Klein wants Referendum

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flaming Homer+Dec 11 2004, 06:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flaming Homer @ Dec 11 2004, 06:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Yes you do. You are doing it right now. You say you deserve certain rights but another group of people do not because they are different than you.

It's pretty much textbook discrimination.

I disagree. The marriage we use mainly in Canada is with a minister. I think that if the gays go to a minister and ask to be married they should be turned down. If they go to get a marriage license and go the non-religious way than fine.


But at least thats the way I'd want it to go in my church.


A question. Since many religions largely oppose homosexuality than is that discrimination even though it's wide spread belief that gays are no longer believers since God or Gods don't acknowledge gays. [/b][/quote]
That's the way it would go in your church. That's the way it goes right now for hetero marriages. The clergyman marries who he chooses and refuses those he doesn't deem appropriate. Doesn't bother me.

You might want to check with a gay person you know as to whether or not he/she believes in god. In my humble opinion, Jesus most certainly would "acknowledge" a homosexual.

There are many secular marriages. I've been to lots of them. Maybe it's just the circles I travel in, maybe not. I would assume, though I don't know, that the number of non-god-mentioning wedding ceremonies is increasing. Being a JofP is probably getting more lucrative all the time.

[Abstract]

If gay people want to get married then they should be able to, who has the right to say that their love is less valid than a straight couples? Nobody has any right to tell other people what they can or cant do so long as it isnt hurting anyone.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by Abstract@Dec 11 2004, 06:34 PM
If gay people want to get married then they should be able to, who has the right to say that their love is less valid than a straight couples? Nobody has any right to tell other people what they can or cant do so long as it isnt hurting anyone.

Fan of John Stuart Mill?

[Patek23]

Originally posted by Hakan+Dec 12 2004, 01:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hakan @ Dec 12 2004, 01:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I disagree. The marriage we use mainly in Canada is with a minister. I think that if the gays go to a minister and ask to be married they should be turned down. If they go to get a marriage license and go the non-religious way than fine.


But at least thats the way I'd want it to go in my church.


A question. Since many religions largely oppose homosexuality than is that discrimination even though it's wide spread belief that gays are no longer believers since God or Gods don't acknowledge gays.

Excuse me for my anger but who the ##### do you think you are telling me, my minister and the members of my religion who we can and can't marry? I belong to the United Church where we do endorse gay marriages. This is moral imperialism in so many senses. First you speak for not only your denomination but for the entire religion.

There are many beliefs in Christianity which think that the actual words of Christ (tolerance, not judging other people and giving unrequited love) should bear more importance than obscure one line references in the old testament (hatred of homosexuals).

For you to say that all Ministers regardless of their actual beliefs should not marry gay people shows an obscene amount of ignorance and righteousness that is frankly, quite scary. [/b][/quote]
This is for you and RougeUnderoos





Nowhere did I say it was all chruchs I mearly said the majority (or most), I was also going to acknowledge that their was a church that endorsed it but couldn't remember which one. If you go to 90% of chruchs they will all not support gay marriages or gays at all. I also once went to the United once (For some reason I was going to call it the Alliance before, thats why I left it out) for a chruch performance of "Scrooge" and before it the minister their even said he wasn't sure of the Uniteds choice so it's not like your whole church is all proud of it's ability to marry gays.

Your church is also the only one I know of that supports gay marriage. Like I've said before I don't have any problems with gays or gay marriage I just don't agree with them marrying in a christian church. Just because I'm not as Liberal as you does not make me a bigot or someone who discriminates.

[Hakan]

Ever heard of the Anglican Church?

And who said anything about liberal?

[The Familia]

I'm old fashioned. I like tradition. Tradition in my opinion includes marriage as a bond between man and woman. Period end of story. Like I suggested in my earlier post, gay couples should not be allowed to celebrate the sacrament of MARRIAGE. Marriage is a bond between man and woman. Period end of story. What is there to argue? If a gay couple want some sort of union then go and create some alternative form, have some alternative celebration and means of doing it. Create a term for gay couples like gayrriage, or HB (Homosexuals Bonded). People can then walk around and say "hey guess what, Im getting HB'ed next week". They can have some sort of party or whatnot. The term marriage, the whole process of marriage is restricted to a man and woman in my opinion. Period end of story. There are rules and regulations for everything. Why does today's world constantly try to bend and alter rules, traditions and customs? Pretty soon this world is going to lose everything that is unique and traditional. Lets just throw tradition out the window shall we? This world has become ulta sensitive and people are always offended. I'm sorry, the world can't cater to everyones needs. Why must we alter something (the term, celebration etc. of marriage) that has been present for thousands of years. Create something new, don't try and steal something else.

[The Familia]

Originally posted by Abstract@Dec 11 2004, 06:34 PM
If gay people want to get married then they should be able to, who has the right to say that their love is less valid than a straight couples? Nobody has any right to tell other people what they can or cant do so long as it isnt hurting anyone.

They don't have the right to alter tradition that millions of people follow. They should create some alternative form. If they do get married in a Catholic or Christian setting than they are offending me and my beliefs. I feel hurt then. Do my feelings get taken into account? I'm not stating their love is not valid, they should be free to express themselves. Only in an alternative form that doesn't coincide with mine.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by The Familia@Dec 11 2004, 07:51 PM
I'm old fashioned. I like tradition. Tradition in my opinion includes marriage as a bond between man and woman. Period end of story. Like I suggested in my earlier post, gay couples should not be allowed to celebrate the sacrament of MARRIAGE. Marriage is a bond between man and woman. Period end of story. What is there to argue? If a gay couple want some sort of union then go and create some alternative form, have some alternative celebration and means of doing it. Create a term for gay couples like gayrriage, or HB (Homosexuals Bonded). People can then walk around and say "hey guess what, Im getting HB'ed next week". They can have some sort of party or whatnot. The term marriage, the whole process of marriage is restricted to a man and woman in my opinion. Period end of story. There are rules and regulations for everything. Why does today's world constantly try to bend and alter rules, traditions and customs? Pretty soon this world is going to lose everything that is unique and traditional. Lets just throw tradition out the window shall we? This world has become ulta sensitive and people are always offended. I'm sorry, the world can't cater to everyones needs. Why must we alter something (the term, celebration etc. of marriage) that has been present for thousands of years. Create something new, don't try and steal something else.

You do know that marriage has changed drastically, fundamentally over the last couple hundred years, don't you? Change is nothing new.

We constantly try to bend and alter traditions because we like the tradition of bending and altering traditions. That is what we do. Look around for crying out loud. Did you ride a horse today? Are you saving up for a dowry? Are you saving yourself for marriage?

You (and others that have been involved in this argument) are claiming not much more than a word that you feel belongs to you. It's just a word.

Like I suggested in my earlier post, gay couples should not be allowed to celebrate the sacrament of MARRIAGE.

How about if it's not a sacrament and just a legal arrangement. Or does everyone have to be a catholic to get married.

Talk about your slippery slope -- I mean come on, when one religious group gets to decide something like this, what's next?

[The Familia]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 11 2004, 08:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 11 2004, 08:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The Familia@Dec 11 2004, 07:51 PM
I'm old fashioned. I like tradition. Tradition in my opinion includes marriage as a bond between man and woman. Period end of story. Like I suggested in my earlier post, gay couples should not be allowed to celebrate the sacrament of MARRIAGE. Marriage is a bond between man and woman. Period end of story. What is there to argue? If a gay couple want some sort of union then go and create some alternative form, have some alternative celebration and means of doing it. Create a term for gay couples like gayrriage, or HB (Homosexuals Bonded). People can then walk around and say "hey guess what, Im getting HB'ed next week". They can have some sort of party or whatnot. The term marriage, the whole process of marriage is restricted to a man and woman in my opinion. Period end of story. There are rules and regulations for everything. Why does today's world constantly try to bend and alter rules, traditions and customs? Pretty soon this world is going to lose everything that is unique and traditional. Lets just throw tradition out the window shall we? This world has become ulta sensitive and people are always offended. I'm sorry, the world can't cater to everyones needs. Why must we alter something (the term, celebration etc. of marriage) that has been present for thousands of years. Create something new, don't try and steal something else.

You do know that marriage has changed drastically, fundamentally over the last couple hundred years, don't you? Change is nothing new.

We constantly try to bend and alter traditions because we like the tradition of bending and altering traditions. That is what we do. Look around for crying out loud. Did you ride a horse today? Are you saving up for a dowry? Are you saving yourself for marriage?

You (and others that have been involved in this argument) are claiming not much more than a word that you feel belongs to you. It's just a word.

Like I suggested in my earlier post, gay couples should not be allowed to celebrate the sacrament of MARRIAGE.

How about if it's not a sacrament and just a legal arrangement. Or does everyone have to be a catholic to get married.

Talk about your slippery slope -- I mean come on, when one religious group gets to decide something like this, what's next? [/b][/quote]
Thanks, Im quite aware change occurs throughout time. Your example of "bending traditions because we like to bend traditions" sounds a little silly. What kind of an example is that. Personally I never thought of riding a horse as traditional. We have developed other means of transportation, this has nothing to do with tradition. Marriage has existed for a long time, so have homosexuals. Why does it now have to become an issue. I don't recall to much attention 20 years ago or more about gay marriages. Why now? Your other examples are futile. Dowry exists heavily in Islamic society, as well many religious people do save themselves. Just because North American society has lost touch with tradition and such, doesn't mean other societies have. I don't see too many other countries or societies having this gay marriage debate. For many people words are more than just a word. If marriage is just a word, than why don't you create an alternative word. For some people this is a big deal, so why do you have to bother them? If you didn't read or understand my last 3 posts, I have clearly stated gay's should find an alternative form of union. Create something clearly of their own. A legal arrangment is fine, Im dealing more on a religious and traditional standpoint. You don't have to be catholic to be married. When did I state that? We are talking about the definition of marriage. Man and woman. Every religion and society can celebrate and do this differently according to custom. Marriage is not just catholic. Marriage is a man and woman though. End of story. Obviously these are my views and will not be changed.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by The Familia+Dec 11 2004, 08:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Familia @ Dec 11 2004, 08:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You do know that marriage has changed drastically, fundamentally over the last couple hundred years, don't you? Change is nothing new.

We constantly try to bend and alter traditions because we like the tradition of bending and altering traditions. That is what we do. Look around for crying out loud. Did you ride a horse today? Are you saving up for a dowry? Are you saving yourself for marriage?

You (and others that have been involved in this argument) are claiming not much more than a word that you feel belongs to you. It's just a word.

Like I suggested in my earlier post, gay couples should not be allowed to celebrate the sacrament of MARRIAGE.

How about if it's not a sacrament and just a legal arrangement. Or does everyone have to be a catholic to get married.

Talk about your slippery slope -- I mean come on, when one religious group gets to decide something like this, what's next?

Thanks, Im quite aware change occurs throughout time. Your example of "bending traditions because we like to bend traditions" sounds a little silly. What kind of an example is that. Personally I never thought of riding a horse as traditional. We have developed other means of transportation, this has nothing to do with tradition. Marriage has existed for a long time, so have homosexuals. Why does it now have to become an issue. I don't recall to much attention 20 years ago or more about gay marriages. Why now? I don't see too many other countries or societies having this gay marriage debate. For many people words are more than just a word. If marriage is just a word, than why don't you create an alternative word. For some people this is a big deal, so why do you have to bother them? If you didn't read or understand my last 3 posts, I have clearly stated gay's should find an alternative form of union. Create something clearly of their own. A legal arrangment is fine, Im dealing more on a religious and traditional standpoint. You don't have to be catholic to be married. When did I state that? We are talking about the definition of marriage. Man and woman. Every religion and society can celebrate and do this differently according to custom. Marriage is not just catholic. Marriage is a man and woman though. End of story. Obviously these are my views and will not be changed. [/b][/quote]
Thanks, Im quite aware change occurs throughout time. Your example of "bending traditions because we like to bend traditions" sounds a little silly. What kind of an example is that.

It's not an example, it's a fact. It may sound silly to you but it's true.

Dowry exists heavily in Islamic society, as well many religious people do save themselves. Just because North American society has lost touch with tradition and such, doesn't mean other societies have. I don't see too many other countries or societies having this gay marriage debate.

We don't live in an Islamic society so I don't know what that has to do with anything.

I've run across a few "traditionalists" during this debate but I've yet to hear of one willing to admit that he's kept it in his pants in an effort to preserve the sanctity and tradition of marriage. Why is that? Tradition not good enough for you? Maybe the tradition and sanctity of the whole thing should only apply to other people?

Maybe it's time for some of you guys to put your money where your johnson is. Are you all for tradition and following all the old rules? Be a good boy, don't look don't touch, marry the gal your dad tells you to and pony up a few bucks to her dad, that kind of thing? I mean if you don't think we should break tradition then logically you would follow all the old rules wouldn't you?

It's obvious that you are quite fond of the phrase "end of story" but come on now, you know as well as I don that the story isn't over yet.

[Patek23]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 12 2004, 04:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 12 2004, 04:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Thanks, Im quite aware change occurs throughout time. Your example of "bending traditions because we like to bend traditions" sounds a little silly. What kind of an example is that. Personally I never thought of riding a horse as traditional. We have developed other means of transportation, this has nothing to do with tradition. Marriage has existed for a long time, so have homosexuals. Why does it now have to become an issue. I don't recall to much attention 20 years ago or more about gay marriages. Why now? I don't see too many other countries or societies having this gay marriage debate. For many people words are more than just a word. If marriage is just a word, than why don't you create an alternative word. For some people this is a big deal, so why do you have to bother them? If you didn't read or understand my last 3 posts, I have clearly stated gay's should find an alternative form of union. Create something clearly of their own. A legal arrangment is fine, Im dealing more on a religious and traditional standpoint. You don't have to be catholic to be married. When did I state that? We are talking about the definition of marriage. Man and woman. Every religion and society can celebrate and do this differently according to custom. Marriage is not just catholic. Marriage is a man and woman though. End of story. Obviously these are my views and will not be changed.

Thanks, Im quite aware change occurs throughout time. Your example of "bending traditions because we like to bend traditions" sounds a little silly. What kind of an example is that.

It's not an example, it's a fact. It may sound silly to you but it's true.

Dowry exists heavily in Islamic society, as well many religious people do save themselves. Just because North American society has lost touch with tradition and such, doesn't mean other societies have. I don't see too many other countries or societies having this gay marriage debate.

We don't live in an Islamic society so I don't know what that has to do with anything.

I've run across a few "traditionalists" during this debate but I've yet to hear of one willing to admit that he's kept it in his pants in an effort to preserve the sanctity and tradition of marriage. Why is that? Tradition not good enough for you? Maybe the tradition and sanctity of the whole thing should only apply to other people?

Maybe it's time for some of you guys to put your money where your johnson is. Are you all for tradition and following all the old rules? Be a good boy, don't look don't touch, marry the gal your dad tells you to and pony up a few bucks to her dad, that kind of thing? I mean if you don't think we should break tradition then logically you would follow all the old rules wouldn't you?

It's obvious that you are quite fond of the phrase "end of story" but come on now, you know as well as I don that the story isn't over yet. [/b][/quote]
I'm not a traditionalist, I just don't believe gays should be married in churchs or at least catholic ones.

[fokakya]

Originally posted by Sammie@Dec 11 2004, 04:07 PM
If they want to pretend their relationship is a normal relationship, let them pretend. If they want to pretend to be married, go to a pretend church and pretend to be married. Just leave the majority of people, who believe there is a deeper spiritual relevance to marriage and life, out of this folly.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, almost every religious group takes exception to same-sex relationships. The point of marriage and very act of sex is to reproduce the species. The commitment to marriage also includes a commitment to raising children resulting from that relationship. The commitment to family and bringing up children under established norms is very important to most parents, unfortunately it's very existence is presently under attack by a certain small segment of society.

What kind of of society are we creating? Nobody seems to bother to think what will happen to a society when all its norms and values are destroyed and replaced to "please" the "rights" of every small minority in that society. Why are we throwing out the baby with the bath water just to please a minority of the gay community who want to be married?

Tell me. What's the point of life?

I cannot believe people as ignorant as you even exist.

"Pretend their relationship is NORMAL"?!?

Please define what the word "relationship" means to you. To me it means any connection/interaction between two people.

Now, please define what you mean by "normal". Damn! I can't believe that you consider yourself "normal" and obviously anyone that is different to be something other than normal.

And all this business about going to a pretend church?!? I'm assuming you are one of the many people who are confused about what a marriage is. Marriage has NOTHING to do with any church. You are right, churches and religions perform marriage ceremonies and according to some religions, you are not truly married unless you partake in one of these ceremonies. However, in our CIVIL society, a marriage is defined by CIVIL LAW.

[Reaper]

Originally posted by Sammie@Dec 11 2004, 05:07 PM
The point of marriage and very act of sex is to reproduce the species. The commitment to marriage also includes a commitment to raising children resulting from that relationship.

My Fiance and I fully intend to be childless. Who the hell are you to, in essence, tell us that our marriage will be pointless? We're getting married because we love each other and want to spend the rest of our lives together. THAT is the point of marriage.

[Flame On]

Well I'm not a roman catholic, so does that mean I can campaign for them to be banned! Geeze have many of you here heard of the seperation of church and state?! Frankly I don't care what the church has to say. If the majority of the people decide it's okay, that's all good. Or if the courts decide it goes against human rights or something; like slavery, then they decide. Frankly your opinion and any results of an expensive useless referendum (and by the way notice how Ralph can't do anything anymore without asking the people and sending out some surveys, some leader!) are meaningless if the law dictates something. You'll just have to vote against it with the Cons, which will help keep them out of office as all those easterners will correctly assume that they're concerned with an intolerant social policy.
And please stop using the word values with this issue. Tolerance, understanding, forgiveness, educating ones self etc are values and encouraged in religous texts. There really is very little to point to homosexuality as being a value one way or the other.

[CaramonLS]

Christanity preaches tolerance.

Look at you people. Make me sick in this thread.


MOD edit: Watch the language please.

[The Familia]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Dec 12 2004, 01:23 AM
Christanity preaches tolerance.

Look at you people.# Make me sick in this thread.

People like you make me sick. Explain to me the link between tolerance and marriage. As far as I know Christianity doesn't have a problem with homosexuals, and they are tolerated just like anyone else. They have a problem with the sacrament of marriage and what it entails. There is a major difference between tolerating gay people, and allowing them to get married. Why must they get married? Why can't they just stay in some common law bond or whatnot? This whole topic makes me sick.

MOD edit: Watch the language please.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by The Familia+Dec 12 2004, 01:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Familia @ Dec 12 2004, 01:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Dec 12 2004, 01:23 AM
Christanity preaches tolerance.

Look at you people.# Make me sick in this thread.

People like you make me sick. Explain to me the link between tolerance and marriage. As far as I know Christianity doesn't have a problem with homosexuals, and they are tolerated just like anyone else. They have a problem with the sacrament of marriage and what it entails. There is a major difference between tolerating gay people, and allowing them to get married. Why must they get married? Why can't they just stay in some common law bond or whatnot? This whole topic makes me sick.

MOD edit: Watch the language please. [/b][/quote]
There is a major difference between tolerating gay people, and allowing them to get married.

Further proof of keeping your children as far away from religion as possible if you want them to be sane.

[Thunderball]

So, being religious and having morals is suddenly grounds for insanity?? wow... dangerous ground some of you are treading on... please never become a politician with ideas like that.

Seriously though, I have yet to see a reason why there shouldn't be a referendum.

It was mentioned earlier that minorities need special treatment, but thats not the way democracy works... its rule of the majority, simple as that... if the majority wishes to grant special rights to minorities, great, then lets do so... if not... well, thats the lay of the land, like it or not. We can't have a select few making sweeping societal choices like this. We elect representatives to represent us in daily matters... when something important and controversial comes up, its up to the people to decide, not the goons we elect. Remember, politicians are not our leaders, they are our representatives... and this is an issue where 1 representative of 100000 give or take is not gonna cut it.

[Claeren]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Dec 12 2004, 03:25 AM
So, being religious and having morals is suddenly grounds for insanity?? wow... dangerous ground some of you are treading on... please never become a politician with ideas like that.

Seriously though, I have yet to see a reason why there shouldn't be a referendum.

It was mentioned earlier that minorities need special treatment, but thats not the way democracy works... its rule of the majority, simple as that... if the majority wishes to grant special rights to minorities, great, then lets do so... if not... well, thats the lay of the land, like it or not. We can't have a select few making sweeping societal choices like this. We elect representatives to represent us in daily matters... when something important and controversial comes up, its up to the people to decide, not the goons we elect. Remember, politicians are not our leaders, they are our representatives... and this is an issue where 1 representative of 100000 give or take is not gonna cut it.

Actually it is fundamentally the way democracy works. I cannot explain it to you here other then to say that perhaps you should invest some time in learning, from decently legitimate sources, about the history and intent behind not only democracy as a form but modern democratic tools like constitutions and charter rights. Minority rights in the face of a hostile majority is a PILLAR of democracy in Canada and around the world. Dictatorship, Communism, Authoritarianism, and many other subtle variations thereof all embrace or at least allow for the abuse of a minority by the majority. Democracy theoretically is the single exception, THAT is why it is supposed to be so good, not because it allows you to boss people around as long as there are less of them and more of you...



There was a story on a study about this topic in Saturdays Herald, from the U of L. It showed that the Christian right in Alberta is overwhelmingly the only group strongly against gay marriage. Buddhists and Jews are for it, Muslims and Christians against it, Hindus in the middle.

Old people are against it FAR more then young people and there is a DIRECT correlation with non-acceptance of gay rights and regular attendance at a Christian church, the more often you go to church the more likely you don’t support gay rights, with no variation at all from this rule.

Kind of ironic, the self described most 'holy' can be directly linked to the most hateful, exclusive, elitist, and/or prejudice views in Canada.

Nothing new though I guess….

Claeren.

[snappyk]

I really don't know why some churches think that being gay is evil. I play hockey with a lot of gay people both men and women, it's not a big deal that they are gay and I also don't think that it's a big deal that they want to get married. If 2 people are in love and want to get married they should be allowed regardless of their sexual preferences. I myself am not religious, never have been and never will be, I just don't think that it is right when a group tries to tell another one what in can and cannot do.