Canada government: We will legalize gay marriage.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

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.

Sick sick sick....

Someone once suggested to me that gay men should receive longer prison sentences than straights since part of the punishment of prison was being raped in the showers and gay people would find this less traumatic than straights.

Takes all sorts...

[History Guy]

For heaven's sake...

One hears enough to have one's suspicions confirmed.

Man and woman fits. It makes sense. It is natural.

[Asher]

Man and man fits, too.

Actually it's pretty remarkable where the prostate is positioned, like God wanted men to have sex with men.

And to think you will never know the joy, aside from feeling embarassed from liking your prostate exam too much.

[Asher]

My word.

For heaven's sake...

You mustn't be a day younger than 50?

[Ben Kenobi]

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

*buzz

No negative rights....

You are the iconoclast, it's up to you to say why we should recognise gay unions to be marriage.

Perhaps we have more fruit in the question of why should anybody be married at all? What are the purposes of marriage?

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
You are the iconoclast, it's up to you to say why we should recognise gay unions to be marriage.

Because gay couples are entitled to the same rights as straight couples.

And if you believe otherwise, you should crawl back to the mennonite colony.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Asher

Because gay couples are entitled to the same rights as straight couples.

And if you believe otherwise, you should crawl back to the mennonite colony.

AS much as you hate his beliefs, as least recognize he has maintained decorum. Now you are going too far.

[Asher]

What, he's from a mennonite colony.

It's not too far, a Greyhound would get him there cheap.

[Asher]

The decorum is only a facade, in reality he's sitting high atop a treehouse talking down to me telling me I can't come into his straights-only club because I have cooties.

He can be polite all he wants, it's still grossly insulting.

[Asher]

And for the record, I do have tact when it's called for.

In other cases, particularly with religion of any sort, it's better to vent rather than try to convert someone's brainwashed mind.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because gay couples are entitled to the same rights as straight couples.

Why are they entitled? That doesn't answer the question.

As for living in a mennonite colony,

Look at my location sig, sherlock.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Why are they entitled? That doesn't answer the question.

Why are blacks entitled to marry????

Why are whites entitled to marry????

Why are men with 11 toes entitled to marry????

Why are castrated men entitled to marry????

Why are men with two-inch penises entitled to marry????

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by obiwan18


*buzz

No negative rights....

You are the iconoclast, it's up to you to say why we should recognise gay unions to be marriage.

Perhaps we have more fruit in the question of why should anybody be married at all? What are the purposes of marriage?

see my post

marriage is monogomous supporting relationship between people in love (at elast thta is what it is meant to be)

such relationships are good for gays as well as straights

I woudl maintain that gays are already getting married, they jsut don't have teh social support that straights do

they should get that social support

Jon Miller

[Asher]

Originally posted by Asher
The decorum is only a facade, in reality he's sitting high atop a treehouse talking down to me telling me I can't come into his straights-only club because I have cooties.

"Why should I let you in?"
"Why can't I come in?"
"That's not the question, why are you entitled to come in?"
"Why not?"
"Because our Lord and Savior Jimmy Chickenshack says you have cooties, that's why! You'll devalue the whole neighborhood of treehouses if we let you up!"

[Ben Kenobi]

Why are blacks entitled to marry????

Why are whites entitled to marry????

Why are men with 11 toes entitled to marry????

Why are castrated men entitled to marry????

Why are men with two-inch penises entitled to marry????

One of the purposes of marriage provides a stable environment to have and to raise children.

Leaving out castrated men, which I'll get back to, none of these categories should affect this purpose of marriage. Anyone in a homosexual union would have to rely upon adoption to begin a family.

Now castration presents an obvious problem for this perspective for two reasons:

1. Not a natural process that leaves you infertile,
2. It can be voluntary, though why someone planning to marry gets castrated makes little sense to me.

Generally any culture that has eunuchs does not allow them to marry.

Fortunately, for Canada, we do not allow castration, so this will not be a problem here.

[Berzerker]

NYE -

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.

Hardly, the left's idea of "tolerance" is "do what we say is moral or get hurt".

Obiwan -

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

He argues both, as his comments on "hypocrites" and public prayer show. "Don't do this, do this"...

My example shows how Jesus affirms the traditional definition of marriage.

He makes NO mention of the state nor does he comment on whom the state should allow to marry, only that certain criterion should be used for divorce (and he even changes what he said by allowing for divorce after saying man should not separate what God brought together). It was traditional to execute people for adultery, but Jesus defended an adulteress from punishment. You're taking what Jesus did say and adding your own position to his comments...

Paul goes into a bit more detail throughout his books showing the application of Jesus' general principle.

Paul is not Jesus.

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

Homosexual conduct does not violate the Golden Rule, prohibiting homosexuals from marrying does.

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

That's nice, but irrelevant. We are not debating what defines you, we are debating whether or not treating people differently wrt to the law is discrimination. Now, if the state said only homosexuals can be Christians and go to church, wouldn't that discriminate against Christian heterosexuals? I don't know how you can deny this...

Add disclaimer, marriage by law, to the statement.

You didn't answer my question, where did Jesus say the state must (or can) decide who can marry whom?

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

But you expressed support for the law and state involvement, so why would you be glad to get the state out of marriages?

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

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

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

But one must first determine if a proposed right takes something away from others before the proposed right can be validated.

Try a different argument, why do homosexuals have the right to marry? Where does this come from?

The same place every other person's right to marry comes from, the freedom of association.

I'm still trying to turn you into a libertarian Christian, Obiwan...

[Ben Kenobi]

Jon Miller:

marriage is monogomous supporting relationship between people in love (at elast thta is what it is meant to be)

Why monogamous? I agree that love can be one aspect, but there are other reasons why you marry someone.

[Ben Kenobi]

Berzerker:

He makes NO mention of the state nor does he comment on whom the state should allow to marry,

That's a different point than the one we were arguing that Jesus says nothing about homosexual conduct.

Jesus does not care about the state in this argument, even for divorce, he just tries to explain why Moses allowed divorce, if divorce falls short of God's ideal.

but Jesus defended an adulteress from punishment.

They had no evidence to incriminate her, yet they sought to stone her. That's why Jesus intervened.

Paul is not Jesus

No, but he is an Apostle from Christ.

Homosexual conduct does not violate the Golden Rule, prohibiting homosexuals from marrying does.

It violates the first part, love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind. If you love God, you will obey his commandments.

Prohibiting homosexuals abides by loving my neighbour as I love myself. I would ask the same if anyone saw me sinning.

we are debating whether or not treating people differently wrt to the law is discrimination.

I'm seperating the conduct from the person while you assume the conduct cannot be seperated from the person. The law does discriminate against all kinds of conduct based on this reasoning.

But you expressed support for the law and state involvement, so why would you be glad to get the state out of marriages?

The state does not see marriage as outside of its jurisdiction, but within, in that they can alter marriage as it chooses. That's why I want to get marriage out, so that the government recognises, that they don't have the power to change what marriage means.

Under a proper government, they would respect the institution of marriage and we would not be having the problems we are having now.

The same place every other person's right to marry comes from, the freedom of association.

Marriage predates freedom of association.

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

How does not allowing homosexuals to marry seriously curtail their freedoms here in Canada?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by obiwan18
They had no evidence to incriminate her, yet they sought to stone her. That's why Jesus intervened.

Where does it say that there was no evidence, or that Jesus only intervened for that reason?

It violates the first part, love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind. If you love God, you will obey his commandments.

Prohibiting homosexuals abides by loving my neighbour as I love myself. I would ask the same if anyone saw me sinning.

If the state prohibits homosexuals, it's a whole different category from, for example, a church refusing to perform such a ceremony, or refusing to acknowledge such a relationship.

The state does not see marriage as outside of its jurisdiction, but within, in that they can alter marriage as it chooses. That's why I want to get marriage out, so that the government recognises, that they don't have the power to change what marriage means.

Civil marriage predates the Christian faith, and also has a long history in Christianity prior to marriage becoming a sacrament.

Under a proper government, they would respect the institution of marriage and we would not be having the problems we are having now.

There are different institutions of marriage - one founded in civil law, one in ecclesiastical law. AFAIK, ecclesiastical law does not get into property issues, survability of benefits, and a number of marriage related civil-law issues. The scope of the two institutions overlaps, but it is not identical.

How does not allowing homosexuals to marry seriously curtail their freedoms here in Canada?

It depends on property rights, etc. What's your legal structure regarding property rights and heritability, joint tenancy, etc. in Canada?

[Ben Kenobi]

MtG

Sorry if this post takes up a bit of space.

John 8:1-11

"But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go
now and leave your life of sin."

One cannot sin alone in adultery, the man is just as guilty as the woman. For them to only bring the woman was a trap, since they had provided for the man to avoid punishment.

You can see this in Lev. 20:10, etc.

For the woman to be stoned, required the testimony of someone who had seen the act, not just two people caught in a compromising situation. This is what I meant by they had insufficient evidence since none rose to Christ's challenge.

Anyway, we are off the point I should have made, that Jesus' intervention does not represent him condoning adultery.

Civil marriage predates the Christian faith, and also has a long history in Christianity prior to marriage becoming a sacrament.

Good point. Why did they institute civil marriage? Can we make an educated guess?

It depends on property rights, etc. What's your legal structure regarding property rights and heritability, joint tenancy, etc. in Canada?

I don't think there are big differences between common law and marriage from a financial standpoint. I know that tax wise there is no difference.

[MichaeltheGreat]

In the US, there are substantial differences (actually, adverse to marriage, the so-called marriage penalty) in Federal income tax, but there's also generally huge differences in property rights.

Many states (including California) are not common law states, and the statutory differences (especially as California is also a community property state) are pretty huge.

My point with civil marriage isn't to second guess every society that has developed the institution, it's that the secular creation of civil law has only minimal relationship to the sacrament & the institution of marriage in ecclesiastical law.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

That's a different point than the one we were arguing that Jesus says nothing about homosexual conduct.

But you want the state to be involved legislatively, and this is based on your religion. So both points are relevant... What Jesus said matters, and he neither condemned homosexuals nor demanded his followers to "vote" in the current state or create their own to decide who could "marry" whom...

Jesus does not care about the state in this argument, even for divorce, he just tries to explain why Moses allowed divorce, if divorce falls short of God's ideal.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!! He didn't care about the state...period. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's. He was, at a minimum, advocating a separation of church and state over 1700 years before Jefferson... His message was for each of us to act upon individually, not as a collective.

They had no evidence to incriminate her, yet they sought to stone her. That's why Jesus intervened.

He didn't really intervene, he was asked a question and he responded (I'm nitpicking, but I find his behavior very interesting). But there is no doubt (shouldn't be, anyway), from a Christian's POV, that the woman was guilty as charged. Jesus said he wouldn't condemn her and added, "sin no more". Also, when he said to the crowd, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", that only makes sense if the woman was guilty. If she wasn't guilty, Jesus would have been saying it was okay to stone the innocent if you're also innocent (or "sinless").

No, but he is an Apostle from Christ.

Didn't one of them betray Jesus?

Actually, he wasn't one of the apostles, we have only his word that he saw a resurrected Jesus in a "vision" on the way to Damascus to persecute more Christians.

It violates the first part, love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind. If you love God, you will obey his commandments.

The Golden Rule says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", nothing about God. You're thinking of the response Jesus gave when asked what the commandments were. So, did Jesus (the Christian God) command people to be heterosexual? And if he did, and he created us, what happens if it turns out that some homosexuals were literally born that way? Wouldn't that be kind of cruel? Hell, that would be cruel if homosexuality was induced by environment at an early age.

Prohibiting homosexuals abides by loving my neighbour as I love myself. I would ask the same if anyone saw me sinning.

But you're assuming it is a sin, and now you're assuming that prohibiting it abides by anyone's love. If homosexuals somehow won control of the government and announced that no opposite sex marriage will be allowed, they'd be treating you just as you're treating them, true? Would you pat them on the back for treating you that way?

I'm seperating the conduct from the person while you assume the conduct cannot be seperated from the person. The law does discriminate against all kinds of conduct based on this reasoning.

That's like saying heterosexuals should never get married because conduct should be separated from sexual preference.
As for the law discriminating, a law against murder discriminates against murderers, but the law doesn't say only heterosexuals can murder.

The state does not see marriage as outside of its jurisdiction, but within, in that they can alter marriage as it chooses. That's why I want to get marriage out, so that the government recognises, that they don't have the power to change what marriage means. Under a proper government, they would respect the institution of marriage and we would not be having the problems we are having now.

I agreed with you up till "proper government". But, the problems with what?

Marriage predates freedom of association.

Really, did not Adam and Eve freely associate before they were married? If they didn't, did someone force them get married? Hmm...maybe it was the first shotgun wedding and God was the Father holding the gun.

How does not allowing homosexuals to marry seriously curtail their freedoms here in Canada?

Umm...by "curtailing" them to marry. If someone was doing that to me, I'd sure consider that a violation of my freedom.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

One cannot sin alone in adultery, the man is just as guilty as the woman. For them to only bring the woman was a trap, since they had provided for the man to avoid punishment.

You can see this in Lev. 20:10, etc.

For the woman to be stoned, required the testimony of someone who had seen the act, not just two people caught in a compromising situation. This is what I meant by they had insufficient evidence since none rose to Christ's challenge.

Yes, they were there to "trap" or test him, but there is no evidence the man was not going to be punished (or hadn't been), besides, if she was the married one and he was single, he wouldn't have been guilty of adultery (I think). Furthermore, Jesus' response had nothing to do with the validity of the evidence, only whether or not sinners have the moral authority to punish/execute other sinners. And if you were right, why did he challenge the crowd to look inside at themselves if Jesus actually supported executing adulterers? He should have told them to go find the evidence, the man and execute him too.

Anyway, we are off the point I should have made, that Jesus' intervention does not represent him condoning adultery.

But he was defending an adulteress from punishment even though she was guilty.

[Ben Kenobi]

He didn't care about the state...period.

I don't want to go further afield, but he does talk about respecting civil authority. Just this point, I don't think he's talking about the state in this passage, though he does in others.

Actually, he wasn't one of the apostles, we have only his word that he saw a resurrected Jesus in a "vision" on the way to Damascus to persecute more Christians.

Why else would one suffer and die a Christian, than remain a prosperous Pharisee? It makes no sense unless Paul has told the truth.

Secondly, if you've read the passage, he had other witnesses with him, and met another Christian who expected to meet Paul before Paul arrived, to talk about his experience.

If homosexuals somehow won control of the government and announced that no opposite sex marriage will be allowed, they'd be treating you just as you're treating them, true?

Clever, but your example does not work.
Would the homosexuals want to treat me the same way I treated them?

some homosexuals were literally born that way? Wouldn't that be kind of cruel? Hell, that would be cruel if homosexuality was induced by environment at an early age.

What about a disability? Does that make God unjust? No. God gives some people more and others less, though it works out because we are not gauged on how we do compared to other people, but on how well we do with what we have.

That's like saying heterosexuals should never get married because conduct should be separated from sexual preference.

There is nothing barring a homosexual person from marrying someone of the opposite sex, so the law does not discriminate based on the person, but on the conduct.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

he does talk about respecting civil authority

That would be strange given the civil authority executed him. But where does he endorse the state?

Why else would one suffer and die a Christian, than remain a prosperous Pharisee? It makes no sense unless Paul has told the truth.

He had an episode, you know, hallucination, and his conscience got to him. Or maybe he hit his head...why does anyone do something that appears to be off the wall? Maybe he told the truth, the question is whether or not Paul's teachings violate the word of Jesus, and I believe the answer is yes. Remember, Paul got chased out of Jerusalem by the early Church's founders for some financial shenigan, but Paul spins that too.

Secondly, if you've read the passage, he had other witnesses with him, and met another Christian who expected to meet Paul before Paul arrived, to talk about his experience.

According to Paul and Paul alone. Hey, I was on the road to Damascus yesterday with some people and "we" heard a voice.

Clever, but your example does not work.
Would the homosexuals want to treat me the same way I treated them?

Why doesn't it work? I doubt it, they'd probably let you marry even though you refused them the same freedom. But who knows? Some people hold grudges...

What about a disability? Does that make God unjust?

If God created us and we're not just a consequence of celestial mechanics and evolution instigated by a creator, I fail to see the justice in being born a cripple.

No. God gives some people more and others less, though it works out because we are not gauged on how we do compared to other people, but on how well we do with what we have.

So God doesn't want people with disabilities to marry too?

There is nothing barring a homosexual person from marrying someone of the opposite sex, so the law does not discriminate based on the person, but on the conduct.

Sure it discriminates based on the person. A man marries a woman; a man marries a man. Both marry, so the only difference is the identity of the person accepting the proposal.

[Berzerker]

Btw Obiwan, I may be wrong, but does Paul/Saul even appear in the gospels? Check the passage where Paul is introduced to the new flock of disciples and they are scared because none of them can vouch for him. Barnabas re-assures them, not based on what he knows to be true, but what he accepts as true from Paul and his story about the road to Damascus. It's kind of strange how we have these 4 gospels and then Paul basicly hi-jacks the Bible...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
NYE -

Hardly, the left's idea of "tolerance" is "do what we say is moral or get hurt".

No, that sounds like Ontario, or Ottawa.

In Canada, even much of the right is in favour of tolerance and a multi-cultural society. Surprise, surprise. It's a good idea we believe, from left and right.

Where we differ is on fiscal policy. The left wants more taxation and an entrenchment of big government, the right wants less taxation and less government.

There is the religious element, which tends to veer right (less government doing radical things, you understand) but not all rightists are religious. Dog, poodle, that sort of thing.

We all want our courts to do the right thing. Even if we want to maintain the right of our premeir to be a tw@t and the troglodytes among us to have effective representaion.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
In the US, there are substantial differences (actually, adverse to marriage, the so-called marriage penalty) in Federal income tax, but there's also generally huge differences in property rights.

There are very big differences in Cananda too, depending on jurisdiction, for common law vs married vis-a-vis property rights. Not sure about taxation, I doubt it.

[Berzerker]

NYE -

Where we differ is on fiscal policy. The left wants more taxation and an entrenchment of big government, the right wants less taxation and less government.

Yes, the tolerance of forcing people to hand over even more of their money to pay for future intrusions into their lives.

[notyoueither]

So, you'd be all for tolerance and low taxation? Sounds like you'd like the Tories.

[Ben Kenobi]

That would be strange given the civil authority executed him. But where does he endorse the state?

Why strange for Christ to forgive those who execute him?

The passage I'm thinking of is from Romans 13:6
You really should read Romans carefully, it's one of the most important books in the entire Bible.

What Christ said is that give to Caesar what is Caesar's, as you already alluded to. On matters of civil authority, Christians should respect the state. They also have a duty to serve God, and the tension between the two comes forth in civil disobedience.
Duty to God should always be highest, but there are usually effective means within the system to evoke change.

He had an episode, you know, hallucination, and his conscience got to him.

That does not deal with the problem of Ananias. Ananias testified in Acts 9:11 that God spoke to him and told him to meet Saul of Tarsus, confirming his appearance.

Ananias even expresses doubt that Saul would be called, as a persecuter of Christians.

Remember, Paul got chased out of Jerusalem by the early Church's founders for some financial shenigan, but Paul spins that too.

Where? I don't know what you allude to.

If God created us and we're not just a consequence of celestial mechanics and evolution instigated by a creator, I fail to see the justice in being born a cripple.

We all end up in the same place when were done, before God. Some of us have more challenges than others.

Sure it discriminates based on the person. A man marries a woman; a man marries a man. Both marry, so the only difference is the identity of the person accepting the proposal.

Nothing to do with the preferences, just the gender? If so they should file a complaint under gender, not sexual orientation.

Check the passage where Paul is introduced to the new flock of disciples and they are scared because none of them can vouch for him.

A man shows up on your door who has been killing your supporters, what would your response be? Open arms, if he comes in peace? Of course they are going to be initially frightened until they get independent confirmation of his testimony.

Look at it this way, why would the other apostles accept Saul after he had tried to kill them. That must have been quite a meeting!