Remember when I was critisized?

[jonesy]

OK, lets just get to the root of it. I believe that marriage is a sacramenet instituted by God for one man and one woman.
This is why I am against any other definition. Simplistic I know.

And as I pointed out, in the Roman empire there were links between homosexuality and incest.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by jonesy@Dec 11 2004, 11:28 AM
And as I pointed out, in the Roman empire there were links between homosexuality and incest.

And what... your worried that if people read up on Roman history they'd be powerless to stop it from happening in 21st century Canada?

[RougeUnderoos]

In the Roman Empire there were links between a whole host of things. Why, I'll bet one might even find a link between homosexuality and heterosexuality in human history!

I'd also bet that in human history, incest and bestiality have never been more frowned upon than they are now so chin-up boys. We are in good shape.

For example -- did you know that when Franklin Delano Roosevelt married his lovely wife Eleanor she didn't even have to get the name on her cheques reprinted. Why not? Because her last name was Roosevelt before she married the great man. They were cousins!

Can you imagine a President getting elected today that was married to his cousin? I can't. For example if someone had asked John Kerry where he had met his wife and he said "family reunion", would he have gotten the Democratic nomination?

[habernac]

Originally posted by jonesy@Dec 11 2004, 12:28 PM
OK, lets just get to the root of it. I believe that marriage is a sacramenet instituted by God for one man and one woman.
This is why I am against any other definition. Simplistic I know.

And as I pointed out, in the Roman empire there were links between homosexuality and incest.

come on......you think all gay people want to screw their siblings? Give me a break. There are sick people out there regardless of whether they're gay or straight.

[snowdude]

Unlike same sex marriage there are reasons why incest won't be legalized...1) it’s against the law (not strong but I’m getting there) and 2) Because it leads to massive problems genetically for any offspring.

I don't think the Parliament or Courts will ever allow that...look at the Netherlands and Belgium, places where this has been legalized for a while now, do you see this problem?

NO!

This is just nonsensical fear mongering and is in my opinion asinine

[Daradon]

Originally posted by jonesy@Dec 11 2004, 01:28 PM
OK, lets just get to the root of it. I believe that marriage is a sacramenet instituted by God for one man and one woman.
This is why I am against any other definition. Simplistic I know.

And as I pointed out, in the Roman empire there were links between homosexuality and incest.

Which god?

What does marriage mean?

What about people who believe in god but don't see anything wrong with homosexuality?

Who is interpretting the bible?

What makes one set of rules, the right ones?

Why should religion define culture or law or even the meaning of a word?

(stir stir stir)

[JiriHrdina]

The slippery slop argument is inherently flawed. If you are against gay marriage because of your personal moral system that's fine and completely valid. But people that try to use this specific argument need to realize that its completely baseless. There is no evidence ANYWHERE to suggest that gay marriage will lead to more tolerant views on incest, and its ridiculous to suggest there is.

[kermitology]

Originally posted by snowdude@Dec 11 2004, 01:49 PM
Unlike same sex marriage there are reasons why incest won't be legalized...1) it’s against the law (not strong but I’m getting there) and 2) Because it leads to massive problems genetically for any offspring.

I don't think the Parliament or Courts will ever allow that...look at the Netherlands and Belgium, places where this has been legalized for a while now, do you see this problem?

NO!

This is just nonsensical fear mongering and is in my opinion asinine

albertGQ will argue that there are no genetiv effects of two brothers wanting to marry, or a sterile man wanting to marry his mother.

Of course he's presenting one in a million cases, which frankly have no bearing.

And albert.. seriously, what kind of bullsh*t are you pulling saying that you aren't trying to start a debate, that's exactly what you're trying to do.

Now go be a good Catholic and say a few hail mary's after banging some slut while using contraception..

[Cain]

Its sort of funny that some people live in this country fully believing in freedom of belief and speech and other things like that, and then right when there is a conflicting belief emanating from someone else, it is no longer "ok" anymore.

The "I believe that marriage is a sacrament that has its roots in God's teachings, and therefore believe that gay marriage is wrong" argument in that sense is hilarious. You know that these people at the same time would stick up for their own right to the religion that they adhere to.

But at the same time fight for the suppression of other peoples beliefs. Like gay marriage.

Religious people have a right to believe what they want. No law should be able to take that away from them or stop them from performing sacraments like marriage in the church. The same thing applies to people who believe in or wish to have a gay marriage.

Edit: I should clarify here...I was not really aiming this at anyone in particular, nor labelling all religious people as fanatics who aim for the abolishment of anything not inside of their beliefs.

[CaptainCrunch]

I have a different viewpoint on this. Legalizing gay marriages is something that was going to happen eventually, and as a law it can't be enforced if the a priest refuses to marry a gay couple since the constitution does not really effect religious doctrine. Even if a united church minister or some other off shoot church starts marrying gay couples, it dosen't mean that there is a legal challenge that can be applied as a blanket to every church.

I think I mentioned before that I don't really have a problem with gay marriage as long as the government and courts don't try to challenge and punish religeous beliefs or church doctrine.

Whereas it might not be a slippery slope, I can see where this is going to open the door to a lot of more distastful groups challenging the "oppression" of thier beliefs or claims (ie poligamy, incest, child marriages etc) and tying up the supreme court when it should be focusing on more important issues.

[albertGQ]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Dec 11 2004, 01:14 PM


Whereas it might not be a slippery slope, I can see where this is going to open the door to a lot of more distastful groups challenging the "oppression" of thier beliefs or claims (ie poligamy, incest, child marriages etc) and tying up the supreme court when it should be focusing on more important issues.

Despite what Kermit the Frog thinks, that is why I started this thread, not to start a debate as proven by my silence for most of this thread.

And maybe I will go bang a slut and use contraception. Thats better then the self sex he does in his parents closet watching them make him a baby brother

[FlamesAddiction]

If we are going to use the slippery slope argument, then it can be argued that having legalized straight marriages is a slippery slope because it opens the pandorra's box for all types of marriage.

[kermitology]

Originally posted by albertGQ+Dec 11 2004, 02:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (albertGQ @ Dec 11 2004, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Dec 11 2004, 01:14 PM


Whereas it might not be a slippery slope, I can see where this is going to open the door to a lot of more distastful groups challenging the "oppression" of thier beliefs or claims (ie poligamy, incest, child marriages etc) and tying up the supreme court when it should be focusing on more important issues.

Despite what Kermit the Frog thinks, that is why I started this thread, not to start a debate as proven by my silence for most of this thread.

And maybe I will go bang a slut and use contraception. Thats better then the self sex he does in his parents closet watching them make him a baby brother [/b][/quote]
I only point out from your previous thread statements about how you're a good Catholic who believes sodomy to be wrong.. That's fine, but you use religion as a crutch and you better not stop there.

And it's not Kermit the Frog, it's kermitology.. get it right.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its sort of funny that some people live in this country fully believing in freedom of belief and speech and other things like that, and then right when there is a conflicting belief emanating from someone else, it is no longer "ok" anymore.

I've got to challenge you on this boss. by putting other peoples beliefs over the the beliefs of people who believe that gay marriage, or a gay life style is wrong, you are taking away thier right to freedom of epression and free will.

The "I believe that marriage is a sacrament that has its roots in God's teachings, and therefore believe that gay marriage is wrong" argument in that sense is hilarious. You know that these people at the same time would stick up for their own right to the religion that they adhere to.

But they honestly believe this and have gained this from thier own personal beliefs and religious studies, what gives you the right to judge that thier interepretation that gay marriage is wrong. By stating this your actually putting the rights and beliefs of one group over the rights and beliefs of another group. What would you say if these people challenged the court over the suppression of thier religious beliefs because the courts gave the rights of homosexual marriage"

But at the same time fight for the suppression of other peoples beliefs. Like gay marriage.

Consittutional law is a fairly complex and dirty subject. You have to ask yourself what the federal governments reaction would be if the Alberta government managed to pull off a referendum and the Alberta population voted that Gay MArriage would not be supported by the people of the province. Would the federal government have the right to ramrod the supreme courts decision through even though a significant percentage of Canada's population voted in a democratic forum that Gay Marriage was wrong. would you say that if the majority of the province voted against gay marriage that they were wrong and stupid? Wouldn't you be impacting on thier beliefs? Wouldn't you be causing a consitutional crisis of epic proportions?



Religious people have a right to believe what they want. No law should be able to take that away from them or stop them from performing sacraments like marriage in the church. The same thing applies to people who believe in or wish to have a gay marriage.

However the governments or the courts have no right to impose thier wills on the church on the matters of belief or sacriment. Therefore if the Supreme Court approves gay marriage and the Catholic Church or any other religion refuses to recogonize that decision and refuses to perform those ceremonies, then there should be nothing that the government of church should do. However my fear is that the government or the courts (through a legal challenge) is going to attempt to force the church to perform those ceremonies.


Edit: I should clarify here...I was not really aiming this at anyone in particular, nor labelling all religious people as fanatics who aim for the abolishment of anything not inside of their beliefs.

You can't force your beliefs to supercede religious beliefs, you can't call people fanatics because they have a different belief system then you. The government and courts have no jurisdiction to change thousand year old beliefs or scriptures.

[Daradon]

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be forgetting that you don't need a priest or a church to get married.

I don't think churches should be forced to marry gay couples, but nor do I think they will be. I'm sure some offshoots will but most won't.

But even if none do, you still don't need priest to get married. I don't get the 'sanctified by god' argument (well for a lot fo reasons which eloquent people here have already mentioned) when you can get married without it being a religios ceremony.

Plus too, every religion and culture has their own varation of marriage. Not all of them believes homosexuality is wrong. To say marriage is a religious term is incorrect, because it simply isn't.

People are arguing the Chirstian connotation of marriage. But that's only one type. That's why I don't understand why people say, 'ok the term civil union is ok, but the term marriage is not because it's a religious term'.

Buzz! Incorrect. Wrong. People have been getting married without god (or under different gods) for a long time.

If that's what marriage means to you, fine, that's ok. But you can't expect the rest of the world to go with you.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Dec 11 2004, 08:23 PM
If we are going to use the slippery slope argument, then it can be argued that having legalized straight marriages is a slippery slope because it opens the pandorra's box for all types of marriage.

But straight marriage was written into law due to the fact that it was a centuries old tradition, based in peoples spirtual beliefs and recognised by governments because of that fact.

No matter what you believe religeous belief has only been seperated from government in the major democracies for maybe 50 years.

And straight marriages are considered a water mark of normalicy for the majority of the worlds population and any other kind of marriage whether gay, or farm animal or mother son is considered outside of the norm of the definition of traditional marriage.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Dec 11 2004, 08:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Dec 11 2004, 08:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Dec 11 2004, 08:23 PM
If we are going to use the slippery slope argument, then it can be argued that having legalized straight marriages is a slippery slope because it opens the pandorra's box for all types of marriage.

But straight marriage was written into law due to the fact that it was a centuries old tradition, based in peoples spirtual beliefs and recognised by governments because of that fact.

No matter what you believe religeous belief has only been seperated from government in the major democracies for maybe 50 years.

And straight marriages are considered a water mark of normalicy for the majority of the worlds population and any other kind of marriage whether gay, or farm animal or mother son is considered outside of the norm of the definition of traditional marriage. [/b][/quote]
There are a lot of things that were written into law and/or tradtional practices that are obsolete now. For centuries, it was legal, traditional, and even expected that a man discipline his wife by beating her. That was considered normal too. It was also spiritual in that the Bible promoted the image that women were inferior to men.

It's the 21st century. Things change.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Dec 11 2004, 08:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Dec 11 2004, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

But straight marriage was written into law due to the fact that it was a centuries old tradition, based in peoples spirtual beliefs and recognised by governments because of that fact.

No matter what you believe religeous belief has only been seperated from government in the major democracies for maybe 50 years.

And straight marriages are considered a water mark of normalicy for the majority of the worlds population and any other kind of marriage whether gay, or farm animal or mother son is considered outside of the norm of the definition of traditional marriage.

There are a lot of things that were written into law and/or tradtional practices that are obsolete now. For centuries, it was legal, traditional, and even expected that a man discipline his wife by beating her. That was considered normal too. It was also spiritual in that the Bible promoted the image that women were inferior to men.

It's the 21st century. Things change. [/b][/quote]
Ahhh

But the things that people wanted removed or changed thus far have been. IE Woman abuse and child abuse law. The legalization of abortion, the abolishment of child labor. But nobody has challenged straight marriage because nobody has seen the need or reason too. However with gay marriage it is being challenged by various groups, not all religious based because not everyone wants it put into law where a challenge of the church and its beliefs can be challenged in front of the courts.

Saying that its the 21st century and things become obsolete is correct and you will find that most of the changes to the more distasteful acts have been banished to the annuls.

Hey we can even take a bath naked on Sundays now.

Thank you supreme court

[Natt]

Reading about people's reasons why gays shouldn't get married makes me sick to my stomach. You're not different than the people that made the Blacks sit at the back of the bus. You're both judging people on grounds that have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to be good and kind human beings. Ask yourself how judging someone and refusing them equal rights based on the color of their skin is any different than this.

By the way, for those of you who want to protect the "sanctity of marriage" that went to hell when the divorce rate between straight people soared to over 50% and people like Britney Spears could get married for less than two days in Vegas.
Now we're faced with people FIGHTING to get married, why do I have the feeling that they will take it more seriously than some straight people ever did.

[CaptainCrunch]

Excuse me?

Where do you see anyone being dicriminatory towards gays here, or calling them names, or vying for thier extermination and deportation.

Please don't start playing a race card or racism card here, it has no place in this debate.

And nobody says that marriage is perfect but if your going to attack the sanctity of marriage by spouting a 50% disolution rate then you have to look at the 50% who have worked hard to make thier marriage work and are still together after decades. Your judging a concept based on a statistic and that just dosen't work

Marriage as its written is a great concept, its the people that are involved in the ones that fall who form the fatal flaw.

And it is one of the very few institutions thats survived throughout history.


And as I've said many times before i have no trouble with gays getting married and having thier marriages recognized by the state. However the state has no right in imposing its will on a religion that dosen't want to recognise it period.

With Canada's governments past history of trying to butt into how we raise our children and how thier education should be done, my only fear is that they are going to try to steam roll the church.

It has nothing to do with me being homophobic, or disliking thier life style. I personally couldn't care a less about what other people do with thier time or who thier dating or sleeping with.

I see this as shaping up to be a battle between church and state and lobby groups on both sides of the equation period. I also see this as forming up to be a battle between the courts and the provinces especially Alberta, and I'm not sure that in the end democracy will be represented, and those are my concerns.

If Bill and Bob want to date and marry so be it, whether they have a right to get married in a church is a different tale

Period