Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
St. Leo:

Your argument makes no sense. Look at the Brockie case and the Marc Hall case.

Your argument makes no sense: the Marc Hall case was special because his school received public funding and still the school told him he couldn't go to his prom with his boyfriend because he'd convert all of his classmates to "the homosexual lifestyle".

Unless a church is entirely funded by public money, I don't think there's a problem with that.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that churches will be protected if they disagree with marrying two people who are homosexual.

How about the fact that it's written in the law, which will be okayed by the Supreme Court first? Hello?

[Shi Huangdi]

"The religious nuts will insist same sex marriage is absolutely terrible (armageddon, etc.), while everyone else will insist the morons trying to keep gays as second-class citizens are the ones who would end up in hell (if it exists)."

Judge not lest ye be judged.

[Shi Huangdi]

obiwan:

While Asher hasn't been exactly tactful in stating his case, I am inclined to agree that the government should withdraw from the regulation and granting of licenses for marriage. There is nothing sacred about the government and no reason it needs to be involved in the process of marriage. Remember, obiwan, the secularists are becoming more and more in numbers. I think we should be cautioned against imposing morality and setting a standard that laws should be based on the moral beliefs of a group(except in cases where human life is at stake a la abortion), for such a standard won't be to our favor if faced with a secular majority.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Just because he does not single out homosexuals, does not mean that he says nothing.

You said it was your job to rebuke homosexual conduct because of your religion, i.e., Jesus, but you cannot quote Jesus to support your position. Now, Jesus gave us the Golden Rule, does homosexual conduct or marriage violate that rule? No. Does using the state to outlaw homosexual "marriage" violate that rule? Yes. I certainly don't want homosexuals outlawing marriage for me...

Jesus edifies marriage as a union between a man and a woman here:

Matthew 19:4-5

"Haven't you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not seperate."

Jesus was talking about divorce law, the issue he was confronted with. That was not a rebuke of homosexuality or an endorsement from Jesus of using the state to forbid homosexuals from marrying.

So you are in favour of changing the definition to allow incestuous relationships and for polygamy?

That wouldn't be changing the definition, incest and polygamy have been and still are practiced in many places and have been for eons. But yes, of course. I have no mandate from the Creator to decide who can or cannot marry...

Yes, for the same reason.

Oh c'mon, a law that says only homosexuals can marry and not heterosexuals doesn't discriminate against heterosexuals?

Marriage requires the recognition of the state.

Where did Jesus say that?

[Nacht]

Originally posted by Asher
An unmarried 21-year old male can't rent a car. If he's married, he can.

What a ridiculious rule. I feel discriminated. I mean, I would have felt discriminated against ten years ago. What has marriage to do with car driving abilities?

Too bad the internet didn't exist 80 years ago. I would love to see all the Obiwan cs. arguing against women attending university, women working ('this will destroy the family'), or even better: internet 400 years ago, watching the threads about Copernicus.

Yes religion...

[Berzerker]

Shi -

Remember, obiwan, the secularists are becoming more and more in numbers. I think we should be cautioned against imposing morality and setting a standard that laws should be based on the moral beliefs of a group(except in cases where human life is at stake a la abortion), for such a standard won't be to our favor if faced with a secular majority.

Religious folk refraining from using the state to impose their morality on others won't stop secularists from using the state to impose their morality on others.

[Asher]

What if the secularists believe the state shouldn't dictate rules about who you should love?

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Shi -

Religious folk refraining from using the state to impose their morality on others won't stop secularists from using the state to impose their morality on others.

Well, I would think it'd be a better idea to change focus from trying to ensure the primacy of our own belief systems, to encourage the tolerance and acceptance of all belief systems as much as possible, so that Christians can have tolerance if they should ever become a minority.

[Berzerker]

I agree, they'd certainly have the moral high ground over the secularists if they never began using the state as the vehicle for violently spreading their morality. But they have for centuries, so it's a bit late for many Christians to argue against the secularist desire to use the state to impose secular morality on Christians. Only those Christians who "live and let live" can make that argument...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Well, I would think it'd be a better idea to change focus from trying to ensure the primacy of our own belief systems, to encourage the tolerance and acceptance of all belief systems as much as possible, so that Christians can have tolerance if they should ever become a minority.

That, right there, is a large part of what Canada is supposed to be about.

Oh, btw, Berz, Canada was/is a heavily Christian country that has adopted multi-culturalism and tolerance. I guess most Canadian Christians would qualify to be able to use the argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher

What about the Brockie case? Please show me where the Marc Hall case makes the distinction between publicly funded catholic schools.

Berzerker

You said it was your job to rebuke homosexual conduct because of your religion, i.e., Jesus, but you cannot quote Jesus to support your position.

Jesus argues in the positive. Rather than saying, 'don't do this,' he says, 'do this.'

My example shows how Jesus affirms the traditional definition of marriage. Paul goes into a bit more detail throughout his books showing the application of Jesus' general principle.

Please show me how homosexual conduct abides by the standard Jesus affirms?

Oh c'mon, a law that says only homosexuals can marry and not heterosexuals doesn't discriminate against heterosexuals?

Nope. Our identity is not defined by our sexual preferences.

Where did Jesus say that?

Add disclaimer, marriage by law, to the statement.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would love to see all the Obiwan cs. arguing against women attending university, women working ('this will destroy the family'), or even better: internet 400 years ago, watching the threads about Copernicus.

Fear my attack.

[Shi Huangdi]

"St. Leo

What about the Brockie case? Please show me where the Marc Hall case makes the distinction between publicly funded catholic schools."

IF they ever did decide to try forcing religions to marry gay couples, quite a few would refuse, and Canada would be de facto banning certain religions. I hope Canada doesn't choose to go down that route.

[Ben Kenobi]

Remember, obiwan, the secularists are becoming more and more in numbers.

So? This way they will have to work to change the law. If the law has the support of the majority it will be changed. If this happens, the religious authorities then can try to seperate as much as possible from the civil authorities. Religious people could turn in their marriage licenses in protest.

It's already starting to happen here in Canada. Just you watch.

I hope Canada doesn't choose to go down that route.

I hope so too.

[Asher]

It's already starting to happen here in Canada. Just you watch.

Oh the poor victimized tyrant Christians, whatever shall we do?

First the blacks wanted to be freed of slavery, then the women wanted to vote, and now the f*cking f*ggots want to marry too.

The world is going to sh*t!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

, and now the f*cking f*ggots want to marry too.

Eloquence.

[Ben Kenobi]

Edit:


Agathon, that's better than what I posted.

[DinoDoc]

You should see him in the anti-MS threads if you want to see Asher at his comedic best. He has the most material to work with in those threads though.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You should see him in the anti-MS threads if you want to see Asher at his comedic best. He has the most material to work with in those threads though.

That's true, his arguments on that topic made me laugh more than once.

But I agree with him on this one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

Sorry, missed the post:

So tell the government to f*ck off WRT marriage altogether.

Gladly, but as it stands, the state wants to be involved.

If the government is going to be involved with marriage, you cannot discriminate against gay couples. Deal with that.

Like we have a choice to tell off the government. If the government wants to be involved, they will make the rules. It's a ruling based on power, not legitimacy.

It infringes on zero of your rights, it helps a minority which is just now finally getting equal rights under the law.

Good that they are treated equally as persons.
It still does not mean they should be married, by the law as it stands.

What rights do you lose by allowing gay marriage?

None. You do not base a right on what it takes away from other people. You base a right on inherent qualities. Try a different argument, why do homosexuals have the right to marry? Where does this come from?

Gays are incapable of this, how?

By definition, men and women only. Love can take many forms, like my grandmother example that need not lead to marriage. Marriage has more purpose than love, which is why people don't marry grandmothers.

First of all, common law relationships certainly do not entail the same rights as marriage right now. Have you tried to rent a car lately? An unmarried 21-year old male can't rent a car. If he's married, he can. Civil unions don't count. If he's unmarried and under 25, he's forced to pay insane insurance on it. Many insurance policies (like mine) explicitly have clauses in there discussing marriage as a condition for many things, including insurance rates.

So fine the insurance company for discrimination.

The reason they do so is because people who are married are less likely to default on car payments. No discriminatory intent, but mere profit.

Thanks for the inadvertant supporting point for marriage being more stable.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
None. You do not base a right on what it takes away from other people. You base a right on inherent qualities.

Why don't you read what you write, then think really hard...

So, why do homosexuals have the right to marry? Better question, why don't homosexuals have the right to marry?

If you make a religious reference, go directly to jail (do not pass go).

By definition, men and women only.

By definition by who?

If you make a religious reference, go directly to jail (do not pass go).

So fine the insurance company for discrimination.

They're well within their right, it's been held up before.

Thanks for the inadvertant supporting point for marriage being more stable.

More stable than what?

People who are married (OR in civil unions, whatever) are far more likely to be more mature. They've settled down, started a life. That's not what's up for contention in this thread, and you're not fooling anyone aside from yourself by trying to steer the thread into that direction.

[History Guy]

I've always thought that marriage was born out of the ancient urge to "be fruitful and multiply", to reproduce. And so it is. That is the basis of heterosexual love and marriage, it produces babies. Heterosexual marriage and sex isn't just a rather pleasant thing, you see, it actually has a purpose.

[Asher]

Circular logic is fun for the whole family.

[Jon Miller]

there are some really ****ed up straights

there are some really nice gays

I think it is better for some gays to raise children than for some straights

=========

being in a stable monagomous relationship allows you to get the most out of the relationship (and for society)

the social construct of marriage supports stable monogomous relationships

gays should have the benefit of that social construct

Jon Miller
in fact, I would support laws strengthening marriage at the same time I would allow homosexuals to marry

[History Guy]

As you like it, but note that while heterosexual love actually does something, homosexual love just hurts.

[Asher]

I don't know, I think your "heterosexual love" is the one that's hurtful. You're just too ignorant to understand how much.

Which really doesn't surprise me, given the kinds of budding intellectuals that people against gay rights are.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by History Guy
As you like it, but note that while heterosexual love actually does something, homosexual love just hurts.

How would you know? Do you have anything you'd like to confess?

[History Guy]

My word. That's an incredibly brilliant statement. Congratulations.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by History Guy
As you like it, but note that while heterosexual love actually does something, homosexual love just hurts.

Are you a homosexual? If not, then you have no idea what you are talking about now, do ya?

It only hurts the first time. After that, it's quite fun.

[Asher]

Originally posted by History Guy
As you like it, but note that while heterosexual love actually does something, homosexual love just hurts.

To elaborate:

You probably just don't understand anything about it.

Do you know what it's like to grow up in a society, surrounded by family and friends, when everyone assumes you're straight?
Do you know what it's like to be absolutely paranoid about people finding out about you?
Do you know what it's like to fear being disowned because of something you are?
Do you know what it's like to tell your parents that you've lied to them for 19 years?
Do you know what it's like to tell your parents that they won't have grandkids?
Do you know what it's like to go to school in such a hostile environment where people use your sexuality as an insult and know of no other gay people in the entire school?
Do you know what it's like to feel like a freak?
Do you know what it's like to never hold hands with your significant other in public? Never kiss in public?

You don't know what it's like.

So before you brand homosexual love as "hurtful", look very hard at our society which is based around "heterosexual love". Then decide which one is hurtful.

Edit: And now I look like an ass because I misread that comment. I'll leave this post anyway for fun.