Thought on homosexuality and same sex marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Laharl

Almost sad how the opposing side has... deteriorated (spelling?). Almost makes me want Tipsy back. At least he had a argument. Sorta.

Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage: I have several churches where I live that WANT to allow same-sex marriage. Should they be allowed to marry same-sex couples, or are you going to stop them?
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Though I myself would be against any organization recognizing homosexual marriages, I do realize that there are things that prevent that from happening. All I have been asking for is that homosexual marriages are outlawed, I would be content with, though would not support, homosexual civil unions. This is the whole thing about "Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities." Marriage is between one man and one woman. Give civil unions the exact same legal rights and it is fine with me. If a church wants to 'marry' homosexual couples, be my guest, can't stop that.

To me, redefining marriage in the government as between one man and one woman would destroy what marriage is forever, and that would very much effect me.
 
L

Laharl

Tipsy, you have pretty much admitted defeat.

You see... they are now able to marry same-sex couples. That RIGHT of those churches is not going to be taken away from them, nor should it.

Tipsy, you are just proving how heterocentric you are. -.-
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Big-Fat-Homo said:
Tipsy, you have pretty much admitted defeat.

You see... they are now able to marry same-sex couples. That RIGHT of those churches is not going to be taken away from them, nor should it.
Well I cannot stop a church from marrying a homosexual couple just like I can't stop religious groups from marrying multiple women to a man mainly because it blatently infringes on the rights of religion. My goal is to stop the government from acknowledging a marriage between a homosexual couple. It has been like that since the beginning. I have never said make homosexual acts illegal, I have never said throw homosexuals in jail, I have never said kill homosexuals. In my opinion, churches that have strayed away from the teaching of Jesus Christ can do whatever they want because they have their right to. I want to protect marriage.

The civil union thing is a compromise at best as well. I would fight for that to be not for homosexual couples as well, because of the equally disallowed is equal. I was just saying my number one goal is to not allow homosexuals to 'marry'.

Tipsy, you are just proving how heterocentric you are. -.-
Well don't worry about me giving these little bits of evidence to prove that I only recognize heterosexual marriages, because to put it plainly, I only recognize heterosexual marriages.
 
L

Laharl

I don't need the catholic church, nor your recognition of a marriage.
 

Mr.Sloth

Member!
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
355
Reaction score
0
Location
Nomadic
Website
Visit site
I think to some this can be a scary topic. When i say this i mean by the fact that they are afraid of change. of seeing a man and man together or women and women together.

My thought on this is that same-sex marriage should be allowed. Even though marriage is only how can i say it... a show of dedication and love in a way. It seems like same/sex partners are being deprived of the right to get married.

Yeah. sry for my bad opinion.
 
L

Laharl

A few good points in there, Sloth.

Homosexuals are CAPABLE of showing 'dedication and love'. And yet, as equals, you are denying us our rights (or trying to).

ultra-conservatives: Cry me a river.
 

Zerglite

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
2,926
Reaction score
0
only thing i have against them is they are misusing what their bodies are made for, a man ****s a woman - a child can be conceived

a man ****s a man - nothing... end of story
same w/ woman on woman

i also feel that gays should not adopt because - ... face it if someone asked you what was your mothers name... what could you say !?
 
L

Laharl

Zerglite please don't post unless you have a real argument, or at least one that I haven't proven wrong thousands of times. Thanks.
 
L

Laharl

Sorry for the double post but... *Shrug*

Open question that I want answered: If I'm "Supposed" to be attracted to members of the opposite gender, why did I NEVER find them to be "attractive"? Why was I attracted to members of the same gender ever since around the age of twelve? I wasn't abused or anything... I wasn't mistreated by girls. Neither of my parents were emotionally distant... And yet I grew up to be gay. My question is ... Why?
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Big-Fat-Homo said:
Homosexuals are CAPABLE of showing 'dedication and love'. And yet, as equals, you are denying us our rights (or trying to).
How are homosexuals being deprived of rights? As Lights put it, we are all "equally disallowed." You have every right a heterosexual has.

Open question that I want answered: If I'm "Supposed" to be attracted to members of the opposite gender, why did I NEVER find them to be "attractive"? Why was I attracted to members of the same gender ever since around the age of twelve? I wasn't abused or anything... I wasn't mistreated by girls. Neither of my parents were emotionally distant... And yet I grew up to be gay. My question is ... Why?
For the social conditions, there is actually no conclusive evidence that this causes or does not cause homosexuality. For the sake of argument we will assume that it doesn't. So that leaves us with the one answer that you probably want people to give, you are born that way. In reponse to this case, people have said that the gene or whatever causes homosexuality is a defect or disease. I think this was brought up over ten pages ago though.
 
L

Laharl

court ruling said:
Question 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 particulars and to what extent?
No. The opposite-sex requirement for civil marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation contrary to section 15 of the Charter. Only the extension of full civil marriage to same-sex couples will remedy this breach. Any different or separate form of recognition of same-sex relationships would send the message that same-sex
relationships are somehow less worthy than opposite-sex relationships and would debase and demean the inherent dignity of the individual that is the basis of the equality guarantee of the Charter. Moreover, dual systems of relationship recognition predicated on sexual orientation could provide the basis for more intense, focussed and targeted group discrimination.
There we go. The Canadian Court system has ruled that the "opposite-sex definition" of marriage is unconstitutional. What religious people think is completely irrelevant, but time for more proof, aye?

This is quoting one of the largest protestant organisations in Canada.
United Church Moderator Writes to Members of Parliament on Same-Sex Marriage said:
Not everyone who speaks from the Christian perspective is opposed to same-sex marriage.

That is the message delivered by the Moderator of Canada's largest Protestant denomination in a letter mailed this week to every Member of Parliament. The letter also includes an invitation to MPs to attend a parliamentary breakfast to be hosted by the Moderator on Parliament Hill on Thursday, February 24, to engage parliamentarians in further conversation on the subject of marriage.

The text of the letter written by the Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short was released in a statement issued today by The United Church of Canada. The letter, which was mailed to the constituency offices of all Members of Parliament, is also posted on The United Church of Canada's website.

The following is an excerpt from the Moderator's letter to parliamentarians:

"I want to put before you now a Christian perspective on faith, tradition, and values. I write of these precious things because I believe they ought to be considered in making public decisions. I am aware of your responsibilities toward a multicultural and multi-faith society, and so what follows is not intended to be normative for all. It is specifically and unapologetically of the Christian tradition, a tradition that runs deeply in Canadian life and history.

"I understand faith to be a way of living. To have faith is to implement a vision in one's daily life; in this sense, all live by some faith or other. Faith is not simply about the received doctrines. Doctrine is essential to religious life but it is not the final arbiter, neither of our decisions nor of our hope. After all, doctrines have been used to support slavery, apartheid, and the exclusion of women.

"Some will protest that we must have faith in the Bible, and that the Bible takes an unfavourable view of intimate same-sex relationship. But I would answer that Christian faith is not an uncritical repetition of a received text. It is a mindful commitment to the power of love, to which the text seeks to give witness. Every generation of the Christian faith must decide how they will honour that demand of love in the living of their days. Changing circumstances and changing ideas are not the enemy of faith.

"In fact, change is the only medium in which faithfulness can truly become faithfulness. Uncritical repetition is more like being on autopilot.

"Similarly, I understand tradition to be a living treasure. Tradition is not to be confused with habit, custom, or convention. These are simply vessels that seek to hold the living tradition of God's presence in the world. Habit, custom, and convention are not themselves the light; they come to bear witness to the light. John's gospel says that the Word of God became flesh in Jesus Christ. The Word became a living being, John writes, not words. The Supreme Court follows this traditional wisdom when it declares metaphorically that the constitution is a living tree. In Christian tradition the measure by which we choose a course of action is the measure of the love of Christ, a measure that judges even scripture. It is never legitimate to use the words of scripture to promote a loveless agenda.

"Further, I understand value to be created by God, not by ancient custom nor by current fashion nor by general approval. God does not love because human creatures have value. Rather, it is in loving human creatures that God gives them value. Value is a gift -- not a rule, not a partisan lever, and certainly not a weapon. It is wrong to invoke the love of God in order that one person's 'values' might diminish another's value. Those who claim that homosexual people threaten to dismantle the value of heterosexual marriage would do well to remember that if anyone destroys marriage, it is married people, not gays and lesbians.

"In the end, faith, tradition, and values do not decide for us. They equip us to take up the responsible and difficult task of deciding for ourselves. This deciding is itself an act of faith. So we pray for one another, we struggle to live in the love of Christ, and we take our step in humble trust that the next generation will deal generously with us, knowing we did our best with the vision of love God gave us for our day.

"For me, Christian faith, tradition, and values contribute to our hope for that day when earth once more is fair and all her children one, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people -- all her children. The General Council of The United Church of Canada believes that equal marriage is a step on the path to justice, peace, and the common good. If prayer is a part of your life, please pray that we may tread lightly, wisely, lovingly, bravely, and faithfully."
And again...

The Actual Letter said:
The Right Hon. Paul Martin
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

On behalf of the General Council of The United Church of Canada, we write to express our church’s position regarding equal marriage.

The most recent gathering of the General Council, the national governing body of the church, resolved to call upon the Government of Canada to recognize same-sex civil marriages in federal marriage legislation (Record of Proceedings, 2003). The General Council comprises some 350 members of the church representing every region in Canada. The United Church is Canada’s largest Protestant denomination with more than three million members and adherents in 3,500 congregations across Canada. The United Church performs more than 15,000 marriages annually.

Beginning in 1984, the United Church affirmed our acceptance of all human beings as persons made in the image of God regardless of sexual orientation. Consequently, no distinction can be made in human rights on the basis of sexual orientation. This was affirmed by the federal government when sexual orientation was included in the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1996. Within the church we affirmed that all persons who profess faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of their sexual orientation, are eligible to be considered for ordered ministry in 1988. And in 1992, the church mandated that liturgical and pastoral resources be made available to congregations for same-sex covenants. Recent United Church resources for marriage preparation make no distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

As a Protestant denomination, the United Church does not regard marriage as a sacrament. Procreation is not a defining dynamic of marriage in the United Church. Nevertheless, the church places an extremely high value on the seriousness of vows taken before God and in the presence of witnesses. The church urges congregations to help couples to prepare for a life together and offers counselling and enrichment courses.

A significant and unique contribution that the United Church brings to the issue of equal marriage is the denomination’s own experience of making same-sex marriage ceremonies available to its congregations and, at the same time, respecting the right of those within the denomination who do not wish to offer such services. The United Church unequivocally supports the rights of same-sex couples to have access to civil marriage; it also unequivocally supports the right of communities of faith to decline to perform such marriages.

Currently, equal marriage is only available in parts of Canada, impinging on the religious freedom of United Church congregations that do wish to perform same-sex marriages and have them recognized in civil law. We appreciate the federal government’s support for equal marriage for all Canadians and intention to address the current anomaly as soon as possible. The United Church of Canada requests the Government of Canada to recognize same-sex civil marriages in federal marriage legislation.

Peace,

Jackie Harper
Family Ministries

Choice Okoro
Peace, Human Rights and Reconciliation Initiatives

cc. The Hon. Irwin Cotler, Minister of Justice
The Hon. Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party
Gilles Duceppe, Leader of the Bloc Québécois
Jack Layton, Leader of the New Democratic Party
Wait? There's more?

moderator's letter said:
Please accept greetings from The United Church of Canada, and our gratitude for your service to Canada through the work of Parliament. I am writing to you because of the recently delivered Supreme Court opinion on marriage legislation, and the prospect of an early introduction of such legislation in the House. We wish you well and pray for you as you prepare for the coming session.

I want to contribute a perspective from the United Church to your deliberations. Whether or not you agree with what I am setting before you, I think you should be equipped with the knowledge that the General Council of Canada's largest Protestant denomination welcomes equal marriage. I believe that this decision has been reached not by abandoning Christian faith, tradition, and values, but by implementing them. I write to you in the hope that you will resist the assumption that anyone who speaks from Christian faith, tradition, and values must be against equal marriage. Some are, some aren't. This is true within the United Church, just as it is true within Canadian society as a whole.

The United Church has been deeply engaged with questions of same-sex relationships for 20 years. In August 2003, its highest court asked the Government of Canada to include same-sex marriage in marriage legislation. I am attaching a copy of the letter to the Prime Minister outlining the United Church's resolution.

In some ways, The United Church of Canada is tracking a common path with the courts and the federal government. While our General Council indicated its welcome of equal marriage, our polity upholds the freedom of each of our congregations to follow its conscience. In the year and a half since the Council's decision, many of our 3,000 congregations have been engaged in the same discussion that is about to take place in the House: whether or not to proceed with equal marriage. We know this conversation is difficult for many of our congregations, just as it has been difficult in the public sphere. In our own house we experience all the elements of this issue that are familiar in Canadian society: a clear opinion from the highest court; varied beliefs and expectations on the part of participants; freedom of religion; discussion preceding emerging policy; and the price to be paid for it.

I want to put before you now a Christian perspective on faith, tradition, and values. I write of these precious things because I believe they ought to be considered in making public decisions. I am aware of your responsibilities toward a multicultural and multi-faith society, and so what follows is not intended to be normative for all. It is specifically and unapologetically of the Christian tradition, a tradition that runs deeply in Canadian life and history.

I understand faith to be a way of living. To have faith is to implement a vision in one's daily life; in this sense, all live by some faith or other. Faith is not simply about the received doctrines. Doctrine is essential to religious life but it is not the final arbiter, neither of our decisions nor of our hope. After all, doctrines have been used to support slavery, apartheid, and the exclusion of women.

Some will protest that we must have faith in the Bible, and that the Bible takes an unfavourable view of intimate same-sex relationship. But I would answer that Christian faith is not an uncritical repetition of a received text. It is a mindful commitment to the power of love, to which the text seeks to give witness. Every generation of the Christian faith must decide how they will honour that demand of love in the living of their days. Changing circumstances and changing ideas are not the enemy of faith.

In fact, change is the only medium in which faithfulness can truly become faithfulness. Uncritical repetition is more like being on autopilot.

Similarly, I understand tradition to be a living treasure. Tradition is not to be confused with habit, custom, or convention. These are simply vessels that seek to hold the living tradition of God's presence in the world. Habit, custom, and convention are not themselves the light; they come to bear witness to the light. John's gospel says that the Word of God became flesh in Jesus Christ. The Word became a living being, John writes, not words. The Supreme Court follows this traditional wisdom when it declares metaphorically that the constitution is a living tree. In Christian tradition the measure by which we choose a course of action is the measure of the love of Christ, a measure that judges even scripture. It is never legitimate to use the words of scripture to promote a loveless agenda.

Further, I understand value to be created by God, not by ancient custom nor by current fashion nor by general approval. God does not love because human creatures have value. Rather, it is in loving human creatures that God gives them value. Value is a gift -- not a rule, not a partisan lever, and certainly not a weapon. It is wrong to invoke the love of God in order that one person's "values" might diminish another's value. Those who claim that homosexual people threaten to dismantle the value of heterosexual marriage would do well to remember that if anyone destroys marriage, it is married people, not gays and lesbians.

In the end, faith, tradition, and values do not decide for us. They equip us to take up the responsible and difficult task of deciding for ourselves. This deciding is itself an act of faith. So we pray for one another, we struggle to live in the love of Christ, and we take our step in humble trust that the next generation will deal generously with us, knowing we did our best with the vision of love God gave us for our day.

For me, Christian faith, tradition, and values contribute to our hope for that day when earth once more is fair and all her children one, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people -- all her children. The General Council of The United Church of Canada believes that equal marriage is a step on the path to justice, peace, and the common good. If prayer is a part of your life, please pray that we may tread lightly, wisely, lovingly, bravely, and faithfully.

Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts, which are offered in a spirit of commitment to the good of Canada. Please consider attending a breakfast [for Members of Parliament that] I will be hosting on marriage on Thursday, February 24, on Parliament Hill. In the meantime, I am attaching an essay on marriage I wrote for The Globe and Mail, in the hope that you may find it useful. Again, let me extend to you my prayers and the prayers of the church, as you pursue the difficult path of putting into legislation the best hopes of Canadians. May God bless you in your efforts and may your efforts be a blessing.

Sincerely,

The Right Reverend Dr. Peter Short
Moderator
The United Church of Canada
 
L

Laharl

And one more quote...

he United Church of Canada congratulated the Canadian government today on introducing legislation that offers a win-win solution in the same-sex marriage debate.

"Marriage will be enhanced, not diminished, religious freedom will be protected, not threatened, and Canadian society will be strengthened, not weakened, as a result of this legislation," says the Rev. Dr. Jim Sinclair, General Secretary of the General Council.

Canada's largest Protestant denomination, The United Church of Canada, has long supported the civil recognition of same-sex partnerships. In August 2000, the 37th General Council affirmed that human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvellous diversity of creation. The Council further resolved to advocate for the civil recognition of same-sex partnerships. In August 2003, the 38th General Council decided "to call upon the Government of Canada to recognize same-sex marriages in marriage legislation."

Choice Okoro's work with the United Church focuses on human rights issues. She explains that while the United Church unequivocally supports the right of same-sex couples to have access to civil marriage, it also unequivocally supports the right of religious communities to refuse to perform such marriages.

"The United Church has long argued that equality and religious freedom can live side by side, supporting each other and building a stronger society," says Okoro.

She says the United Church maintains that the religious freedom of faith communities who object to same-sex marriage will not be infringed by the proposed legislation because they cannot be compelled to offer marriages which violate their religious beliefs.

"Religious freedom is far more threatened by a vote against the legislation than by a vote in favour," says Okoro. She explains that voting against same-sex marriage will inevitably limit the religious freedom of those who support and celebrate the sanctity of same-sex marriage as a religious rite.

Jackie Harper serves as the United Church's program staff for Family Ministries. "A significant, unique contribution that the United Church brings to this debate is the denomination's own experience of making same-sex marriage ceremonies available to its members and, at the same time, respecting the right of those within the denomination who are opposed to such services," says Harper.

She explains that the United Church draws a distinction between religious and civil marriage. "Even within the United Church, where same-sex marriages are regularly sanctified, no congregation or minister can be forced to officiate at a same-sex marriage unwillingly."

She adds, "Religious marriage is not, and cannot be, affected by the proposed legislation. All faith communities in Canada, whatever their views on same-sex marriage, have the absolute right to determine for themselves who will be eligible for religious marriage within their communities. This includes the right to determine whether the community will offer religious marriages to interfaith couples, to divorced couples, or to couples who are not members of the community."

Harper comments that the United Church's understanding of marriage is grounded in love—"God's love for humanity, love between life partners who seek to live in relationships based on trust, mutuality, and commitment. It is also about the love of caring communities—families, friends, and churches—that acknowledge, support, nurture, challenge, and honour such relationships."

Harper adds that the civil recognition of same-sex marriages affirms the love that is expressed in these committed relationships. "It is also about justice, according same-sex couples the same rights, responsibilities, privileges, and protections as any other couple in our society. It is about ensuring that all people are treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. No one is beyond the love of God; no one is disenfranchised because of their choice of partner."
 

wreckinball

Member!
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
being gay is not a defect and it does not make you special either--- its a choice--- and a bad one at that---- i say no to same sex marriage
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
To respond to basically everything about the United Church of Canada, I'll quote two different books, The Spirit of Catholicism, which uses teachings of the Catholic Church stated in Dominus Iesus:
"The Catholic Church as the Body of Christ, as the realization in the world of the Kingdom of God, is the Church of Humanity [is] the exclusive institution wherein all men shall attain salvation."

"... but she cannot recognize other Christian communions as churches of like order and rights with herself. To do so would be infidelity to her own nature, and would be the worst disloyalty to herself. In her own eyes the Catholic Church is nothing at all if she be not the Church, the Body of Christ, the Kingdom of God. This exclusiveness is rooted in the exclusiveness of Christ, in His claim to be the bringer of the new life, to be the way, the truth and the life."

So to put it simply, non-Catholic churches, such as the church of Canada are "gravely deficient" and can be "an obstacle to salvation." This basically means your entire thing about the United Church of Canada's teachings hold as much weight to me as the Catholic Church's teachings do to you.

As for the government, I have already pointed out the flaw in heterosexual marriage "discriminates[ing] on the basis of sexual orientation contrary to section 15 of the Charter." This can be applied to various circumstances for a different 'discrimination' as listed in past pages.

And for heterosexuals destroying the sanctity of marriage, they are right. It is something that has been happening for quite a long time, but why should the sacrament of marriage be desecrated even more by adding on yet another layer of immorality that needs to be fixed to help the sacrament regain its' former self.
 

munchyman

Eat your vegetables!
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
1,624
Reaction score
1
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Website
Visit site
Living in california, and in close proximity to San Francisco, at that, i think ive seen the brunt of this whole gay marriage controversy firsthand. I remember walking down a street in SF right next to civic center square, and outside were what i assumed to be a few hundred homosexual couples simply waiting for the center to open so they could get married. No signs, no ****ing parade down the middle of the street exclaiming to the world how gay they are, just standing there in slightly chilly temperatures, talking amongst themselves.

I can understand why most of the world thinks that marriage between gays is flat out wrong when they see things such as the SF gay pride parade and repeated instances in which celebrities flaunt their own homosexuality in order to gain publicity. However, the vast majority of gays are not so ostentatious about their sexual orientation. Most simply just want their marriage (little more than a legal property contract) to be official. And frankly, if theyre going to be civil about waiting for this right, not disturbing anyone, why not just give it to them? Does it threaten you? Does it make your genitalia feel smaller? It shouldnt, and if it does, maybe you should check your family history for homosexuality yourself.

Besides, they ARE human beings, after all. allowing them to marrry would not be the end of the world as we know it.
 
L

Laharl

Ok. As I keep repeating the Supreme Court of Canada was asked several questions by parliament. One of them was:

Question 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 particulars and to what extent?
And the conclusion reached was:

No. The opposite-sex requirement for civil marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation contrary to section 15 of the Charter. Only the extension of full civil marriage to same-sex couples will remedy this breach.
In other words? The only way to fix it up, according to the Supreme Court of Canada would be to extend full civil marriage to same-sex couples. It goes on to say:

Any different or separate form of recognition of same-sex relationships would send the message that same-sex relationships are somehow less worthy than opposite-sex relationships and would debase and demean the inherent dignity of the individual that is the basis of the equality guarantee of the Charter.
In other words giving anything other than the same thing would be sending the message that same-sex relationships are somehow less worth than opposite-sex relationships and would degrade and demean the "dignity" of the person in question who is guaranteed equality.

Moreover, dual systems of relationship recognition predicated on sexual orientation could provide the basis for more intense, focused and targeted group discrimination.
The court ruling concludes (most likely accurately) that a dual system of marriage would allow more intense, focused and targeted hatred. In other words, I for example, will be subjected to more hatred than I am even now.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Big-Fat-Homo said:
Ok. As I keep repeating the Supreme Court of Canada was asked several questions by parliament. One of them was:

And the conclusion reached was:

In other words? The only way to fix it up, according to the Supreme Court of Canada would be to extend full civil marriage to same-sex couples. It goes on to say:
Well, this argument seems to be saying that just because the [Canadian] government says so, then it must be right. Governments can make wrong decisions, but just because they do doesn't make it right. Though for the sake of argument, I will not say they are wrong because I just wanted to point out that just because a state says something, doesn't make it right.
(Note: I am not implying this towards only the Canadian government, it is implied towards all governments. For example, just because a long time back slavery was legal in the United States does not make it right just because the United States government deemed it so.)

In other words giving anything other than the same thing would be sending the message that same-sex relationships are somehow less worth than opposite-sex relationships and would degrade and demean the "dignity" of the person in question who is guaranteed equality.
The thing is what I have been saying is that there is no such thing as 'homosexual marriage'. The thing that is being said down here in the states is that marriage is between a man and a woman, meaning exactly what it says. There are other institutions that have requirements, yet it is still not complained as 'unequal'. The requirement for marriage is one male and one female. As for 'opposite-sex relationships', they are not guaranteed equality; it is the people that are guaranteed equality. As I have already says, whether homosexual or heterosexual, you still have the exact same rights. A homosexual cannot get a homosexual marriage any more than a heterosexual person can get a homosexual marriage.

The court ruling concludes (most likely accurately) that a dual system of marriage would allow more intense, focused and targeted hatred. In other words, I for example, will be subjected to more hatred than I am even now.
So because people will subject you to "more hatred" gives the government the right to do something? The people shouldn't hate you in the first place, so I see no reason why this should justify it. If they hate you for being homosexual for religious reasons, than they are going contrary to their religion, because as the saying goes, "hate the sin, not the sinner." If they hate you just because you are homosexual, with no reason further than that, well then in my opinion they are just odd.
 
L

Laharl

My point is that the legal system is for it, I'm not talking about the government.

As for the idea that 'equally disallowed is still equal'. That is simply not true.

And as for the government needing the 'right' to do something. They are the government, they don't need an excuse to do anything. If we don't like what they do, we vote them out. But the fact that they were voted in to represent us, the Canadian people, by us, makes it so that they don't need an excuse to vote for whatever bill they want. In fact, the Canadian government (as an example) could pass a bill saying that cats are dogs, and dogs are now cats and they would be completely within their right to do so. They are the law of the land, and it is meaningless to go and pick a fight with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top