Same sex marriage settled.. again.. 175-123

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I agree this is discrimination if it happens.
I'm simpley asking when it happens. Not sure what they rest of your post is about. If it happens all the time you should be able to give an example.

By saying you've never heard of "gays discriminating against Christians," you're implying gays as a group discriminating against Christians as a group. Discrimination does not have to happen on a societal level. What happens to me personally, you wouldn't have heard about. As a Christian I have tried to have discussions with some of my gay friends and coworkers about various gay issues, and half the time they say "oh well, you're Christian so you'll never understand/agree with me." Isn't that what discussions are for, to increase understanding? I've given up trying to have insightful conversations about gay marriage and homosexuality and religion. Why? Because I get the same ignorant response almost every time...

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Speaking of which, I don't believe I've heard you post your views on the issue on this site before. Usually in these threads, you play the devil's advocate on the issue.

Where do you stand on it?

Ah sure, call me out...

AS a Christian I'm taught to love the sinner and hate the sin. So, while I cannot agree with homosexuality and the 'gay lifestyle' as people like to call it, that doesnt' affect how I feel abotu my gay friends. Whether they are Christian or not, their supposed sins are between them and their maker, and I have no part of it. As such, I have no problems with gay marriage, as again, it is not up to me to judge.

However, as far as the legalities go...

My proposal would have those wed in a religious institution would have a marriage and those wed by the state would have a civil union. You'll notice that sexual preference has nothing to do with this distinction as there are certain churches that will marry gay couples. Now, unfortunately this would not please all people, however it would change the 'line in the sand' from being drawn between sexuality to being drawn between the church and the state, where it is supposed to be drawn in the first place.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by FireFly

By saying you've never heard of "gays discriminating against Christians," you're implying gays as a group discriminating against Christians as a group. Discrimination does not have to happen on a societal level. What happens to me personally, you wouldn't have heard about.

So you're only talking about within you social circle?

You said...

What about gays being intolerant of religion? Why is it only discrimination one way and not the other?

and...

Some gays are just as intolerant of Christian beliefs as some Christians are intolerant of the gay lifestyle. One is called discrimination, the other is not.

These seem to imply society or a significant portion of it does not consider one to be discrimination. YOU implied this was a social issue, not a personal issue. That is why I asked you for examples.

If you're only talking about your own friends, maybe you should have wrote
"Why is it only discrimination one way and not the other according to my friends? and "One is called discrimination, the other is not by my friends"

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

So you're only talking about within you social circle?

You said...

and...

These seem to imply society or a significant portion of it does not consider one to be discrimination. YOU implied this was a social issue, not a personal issue. That is why I asked you for examples.

If you're only talking about your own friends, maybe you should have wrote
"Why is it only discrimination one way and not the other according to my friends? and "One is called discrimination, the other is not by my friends"

I implied that when a Christian has the opinion that gays should not be married that's discrimination, however no one comments on when gays discriminate against Christians. That's the social issue. I never said how many gays discriminate against Christians, I was talking in the personal sense. You misinterpreted my meaning.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I implied that when a Christian has the opinion that gays should not be married that's discrimination, however no one comments on when gays discriminate against Christians. That's the social issue. I never said how many gays discriminate against Christians, I was talking in the personal sense. You misinterpreted my meaning.

I'm not misunterpreting it.
It's flawed for you to describe a social issue based on a personal experience. how do you know it's a social issue?
You're making a leap without enough evidence

Maybe in most cases where a gay discriminates against a Christian people do comment.
Maybe your experiences are the exceptions.

You're stereotyping based on limited examples.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I'm not misunterpreting it.
It's flawed for you to describe a social issue based on a personal experience. how do you know it's a social issue?
You're making a leap without enough evidence

Maybe in most cases where a gay discriminates against a Christian people do comment.
Maybe your experiences are the exceptions.

You're stereotyping based on limited examples.

So you've never heard a gay person call Christians bigots or full of hate?

[ShaolinFlame]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

i support gay marriage. however, i think the legislation was passed too fast and adequate protections of religious beliefs aren't in there. i'd like to see more protection for say... a priest who refuses to perform gay mariages because its against his religion.

sorry for not reading past this as im laza, but in canada you can actually SUE a catholic priest for refusing to marry two men... i completely agree with your assessment and it was needed badly in the bill.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So you've never heard a gay person call Christians bigots or full of hate?

Call an individual Christian a bigot? Sure. All Christians? I haven't heard it personally though I'm sure some probably have. That doesn't mean society has given the gay community a fee card to attack all Christians.

However it would be hard to blame them.. when leaders in the Christian community and government representatives say things like:

Originally Posted by Jerry Falwell

AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it's God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals

Originally Posted by Pat Robertson

[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers.

Originally Posted by Gary Potter

"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil.

Originally Posted by Jesse Helms

'The New York Times and Washington Post are both infested with homosexuals themselves. Just about every person down there is a homosexual or lesbian.

That's pretty hateful stuff.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by photon

Call an individual Christian a bigot? Sure. All Christians? I haven't heard it personally though I'm sure some probably have. That doesn't mean society has given the gay community a fee card to attack all Christians.

However it would be hard to blame them.. when leaders in the Christian community and government representatives say things like:


That's pretty hateful stuff.

Right. So two wrongs make a right. Because SOME Christians are ignorant about ALL gays, that makes it okay for SOME gays to be ignorant to ALL Christians?

I'm not saying society has given a free card either way, I'm asking why we don't hold gay people to the same expectations we have of religious people. It's not right in either case, but I've never heard gays called bigots or haters, even though it's a two way street. It's just that one way is more publicised.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by ShaolinFlame

sorry for not reading past this as im laza, but in canada you can actually SUE a catholic priest for refusing to marry two men... i completely agree with your assessment and it was needed badly in the bill.

Well you should go back and read the rest then.

[Flame On]

Good gamble by Harper. He upholds his end of the bargain for his base but actually it pays off for looking more moderate too. If he sticks with it, which I assume he will.
Right decision too. I've always felt that the problem is that those religious people that don't want that right to be held by homosexuals wrongly assume that marriage belongs to them.
No one is changing anything about the definition of marriage, they're just including others within it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I'm not saying society has given a free card either way, I'm asking why we don't hold gay people to the same expectations we have of religious people.

We do hold "them" to the same standards. We just don't get the chance to hear prominent gay people say stupid **** about people who like Eve instead of Steve, so it seems like we don't get th chance to bash an intolerant homo as often as we do an intolerant religious person.

If a gay activist, one powerful enough to go on TV every Sunday and convince a bunch of morons to send him millions of dollars, or powerful enough to run for President or sway an election was lucky enough to get some airtime and he/she said "Christians are going to burn in hell and people who respect and tolerate Christians are going to spend eternity burning in hell" then you'd hear some noise about it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Right. So two wrongs make a right. Because SOME Christians are ignorant about ALL gays, that makes it okay for SOME gays to be ignorant to ALL Christians?

Of course not, no one claims that, except you claiming that that's the way it is.

I'm not saying society has given a free card either way, I'm asking why we don't hold gay people to the same expectations we have of religious people. It's not right in either case, but I've never heard gays called bigots or haters, even though it's a two way street. It's just that one way is more publicised.

Of course, everyone would agree that it goes both ways and bigotry either way shouldn't be supported.

You are right that one way is probably publicized more than the other. And I can think of lots of reasons why that is, but mostly because the social consciousness has changed but not everyone has caught up yet, so while it does the media plays a role of communicating.

Think about racism.. there were/are racist white people and black people. For a long time that was fine. Then things changed, the social conscious changed; racism was bad. But people don't change over night, so the media shows times when racism is bad.. And mostly show black people being oppressed because they're the ones that were at the disadvantage.

That's my theory anyway.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So you've never heard a gay person call Christians bigots or full of hate?

No, personally I havn't, but I don't know many gay people. It I did hear that, I'd call that descrimination.
I'm not saying that no gay person has ever descriminated, of course one has. Someone from every sexual/racial/cultural group has.

I'm just questioning who it is that says it's "ok" for gays to do that?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by ShaolinFlame

sorry for not reading past this as im laza, but in canada you can actually SUE a catholic priest for refusing to marry two men... i completely agree with your assessment and it was needed badly in the bill.

what?
where do you hear these things?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Right. So two wrongs make a right. Because SOME Christians are ignorant about ALL gays, that makes it okay for SOME gays to be ignorant to ALL Christians?

I'm not saying society has given a free card either way, I'm asking why we don't hold gay people to the same expectations we have of religious people. It's not right in either case, but I've never heard gays called bigots or haters, even though it's a two way street. It's just that one way is more publicised.

I call anyone who discriminates a bigot. I am guilty as charged as far as that goes. I certainly am not going to apologize for it. If you discriminate, you deserve the label.

If you believe that one group of adults have a right, and another group should not, then you do not believe in equality.

If one does not believe in equality, then one is discriminating on the basis of one's beliefs. Hence the label "bigot" is appropriately applied.

If a religous organization was against interracial marriage, I would call the entire organization biggoted. I would consider anyone who supports that orgainzation to be bigotted as well.

I see no difference between the social acceptance of interracial marriage in the 1950's and 60's, and gay marriage today.

Tolerance and the acceptance of others moves slowly in our society. Mostly on account of institutions like "the church" which hold people back from embracing plurality - "the bible says its a sin" - contrary to rationality and in many cases (like FireFly's statement that she hates "the sin", but not "the sinner") the personal beliefs of its members. FireFly doesn't hate gays, and has said as much. She just doesn't think they should have the right to marry because they aren't equal according to scripture.

I have to wonder - if the bible was silent on homosexuality, would people still oppose gay marriage?

What if scripture opposed Asian marriage instead? How would you feel then? Does it seem worthwhile to deny a right to people because of what a book says; contrary to all other facts surrounding the issue?

There is no rational explanation for denying two consenting adults the right to marry. It is a shame gays have to fight for equality in 2006 in Canada.

Oh, wait a minute! According to the title of this thread, they don't anymore. They've won!

Hizzah!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Tolerance and the acceptance of others moves slowly in our society. Mostly on account of institutions like "the church" which hold people back from embracing plurality - "the bible says its a sin" - contrary to rationality and in many cases (like FireFly's statement that she hates "the sin", but not "the sinner") the personal beliefs of its members. FireFly doesn't hate gays, and has said as much. She just doesn't think they should have the right to marry because they aren't equal according to scripture.

I have to wonder - if the bible was silent on homosexuality, would people still oppose gay marriage?

What if scripture opposed Asian marriage instead? How would you feel then? Does it seem worthwhile to deny a right to people because of what a book says; contrary to all other facts surrounding the issue?

This is the 'famous' verse from the bible that Christians always quote for their stance on homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Leviticus 20:13

'If a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

But here is why I have problem with people using the bible so literally. The whole Genesis/creation story can't be taken literally, but other passages have to be followed exactly, while others ignored? You are just picking and choosing things from the bible that you want to follow. The bible says lots of things that Christians don't follow. Let me take a page out of Penn and Tellers show Bull****. These are acutally verses from the bible.

Stoning disobedient children.

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 21:20-21

"They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.' "Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.

Selling your daughter into slavery.

Originally Posted by Exodus 21:7

"If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

Workin' on Sunday, that's a hangin'.

Originally Posted by Exodus 35:2

"For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

What was that guys name, that Christians really like, the one with the long hair....?

Originally Posted by Corinthians 11:14

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,

I'm not trying to start a whole thing here with the bible, but because it was mentioned above I thought I would share some information that counters it. If there are other reasons why Christians are so against homosexuals I would like to hear it, because if it is just that one verse, which I believe it is, that is a pretty poor reason IMO.

EDIT: Should have mentioned, Bible quotes from here http://bible.cc/

[AC]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

I call anyone who discriminates a bigot. (...)

Really great post Flashpoint.

Honestly, the fact that this is even an issue is embarrassing and speaks volumes of the intolerance of others that still exists today.

People can try and justify it all they want, but it comes down to people not promoting equality and acceptance of others.

Its really, really embarrassing that this is an issue at all in 2006.