Canadian Supreme Court OK's Gay Marriage

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red+Dec 9 2004, 02:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bleeding Red @ Dec 9 2004, 02:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bring_Back_Shantz@Dec 9 2004, 08:35 PM

As far as the priest goes, as far as he is concerned, he cannot marry two gay people, anymore than he can fly, why? Because as far as the church is concerned marriage is only between a man and a woman. Forcing a priest to do it would be just as descriminatory as me not fixing someone's car because he is black. No where in the bible (or anything the pope has said) does it preclude gay people from going to church, or does it say that catholics can't marry non catholics (using catholic as an example), but it does have a pretty clear set of rules for marriage, so saying they include them in their services isn't a valid arguement.

You ask me to build a brick house out of wood, and I can't do it regardless of whether you are black, white, gay, straight, or if I even care if you are. You can't build a brick house out of wood. Priests can't build a catholic marriage out of two men, or two women, because in either case they are missing a vital component. Is that right in the moral sense, some say yes, some say no, but the priest is definately saying yes, and making him do it would be just as illigal as anything you have put forth.

"No where in the bible (or anything the pope has said) does it preclude gay people from going to church, or does it say that catholics can't marry non catholics (using catholic as an example), but it does have a pretty clear set of rules for marriage"

The penalty for homosexuality is excomunication from the faith - those that have professed to a homosexual lifestyle are barred from the faith (including services in church) and the Bible commands Jews not to marry non-Jews or face the same penalty.
The Catholic Church does have a clear set of rules for marriage - they include catholics can't marry non catholics.

"Priests can't build a catholic marriage out of two men, or two women"

I think there are some gay couples and a few "Progressive" clergy who would dissagree with you there.


I'm just saying that the argument is possible. If the activist gay couple could prove that the clergyperson has been flexible in his beliefs and practices in the past, then the court may say that he/she must be flexible now [/b][/quote]
Interesting, I wasn't aware that Jews were catholics. And all along I just though I was a normal white cahtolic guy, turns out I'm a jew.

That being said, fine the bible says gays aren't allowed in the church and jews can't marry jews. So who is in charge of the rules of the church? Well eventually God is, and who is his rep on earth? The pope, and the pope has said that people of different faiths can marry, and that homosexuals are allowed to participate in services, but still not marry, and guess what, short of JC commnig back to earth and telling us what the new rules are, the pope is the ultimate trup card regardless of what the bible says.

That being said, your comment about forward thinking clergy is a little naive. Sure many religions think it's okay, and those clearly aren't the ones that will be forced to perform the marriage, it's the ones that have rules against that sort of thing. For example, any catholic priest who doesn't think it's a sin to marry another man, and presumably have sex with him, should probalby rethink his faith, especially his own vow of celebacy.

Besides, you're missing the point. The SCC has already said that it would be unconstitutional for people to try to force priests, or whoever to perform the marriage, so any appeal would be dismissed immediatly. Could someone try? Sure, but I could also try to appeal murder laws, does that mean that the Supreme court is going to give it a listen? NO. Why? Because they've already ruled on it, and they aren't going to change their minds. That's one of the best parts about the SCC, they have the right to say "That's stupid we aren't going to listen to it".

[MrMastodonFarm]

Gay people getting married? What's next, black people voting?

The fabic of our society is crumbling people.

[snowdude]

The protection and extenstion of rights to a minority is one of the most important things in our society. This just goes along with that ideal our society values and i really don't have a problem with the proposed legaslation

[FlamesAddiction]

FDW: You did miss my point, but it was probably my wording. I actually agree with you.

[300spartans]

What can I say, I'm really proud to have moved to a country where this can happen.

[CaramonLS]

Polygamy - It probably will be legalized soon. And I don't see the huge deal with it. If 2 guys and 1 girl or 1 man and 2 women want to live together and raise a big family who are we to say? Seriously folks.

Polygamy is illegal, but ######ing around on your wife and maybe having a kid with another women is ok and accepted in our society. But when it comes to people being in a recognized polygamic relationship, thats a HUGE NO!

The only people polygamy really hurts is the insurance companies who wouldn't want more people under the same drug benifit plan.

(No I am not a polygamist).

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Dec 9 2004, 06:40 PM
Polygamy - It probably will be legalized soon. And I don't see the huge deal with it. If 2 guys and 1 girl or 1 man and 2 women want to live together and raise a big family who are we to say? Seriously folks.

Polygamy is illegal, but ######ing around on your wife and maybe having a kid with another women is ok and accepted in our society. But when it comes to people being in a recognized polygamic relationship, thats a HUGE NO!

The only people polygamy really hurts is the insurance companies who wouldn't want more people under the same drug benifit plan.

(No I am not a polygamist).

I'm a wannabe polygamist I think. I'll have to find a first wife first but after that I think it'll get easier. For one thing our scouting coverage will be doubled and the "options" that will be offered to wife #2 will be better than what wife #1 was offered. Wife #3 of course will increase scouting and options once again. I've done a little research and watched some filthy movies and from what I can tell, after 3 spouses are involved it starts to snowball.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 9 2004, 09:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 9 2004, 09:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Dec 9 2004, 06:40 PM
Polygamy - It probably will be legalized soon. And I don't see the huge deal with it. If 2 guys and 1 girl or 1 man and 2 women want to live together and raise a big family who are we to say? Seriously folks.

Polygamy is illegal, but ######ing around on your wife and maybe having a kid with another women is ok and accepted in our society. But when it comes to people being in a recognized polygamic relationship, thats a HUGE NO!

The only people polygamy really hurts is the insurance companies who wouldn't want more people under the same drug benifit plan.

(No I am not a polygamist).

I'm a wannabe polygamist I think. I'll have to find a first wife first but after that I think it'll get easier. For one thing our scouting coverage will be doubled and the "options" that will be offered to wife #2 will be better than what wife #1 was offered. Wife #3 of course will increase scouting and options once again. I've done a little research and watched some filthy movies and from what I can tell, after 3 spouses are involved it starts to snowball. [/b][/quote]
Sure it works in theory, but you gotta watch out for the wife who swears she only wants to be with one man and a half dozen women, but what happens when she changes her mind and wants another dude in there, then you gotta divorce her. It's a shame how many marriages fail in our society.

[arsenal]

just start swinging

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 12:47 PM
I think it has less to do with the sancitity of marriage than three other legal issues.

1- What legal rights were gays being denied that married couple had? There was a time not too long ago that married people got tax breaks, spousal benefits (corporate health plans), and inheritance benefits. I think legal contracts, progressive companies, and governments worked towards solving this issue.

2- The slippery slope - Those that try to draw a line from homosexuality to beastiality need to come to terms with reality - I think they are nuts. BUT - I think a reasonalbe argument could be made by drawing a line from gay marriage to polygamy (multipule wives) - If marrage is no longer legally sexually defined why should it be numerically defined?

3- What if religious leaders refuse to perform the ceremony? Even though the SC mentioned this issue, it is still a concern. The purpose of the whole exercise is to make a point and though we may question why a gay couple would insist beyond all rational reason (in our minds) to get married in an sanctuary by a religious leader who believes with all his/her heart that the couple is an abomination, the couple may and can take it to court regardless of what the SC writes. They can argue that since gay marriage is legal, refusing to perform the ceremony is descriminatory and illegal (they will lose since for example RC priests can refuse to marry a couple where one spouse is not RC)

Regardless what a minority Liberal gov. does, the argumant will be around for the long haul.

The only way around the problem is to have a civil marriage that is available to everyone and is administered by the government. Let the churches provide Christian marriages for heterosexual couples who feel strongly about making their vows properly before God. Christian marriages and civil marriages would be equal in the eyes of the government but churches, under the Charter of Rights, would have the right to refuse to carry out any same-sex marriage.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by CrzyCanuck@Dec 9 2004, 01:29 PM
So who will pair up with the minority liberals to get this passed? Free vote? Bring down the government?

(I' like getting my news from CP!)

Svend's cohorts, I'm sure.

I don't think you can bring down the government on this issue. It's not a money bill.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Bleeding Red@Dec 9 2004, 02:53 PM
I think there are some gay couples and a few "Progressive" clergy who would dissagree with you there.

. . .And the church and its doctrines also have a right to disagree with them. Chances are good if they loudly vocalize their disagreement with the teachings of the church where they are members, they will be strongly encouraged to vocalize elsewhere.

[moon]

Originally posted by Sammie+Dec 10 2004, 08:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Dec 10 2004, 08:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CrzyCanuck@Dec 9 2004, 01:29 PM
So who will pair up with the minority liberals to get this passed?# Free vote?# Bring down the government?

(I' like getting my news from CP!)

Svend's cohorts, I'm sure.

I don't think you can bring down the government on this issue. It's not a money bill. [/b][/quote]
It doesn't have to be a money bill to bring down the government.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by moon+Dec 11 2004, 01:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Dec 11 2004, 01:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Svend's cohorts, I'm sure.

I don't think you can bring down the government on this issue. It's not a money bill.

It doesn't have to be a money bill to bring down the government.[/b][/quote]
Okay. Please explain. . .

[snowdude]

Originally posted by Sammie+Dec 11 2004, 03:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Dec 11 2004, 03:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

It doesn't have to be a money bill to bring down the government.

Okay. Please explain. . . [/b][/quote]
Money Bills don't automatically bring the gov't down (as seen by the GG's budget getting cut by 10% the other day).

Only votes of confidence bring the gov't down. These are usually big bills that the gov't thinks are central to its ability to governen. Those kinds of bills are usually the budget, throne speech and various other bills that they declare "motions of confidence in the government" and these are usually main ideas they have outlined in the throne speech or other places.....

The Lib's have already lost 2 or 3 (can't remember exactly) bills this session...including the GG's budget one which was a pretty major, symbolic cut by the opposition.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by snowdude@Dec 11 2004, 02:03 PM
Money Bills don't automatically bring the gov't down (as seen by the GG's budget getting cut by 10% the other day).

Only votes of confidence bring the gov't down. These are usually big bills that the gov't thinks are central to its ability to governen. Those kinds of bills are usually the budget, throne speech and various other bills that they declare "motions of confidence in the government" and these are usually main ideas they have outlined in the throne speech or other places.....

The Lib's have already lost 2 or 3 (can't remember exactly) bills this session...including the GG's budget one which was a pretty major, symbolic cut by the opposition.

Thanks. You're right. I think.