Remember when I was critisized?

[Cain]

CaptainCrunch: I won't quote because I hate the super long posts.

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.

Hardly. People are free to believe that something is wrong, or that they would never do it. That is fine...but when it is actively opposed, so that nobody can do it, they are the ones that are forcing their own beliefs upon others. Legalizing gay marriages does not make it mandatory for everyone. It does not deny anyone their opinion or belief.

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"

Again, they are free to believe it is wrong all they like. But by trying to make it illegal they are forcing everyone to adhere to what they believe. If it is legal, they can hate it all they like, and not participate, but they are not directly influenced by it. I am not judging whether they are right in the belief that gay marriage is wrong, I am judging that the denial of a marriage between two gay people is wrong because it essentially forces the belief that it is wrong upon everyone.

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?

They wouldn't be stupid if that was the opinion of the people. They are free to believe what they like. Should it be allowed anyway? Yep. Back when women couldn't vote, I bet you the majority thought that it should be that way. It changed anyway. Popular opinion does not necessarily dictate the best course of action.

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.

I agree with you. However, marriages occur outside of churches all the time. I am sure that gay couples would also be fine with this.

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.

I am not calling anyone a fanatic because I don't agree with them. You lost me there. I think that a fanatic is someone who is not willing to consider another viewpoint, and at all costs strive to push only their own.

The beliefs come from old scriptures, and therefore the government has no right to try to change them??? Wow, I have no idea where you are going. The government has no right to change a belief, sure. How old they are has nothing to do with it. However, the government is not changing anything by allowing a gay marriage to occur. People can go on believing whatever they like. And gay people can have the same privilege of getting married as the rest of us.

Sorry for the long post, I guess not using the quote button didn't really make it much shorter.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Dec 11 2004, 08:51 PM
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.

Emancipation of black slaves was challenged by several groups as well. so was women's liberation - because not everyone wanted it put into law. In fact, I would go out on a limb to suggest they were challenged even more than gay marriage is now, but I don't think anyone here would deny that we are better off with emancipation and women's lib.

[fokakya]

Well, since some of you insist on bringing up incest of all things as a defence for why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, let's look at it a little more deeply.

First off, the things that people fight for equal rights about are things that either 1) are fundamental to their way of life (i.e., religious practice and their freedom to choose whichever one they want) or 2) are not their choice and they therefore should not be segregated because of it (i.e., the colour of your skin).

Despite what any ignorant, ultra-conservative may think, homosexuality is NOT a choice. It is biologically determined. Period. You can try to argue that but you won't get far. Now, if it is not someone's choice whether or not they are homosexual or heterosexual, why the hell would we have any right discriminating against them in any way? Homosexual people are not fighting for the right to marriage because they want to shove their homosexuality down our throats or they want to impose their lifestyle upon us. They are fighting for it because they, and I, believe that they have every much the same right to legally declare their lifelong commitment to another person, and it should not matter what gender that person belongs to.

How would you like it if you fell in love with a black woman and wanted to marry her but the government told you that no, you are not allowed to commit yourself to that person because they are not what we have decreed as appropriate to marry. It is the same thing.

Now bringing up the incest thing reallymakes me wonder how these conservative minds work. Did allowing women the right to vote mean they took over the world and destroyed the men? No. Did allowing every ethnicity equal rights in Canada mean they destroyed what it means to be Canadian? Hell no! They defined what it means to be Canadian. Why on earth would allowing homosexuals to be married bring about ANYTHING else except homosexuals being married?

People may fight for other things, they are doing it already. Others have already pointed out that there are organizations fighting for the legalization of incest or animal lovin'. That doesn't mean that any of those things will ever be legalized.

And just on a side note, although incest may seem disgusting to many of us, it is actually quite prevalent around the world. It also partially depends on your definition, but there are many groups out there, be it, tribes, bands, or even monarchies that practice what is called endogamy. This means marrying within your own group. In many cases, it means marrying within your own family, specifically for the purpose of maintaining power. Now, it is not usually marrying your brother or sister, but more often involving cousins or slightly farther removed, but it would still be defined as incest. And for those of you (most of us in Canada) who come from western European heritage, there's a good chance that somewhere in your lineage, thousands of years ago when the population was much smaller, there was incest in your family. Sorry, but it's probably a fact.

So, get your proverbial heads out of your asses. Realize what the term equality really means and begin to understand that your conservative definition of what is "normal" is, most likely, so far from what is actually practiced around the world that many people would consider you not so "normal" yourself.

[fokakya]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Dec 11 2004, 02:17 PM

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.

What the supreme court has decided is precisely that they WILL NOT interfere with what any church decides about gay marriage. They have explicitly said that it would be a violation of the charter of rights if they were to try to dictate what a church should and should not do. There will be no battle.

A marriage is a legal thing, not a religious thing. Religions do also recognize and take part in the creation of marriages but it is the legal, signed document that consitutes a marriage.

If your church chooses not to have homosexual ceremonies, so be it. That has nothing to do with whether or not they can become married.

[duncan]

I'll wade into this debate, since I joined the other 50 or so posts we had on this topic. The theory on allowing gay marriage as it was proposed and discussed by the Supreme Court, was to allow civil ceremonies, not forcing any church, minister, or religious group to perform a wedding. The Law would not interfere with anyone's religious belief. It would be no different than the Catholic church refusing to marry me because I am not catholic, and have never completed any of their rites.
As far as the 'slippery slope' argument, there is no coellation between allowing gay marriage and any of the other disgusting acts. This is just the same fear-mongering historically used to argue against abolishing slavery, allowing women to vote, etc. The Human Rights Code protects people from discrimination based on certain grounds, one of which is sexual orientation, another being religion, and none of which is family worship or animal magnitism. Laws banning bestiality and incest do not contravene this Act, and allowing gay marriages would not allow those freaks to argue they are being discriminated against, since their complaints are not grounded.
Did allowing minorities and women to vote make little of an Anglo-saxon's vote? Did allowing a woman to go to medical school harm the world? Did allowing black people to sit at the front of the bus, eat in the same restaurant, drink from the same fountain or stay in the same hotel ruin society? No, but if they were allowed to do these things............

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by albertGQ@Dec 11 2004, 09:56 AM
http://www.canoe.ca/CalgarySun/editorial.html

Now that gay and lesbians have their right to marriage (which was not something a few years ago they wanted, just equal rights), it will not be long before a father will fight to marry his daughter, or someone will want to marry their pet, or maybe, multiple wives or husbands. Welcome to Liberal Canada!

Derek Mason

(The times they are a-changin'.)

I'm sorry, but does this prove anything besides the fact that their are people as closed minded and as simple as yourself?

We already knew that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Dec 11 2004, 02:17 PM
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

In other words Captain, you don't object to same-sex marriage.

The church (take your pick) has always been and always will be able to refuse to marry two people. It's not going to change.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Dec 11 2004, 12:14 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.

For the vast majority of cases, the Supreme Court of Canada has to agree to hear a case before you get to argue before them and tie them up.

IIRC, the only time you get to automatically go before them is if you were acquitted of a crime and then had that acquittal overturned on appeal.

So I wouldn't worry about the Supreme Court being tied up with complaints by incest fans any time soon.

[Faid1]

Luke Skywalker does not approve of your anti-incest ways.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Faid1@Dec 11 2004, 05:49 PM
Luke Skywalker does not approve of your anti-incest ways.

Ha ha