual’ person can marry someone from a different gender just as someone who is not can marry a person of a different gender. People who are homosexual have every right that people who are not have. I’ll end this post with how I started it, "Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage - There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities."

 

[Sogeking]

Any ‘homosexual’ person can marry someone from a different gender just as someone who is not can marry a person of a different gender. People who are homosexual have every right that people who are not have.

wow thats a very good point.

 

[Korittke]

After 12 pages of discussion, this is the best point made: .

 

[Sogeking]

was that one of those <insert your own answer here> things?

 

[Lights]

Against Gay Marriage:

-Against the Bible/Church
-Against natural law (suposedly, though not really )
-Democracy will vote against it
-Tradition
-Church should have control over marriage - they started it
-"Sanctity"

For Gay Marriage:

-Equal Rights
-Free country
-Minority are entitled to rights, too
-Secular ceremony/benefits
-Government should have control - they sign the papers
-Two consenting adults


I believe, summed up, that about covers the views that have been shared. I wont say which I believe is stronger.. I've done so more than enough times. After re-reading this entire thread, nothing has changed my mind, only firmed my current ideas.

So, please, until you have read this entire thread and make sure you aren't just repeating what has been said ten times, DO NOT POST. I'll have no problems if this is the last post, and the thread slides down to the "next page" links.

Good day.

 

[Sogeking]

So, please, until you have read this entire thread and make sure you aren't just repeating what has been said ten times, DO NOT POST. I'll have no problems if this is the last post, and the thread slides down to the "next page" links.

Good day.

i dont think lizard breath reads threads too well...*aluding to the abortion thread*

 

[Tipsy]

Against Gay Marriage:

-Against the Bible/Church
-Against natural law (suposedly, though not really )
-Democracy will vote against it
-Tradition
-Church should have control over marriage - they started it
-"Sanctity"

For Gay Marriage:

-Equal Rights
-Free country
-Minority are entitled to rights, too
-Secular ceremony/benefits
-Government should have control - they sign the papers
-Two consenting adults

I really don't think the equal rights thing applies. Afterall, homosexual people and people who are not homosexual both have the exact same rights. Homosexual people can marry people of the opposite gender just like people that are not. Homosexual people cannot marry people of the same gender and neither can people who cannot. In case anyone says that everyone should be able to marry who they want, that falls more under the free country thing.

Edit:

i dont think lizard breath reads threads too well...*aluding to the abortion thread*

I second that.

 

[Lizardbreath]

i dont think lizard breath reads threads too well...*aluding to the abortion thread*

-I don't think you guys can ever accept that you could possibly *wait for it* think that you are wrong because somebody proved it? OMGZ WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!

 

[Laharl]

Now the time that I was waiting for. I'll quote the minister of my church

I suggested in last week's sermon, that we no longer live in a Christian society. Instead, we are now in post-Christian society.

One of the implications of this, I believe, is that we cannot presume that society will adopt our values. I wrote a newspaper column about this a couple of years ago. In it, I suggested that we follow Jesus' principle to treat others the way that you want to be treated. Following that principle, we should allow homosexual couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. That column triggered some reaction, to put it mildly.

I still hold that opinion. I see it as a justice issue. What's fair for one should be fair for all, even if I disagree with the lifestyle. But that's just my opinion; many conclusions are possible for this, all of them biblical.

re: "homosexual people can marry the opposite gender"

The point is that you don't need to be dishonest. You don't need to pretend to be something you're not. Some Christians who are homosexual have got married and even had children. They thought they could "get it out of their system." But these marriages are usually a disaster, and end up hurting everyone.

Jesus doesn't call you to deny the truth; just deny yourself.

Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me

Question: What self respecting woman would marry somebody who finds them physically repulsive? Why would somebody marry a person who will flat our REFUSE to sleep with them?

Question #2: Why should I marry somebody whom I find physically repuslive?

Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 20:13 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:

1) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as provided by Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her.

2) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

3) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

4) My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different types of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Leviticus 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who commit adultery (Leviticus 20:10)?

 

[Tipsy]

One of the implications of this, I believe, is that we cannot presume that society will adopt our values. I wrote a newspaper column about this a couple of years ago. In it, I suggested that we follow Jesus' principle to treat others the way that you want to be treated. Following that principle, we should allow homosexual couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. That column triggered some reaction, to put it mildly.

I still hold that opinion. I see it as a justice issue. What's fair for one should be fair for all, even if I disagree with the lifestyle. But that's just my opinion; many conclusions are possible for this, all of them biblical.

First off, what kind of church is that? Second, homosexual people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people. Homosexuals can marry people of the opposite gender, so can heterosexual people. Heterosexual peope cannot marry people of the same gender and neither can homosexual people.

The point is that you don't need to be dishonest. You don't need to pretend to be something you're not. Some Christians who are homosexual have got married and even had children. They thought they could "get it out of their system." But these marriages are usually a disaster, and end up hurting everyone.

Jesus doesn't call you to deny the truth; just deny yourself.

So if the truth is you have the urge to murder, then should you not deny yourself that and go out and murder people? Extreme circumstance, but it applies nontheless. Also, who said that homosexual people shouldn't live their lifestyle, the only thing I have said is that they shouldn't destroy the sanctity of marriage. Everybody has the urge to sin, marrying, becoming a holy person, etc will not change that, we afterall are human. The thing is, there is a difference between having the 'homosexual urges' and then actually doing the 'homosexual act'.

Question: What self respecting woman would marry somebody who finds them physically repulsive? Why would somebody marry a person who will flat our REFUSE to sleep with them?

Question #2: Why should I marry somebody whom I find physically repuslive?

Merging these two questions with one answer. I don't see why you should marry anyone because of looks, because that is one thing that can change over time. I am not saying in any way you 'have' to marry anyone, I am just saying if you think someone does or doesn't look good, what reason is that to justify marrying or not marring someone. You also have the right not to marry, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.

Response to the letter:
I have already explained that the reason homosexuality is supposively wrong is the same reason why the church is against masterbation and such. You want to quote the bible, go ahead, I am going by Roman Catholic doctrine.

 

[Laharl]

Note: "Roman Catholic Doctrine" is dirt to me. The Unholy Catholic Church can go and sit with it's whole dirty history - which I know most of. Studying history pays off when you want to discredit a really bad organization

I'm protestant, and I'm not bound by the sheer ignorance and amount of brainwashing involved with the Catholic Church (Why do I bother giving it capitals?). Also, explain how allowing homosexuals is destroying the sanctity of marriage - which is (in Canada) a government run "program". It's not even a religious thing up here. You can, naturally, have it "blessed" by a religion - but the thing is that I could get married WITHOUT the church, protestant or otherwise.

Also, I won't let you get away with saying that homosexuals have the right to marry members of the opposite gender. I get along with women, heck most of my friends are women, but that's all we are. Friends. Would I marry one? Of course not. My bf on the other hand...

About the letter: I put it in to prove that so many doctrines in the old testament are so readily ignored by society. Why is homosexuality focused on? I believe it has something to do with our prejudices.

You are not thinking Tipsy, you are only feeding us what the Church feeds you.

Note #2: Don't you dare twist my quotes again.

I have already explained that the reason homosexuality is supposively wrong is the same reason why the church is against masterbation and such. You want to quote the bible, go ahead, I am going by Roman Catholic doctrine.

Shouldn't they be the same thing? Or is the Roman Catholic doctrine something else? I had no idea that Catholics were above the Laws of God. Damn. If I knew that... I would've been Catholic!

 

[Tipsy]

Note: "Roman Catholic Doctrine" is dirt to me. The Unholy Catholic Church can go and sit with it's whole dirty history - which I know most of. Studying history pays off when you want to discredit a really bad organization

Don't let me get you wrong here, but are you saying that becase somebody becomes a catholic the same urges for glory, power, etc do not come to you and you become a better person? I know I don't, and quite a lot of others do not agree that just because you are religious, that you are immediately better than someone who is not, and so forth in varying degrees. A pope, a bishop, a priest, a theist, an athiest, will all have these urges, no matter what church they join.

I'm protestant, and I'm not bound by the sheer ignorance and amount of brainwashing involved with the Catholic Church (Why do I bother giving it capitals?).

You may think that the word of God is sheer ignorance and brainwashing, but I think quite differently.

Also, explain how allowing homosexuals is destroying the sanctity of marriage

In the religious way, because marriage is a 'contract between one man, one woman, and God'.

- which is (in Canada) a government run "program". It's not even a religious thing up here. You can, naturally, have it "blessed" by a religion - but the thing is that I could get married WITHOUT the church, protestant or otherwise.

In a government term, it is considered a 'moral' issue here in the United States.

Also, I won't let you get away with saying that homosexuals have the right to marry members of the opposite gender. I get along with women, heck most of my friends are women, but that's all we are. Friends. Would I marry one? Of course not. My bf on the other hand...

Well you have that right, and so do I. I don't have the right to marry your bf and guess what, neither do you (assuming homosexual marriage is outlawed).

About the letter: I put it in to prove that so many doctrines in the old testament are so readily ignored by society.

All you have to do is read the New Testament to find that out. You see, the church may be two thousand years old, but it is ever ancient and ever new. The church is 'ever old' as it is two thousand years old, but the Holy Spirit has remained the entire time, 'ever guiding and renewing' the Church throughout the hundreds of years. It has guided and renewed the Church through the many Councils and such. The great thing about being is a Catholic, is we know who we are. Many Catholics see issues one way, many see it the other. We know that when how we must express our identity as Christians we will always be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic church is not just a 'church' or an 'organization', but the living presence of Jesus Christ on the earth.

Why is homosexuality focused on?

Because the issue of 'sex' is very important. I don't know if you have noticed it or not, but the society we live in thrives on sex, sexual appeal, etc. That makes it quite an important topic, and if you have so called 'homosexual sex', then you are basically doing two people masterbating together.

I believe it has something to do with our prejudices.

I don't.

Shouldn't they be the same thing? Or is the Roman Catholic doctrine something else? I had no idea that Catholics were above the Laws of God. Damn. If I knew that... I would've been Catholic!

To use your quote, "Note #2: Don't you dare twist my quotes again." You know that is not what I am saying, and if you bothered reading about how and why the Catholic church does what it does, then you would know.

You are not thinking Tipsy, you are only feeding us what the Church feeds you.

And you are basically going by, "If it feels good do it."

 

[Laharl]

First of all: I do have urges involving power, but I don't actually do it. I don't twist words, I don't edit the bible, I don't kill thousands.

Salem witch trials - people accused of being witches. Murder by the church.

Murdering people who went AGAINST the church. The catholic church is crud to me.

Anyways. Back on topic.

If you want to see the way the wind is blowing in Canada - watch the movie "The Prom Queen". To those unfamiliar with it, I'll give the reader's digest version.

Homosexual boy goes to Catholic school. Said boy wants to take his boyfriend to school prom. Catholic church says -no-. Boy sues church. Boy wins said trial. Catholic church needs to suck it up and let him bring his boyfriend. Isn't it great when religion needs to suck it up and take it like a man?

Note: This is based on a true story in Canada - as far as Same-sex marriage in Canada, I won.

Note #2: Same-sex marriage (in Canada) is a justice-based issue. Not a moral one. Don't drag in your little church, kid.

edit: Same-sex marriage is legal in Ontario (where I live) and soon all of Canada. I could, in theory, get married tomorrow if I so choose. Now I'm through with you, Tipsy. You're getting old and boring.

edit #2: I don't believe that 'if it feels good do it'. I believe in being true to myself. I'm actually saving my virginity for marriage (which I already established I could do). The most I've done is shake hands. Don't comment on things you know nothing about.

edit #3: Please forward all comments to me to the garbage bin in the corner labelled "trash". I'll give it due process. (Tipsy. Anyone else can email me at Bigysmallz@hotmail.com (aim: Demonickyle3) or reach me on b.net on my new account KoA-DemOniC_BoB if you want to talk about my opinions, etc.)

Final edit: The supreme court ruled it unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage.
I'm out, seeing as I've already -won-.

 

[Tipsy]

First of all: I do have urges involving power, but I don't actually do it. I don't twist words, I don't edit the bible, I don't kill thousands.

Salem witch trials - people accused of being witches. Murder by the church.

Murdering people who went AGAINST the church. The catholic church is crud to me.

So once again you are saying church leaders can't sin. Well, you also have urges of homosexuality, yet you actually do it (assumption from your posts). [Nearly]Everybody sins whether you like it or not.

Homosexual boy goes to Catholic school. Said boy wants to take his boyfriend to school prom. Catholic church says -no-. Boy sues church. Boy wins said trial. Catholic church needs to suck it up and let him bring his boyfriend. Isn't it great when religion needs to suck it up and take it like a man?

There is quite a large difference between stopping homosexual marriage, and then stopping people from associating who they want to associate with.

Note: This is based on a true story in Canada - as far as Same-sex marriage in Canada, I won.

Thats what people said in San Francisco until California's High Court ordered a stop to it with a vote of 7 to 0.

Note #2: Same-sex marriage (in Canada) is a justice-based issue. Not a moral one. Don't drag in your little church, kid.

Theres the difference, as I already said:
"I will finish this for you. Homosexuals can’t marry because marriage is between one man and one woman. To put it simply with a quote, "Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage - There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities." The thing is, that in the United States Clinton passed a ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ that defined marriage for the government as “the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wifeâ€. This overwhelmingly passed (Representatives vote of 342 for and 67 against - Senate vote of 85 for and 14 against). This whole thing is not to ‘change the definition of marriage’, but to keep it as it is and protected it. I can’t speak for Canada if it has anything similar to this, because I simply do not know the Canadian legal system. My point with the whole age thing and such is simply that unrestrained liberty causes more harm than good in a democratic society. I do not see how this is not equal. Any ‘homosexual’ person can marry someone from a different gender just as someone who is not can marry a person of a different gender. People who are homosexual have every right that people who are not have. I’ll end this post with how I started it, "Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage - There is not a contradiction between these responsibilities.""
There is no 'justice' issue in this, you have every single right a heterosexual person has. It is as simple as that.

edit: Same-sex marriage is legal in Ontario (where I live) and soon all of Canada. I could, in theory, get married tomorrow if I so choose. Now I'm through with you, Tipsy. You're getting old and boring.

How many times have you said this so far?

 

[Laharl]

I'll finish this right now. It'll be completely pointless to post after this, ok?

Canada's legal system has had the opposite occur. The Supreme Court of Canada (As well as 9 different provinces) voted that Same-sex marriage should be allowed, and that it's completely constitutional (laugh). Also, several provinces (by this time) had already legalized same-sex marriage and were marrying people.

In other words? The court won't take back it's decision. The highest court was contacted, and... *laugh*

The Liberal government in power also supports same-sex marriage (Our Prime Minister Paul Martin is catholic). They'll pass the law allowing same-sex marriage in ALL of Canada. If it fails? So what. I can still get married in Ontario, seeing how our Premier McGuinty already allows it here anyways.

Thirdly, I could care less about America. America is not as free as people like to think, and it will never be. The place where rights are protected and enforced would be Canada. How many times were we rated the number one place to live in a row?

Also, *yawn* you haven't read my whole post have you? The most I have done is 'shake hands'. That is it. Chances are you've sinned more sexually than I.

In Canada (again) it is a Justice issue. There is no way I'm going to marry some repulsive female. There is no way you can make me.

Thanks for your time, you were very amusing. You should be a comic.

 

[Lights]

Let's try to keep this from becoming personal? thx


Though I must admit, I am getting rather tired of hearing "sin" "god" and "catholic" (among other such phrases) in this thread. None of those three have any relevance to this topic. Catholic ideas should mean nothing in this debate, same as any religion. If the government chooses to vote and pass something that bans homosexuals from having their marriage blessed or represented by the church, fine. But as I have said many times, that isn't what I, at least, am talking about.

And I dont really care what they are doing in Canada. :/

There is no 'justice' issue in this, you have every single right a heterosexual person has. It is as simple as that.

No, he doesn't have the same rights a heterosexual doesn't have. That's a bit different. We are all citizens, and not based on sexuality, so we are ALL disallowed from having this. This is a law that shouldn't be passed on ANYONE.


*chases tail*

 

[Laharl]

I second that, Lights.

To be honest, I find Tipsy to be in possession of too high an entertainment value to leave.

My opinion on Tipsy: I think he's just some homophobe who turns to the Bible to justify his hatred. It's not my problem, it's his.