[ZTWsquared]

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 23 2006, 10:17 PM Wrote:To be honest, I will put my faith ahead of the political agenda of this country.

I have nothing against homosexuals.  I believe they should have all of the same civil liberties and advantages ATM as normal heterosexuals and rightly deserve so as human beings.
[right][snapback]176672[/snapback][/right]

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:58 AM Wrote:That's why I won't support homosexual marriage.[right][snapback]176723[/snapback][/right]

Just curious, but aren’t these statements contradictory? Not that it matters, because it really is irrelevant to the discussion; and I mean no offense by that.

My point is that there are as many opinions on this subject as there are people in this country. Some are based on religious faith, some on logic, some on emotion or personal circumstance – countless reasons for countless opinions.

Fortunately for most of us, religious faith is not a criteria for determining civil rights in most civilized countries around the world. Nor should it be.

As much as you may personally disagree, human and civil rights are more fundamental than religious faith. It starts with the cornerstone that all humans are equal, and builds its way through society and law from there. These rights provide you with the freedom to practice your faith, but your right to do so does not entitle you to deny the human and civil rights of others. And it is not a matter to be decided by popular election or plebiscite.

That’s why I think we’ve got it pretty good in this country; with a non-elected judiciary that has IMO successfully waded through popular opinion, so-called community standards and faith-based arguments, to come to the rightful conclusion that sexual orientation is not a valid reason to deny someone access to the civil institution of marriage.

Your faith may very well be the basis of your opinion … but neither has any standing with respect to the rights of others.

[Oscar The Grouch]

Let me put it this way. Civil Union is basically the same as marriage in the eyes of the law. Taxes, ownership, etc etc. So why the need for gays to be considered "married"?

Therefore, if gays have access to civil union, they are equal under the eyes of the law.

I have no problem with gay civil union. I will however not consider homosexuals to be "married" as I believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.

Clear enough?

Edit: Wikipedia Link to good info.

Link

[darkpuppet]

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 02:49 PM Wrote:Let me put it this way.  Civil Union is basically the same as marriage in the eyes of the law.  Taxes, ownership, etc etc.  So why the need for gays to be considered "married"?

Therefore, if gays have access to civil union, they are equal under the eyes of the law.

I have no problem with gay civil union.  I will however not consider homosexuals to be "married" as I believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.

Clear enough?
[right][snapback]176801[/snapback][/right]

probably the same reason you wouldn't accept a civil union in lieu of straight marriage.

you're still drawing that line...

I'm fine with you sticking to your guns on that singular religious definition of marriage. It's about the only thing the church has that distinguishes marriage in the church vs marriage in non-sectarian society.

But given the evolution of society, don't be surprised when the church (and some already have) start evolving with the rest of society.

If religion is worried about why people are turning less and less to the church, they may want to take a look at their failure to adapt and how it alienates their followers.

People don't need to feel damned if they don't agree with a belief. People need to start living good lives looking out for their fellow man.

[Oscar The Grouch]

darkpuppet,Mar 24 2006, 03:59 PM Wrote:probably the same reason you wouldn't accept a civil union in lieu of straight marriage.

you're still drawing that line...

I'm fine with you sticking to your guns on that singular religious definition of marriage.  It's about the only thing the church has that distinguishes marriage in the church vs marriage in non-sectarian society.

But given the evolution of society, don't be surprised when the church (and some already have) start evolving with the rest of society.

If religion is worried about why people are turning less and less to the church, they may want to take a look at their failure to adapt and how it alienates their followers.

People don't need to feel damned if they don't agree with a belief.  People need to start living good lives looking out for their fellow man.
[right][snapback]176802[/snapback][/right]

Well, you're kinda right in the straight civil union thing. Marriage I still think should involve a celebration of a person's faith and their union should be blessed by their faith in (insert diety here).

As for people leading good lives looking out of their fellow man, religious people do that all the time even though the people they help are of different faith or have no faith at all.

My point is that homosexual marriage crosses the line from civil union to faith based union aka marriage.

[darkpuppet]

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 03:10 PM Wrote:Well, you're kinda right in the straight civil union thing.  Marriage I still think should involve a celebration of a person's faith and their union should be blessed by their faith in (insert diety here).

As for people leading good lives looking out of their fellow man, religious people do that all the time even though the people they help are of different faith or have no faith at all.

My point is that homosexual marriage crosses the line from civil union to faith based union aka marriage.
[right][snapback]176805[/snapback][/right]

but marriage is not just a religious union. It's something that's been around a lot longer than religion.

[Oscar The Grouch]

Was there law before religion? If so what was marriage based upon.

As many people know, our laws are based mostly upon religion.

If there were no laws or religion, why the hell would we have marriage?

People would just rape and pillage everything. We'd be just like the animals. The only reason that we are different is that we have religion and laws.

[darkpuppet]

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 03:53 PM Wrote:Was there law before religion?  If so what was marriage based upon.

As many people know, our laws are based mostly upon religion.

If there were no laws or religion, why the hell would we have marriage?

People would just rape and pillage everything.  We'd be just like the animals.  The only reason that we are different is that we have religion and laws.
[right][snapback]176808[/snapback][/right]

it gets pretty muddy... you can assume, I guess that religion has been around longer than law, that people made rules based on belief systems before they made rules based soley on the societal needs, but societal needs usually dictated that belief structure.

In this case, your definition of the institution of marriage was defined after 0BC and before 30 AD., but wasn't enforced as a relious rule until about 100AD, and then not written into law until a much later date.

But marriage itself has been in societal laws since at least 3000BC, and up until the catholic definition took hold, homosexuality wasn't forbidden, and in some cases even encouraged.

But homosexuality was forbidden because it was seen as immoral, and hence written into law... as I've mentioned, it keeps changing depending on societal needs.

Nowadays, science has shown that homosexuality is very much a part of nature, and society is starting to change it's laws to prevent discrimination based on outdated beliefs.

I look at it as objectively as I can in that society's needs have changed, therefore nonsecular law should most definitely allow it. I think churches should as well, but that's a leadership I don't vote in... so until their doctrine comes inline with my own personal beliefs, it's a teaching I disregard in my own religious practice.

I cannot in good conscience deny people the right to enjoy a life-long, recognized bond with their partner based on a belief that really has no bearing on my life or represents no threat to society.

remember religion is a part of human behaviour, it's does not dictate human behaviour.

[ZTWsquared]

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 03:49 PM Wrote:Therefore, if gays have access to civil union, they are equal under the eyes of the law.

I have no problem with gay civil union.  I will however not consider homosexuals to be "married" as I believe that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.

Clear enough?

Edit:  Wikipedia Link to good info.

Link
[right][snapback]176801[/snapback][/right]

The first paragraph in your linked doc makes it pretty clear why civil union isn't the same as marriage.

But if you want to discuss this in terms of semantics, consider this: marriage in a church without a marriage license issued by the government is basically meaningless and unrecognizied in our society.

On the other hand, a marriage with a license at city hall with no religious sanction whatsoever is recognized around the world as a legitimate marriage.

So why do you think that in today's society the term "marriage" should be owned by a collection of religious groups to the exclusion of everyone else? The end result of the history and evolution of marriage in western society is that it is effectively only an instrument of government. Even in a church ceremony it is the government papers that get signed.

The fact is that whether you're straigt or gay, you need a "marriage" license to be considered legally married -- and I don't know of any place where they call it a "civil union" license.

And when you get a marriage license and go through the process at city hall, they proclaim you to be "married."

Change the term if you want, but change it for everybody. But as it stands right now there is no choice but to call the result of what happens at city hall a marriage.

[Oscar The Grouch]

darkpuppet,Mar 24 2006, 05:46 PM Wrote:it gets pretty muddy... you can assume, I guess that religion has been around longer than law, that people made rules based on belief systems before they made rules based soley on the societal needs, but societal needs usually dictated that belief structure.

In this case, your definition of the institution of marriage was defined after 0BC and before 30 AD., but wasn't enforced as a relious rule until about 100AD, and then not written into law until a much later date.

But marriage itself has been in societal laws since at least 3000BC, and up until the catholic definition took hold, homosexuality wasn't forbidden, and in some cases even encouraged.

But homosexuality was forbidden because it was seen as immoral, and hence written into law...  as I've mentioned, it keeps changing depending on societal needs. 

Nowadays, science has shown that homosexuality is very much a part of nature, and society is starting to change it's laws to prevent discrimination based on outdated beliefs.

I look at it as objectively as I can in that society's needs have changed, therefore nonsecular law should most definitely allow it.  I think churches should as well, but that's a leadership I don't vote in... so until their doctrine comes inline with my own personal beliefs, it's a teaching I disregard in my own religious practice.

I cannot in good conscience deny people the right to enjoy a life-long, recognized bond with their partner based on a belief that really has no bearing on my life or represents no threat to society.

remember religion is a part of human behaviour, it's does not dictate human behaviour.
[right][snapback]176813[/snapback][/right]

Puppet, don't forget about the Old Testament and Judaism to which Christianity is based upon. That goes to about 2000BC, not including Genesis.

I do agree that homogenous reproduction does exist in nature, however not within mammals as far as I know.



ZTW:

Long ago it was the church that dealt out the marriage certificates and kept records (most still do today). The civil law had no involvment with marriage whatsoever.

If it wasn't for the church, there would have been no "marriage". Therefore, it should have remained a religious appointment, not one that could have been done by the courts.

I think its about time I bring up the Canadian Charter of Rights....

May I direct your attention to the first line in the Charter...

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

"God" in this term, from what I believe we can all gather, refers to the supreme being within Christian, Judaic, and Islamic religions. From my understanding, none of them support a homosexual marriage.

Go down the charter and you can clearly see there is nothing within the charter pertaining to a separation of church and state (similar to that the US uses within their Consitution). Now I'm not sure, but I believe that Canada has no Constitution or document pertaining to a moral division of church and state to this effect.

Therefore, by the explanation above, shouldn't Canadian law at least reference religious context?

Makes good sense to me... Till last year though when the Liberals changed the law in July.

Edit: Constitution Act of 1982 whereby the Charter of Rights are defined.

[darkpuppet]

religion has changed over time, and yes, laws were based on the moral guidance of religion, but you're ignoring the fact that laws AND religion have changed over time, that the current definition of catholic marriage is relatively new, that the definition HAS changed many times over history, and there's no reason why it can't change now to reflect modern enlightenment instead of maintaining it's steadfast centuries old ignorance.

If a religious edict forbidding eating meat on Fridays can be made to boost the fishing industry, then why can't religion recognize that homosexuality is not immoral when the research demonstrates so?

Also, laws based on religion have a place only to maintain the greater good. There is no good argument against gay marriage, so there's no need to outlaw it. Outlawing it just discriminates.

[ZTWsquared]

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:ZTW:
Long ago it was the church that dealt out the marriage certificates and kept records (most still do today).  The civil law had no involvment with marriage whatsoever.

Your post was thoughtful and well put – but I am not swayed by your argument. I understand that in human history in many parts of the world there was little or no distinction between religious doctrine and civil law. That was also at a time when entire populations adhered to a single religion and all accepted the singular authority of the church. All this is quite irrelevant to today’s reality.

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:If it wasn't for the church, there would have been no "marriage".

Semantics again … humans have been pair-bonding for a lot longer than there has been organized religion. Even without religion mankind would have created the analogous marriage. It is also irrelevant.

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:May I direct your attention to the first line in the Charter... Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

There is a huge distinction between acknowledging the supremacy of God as a foundational value, and the attempt by certain organized religions to control matters of civil policy by invoking their particular interpretation of God’s will.

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:"God" in this term, from what I believe we can all gather, refers to the supreme being within Christian, Judaic, and Islamic religions.  From my understanding, none of them  support a homosexual marriage.

If there was a religion that did support homosexual marriage would you then change your mind? I’ll assume for the moment your answer is “no” in which case I again ask you why your personal opinion should prevail over the rights of others.

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:Go down the charter and you can clearly see there is nothing within the charter pertaining to a separation of church and state (similar to that the US uses within their Consitution).

I’m glad you brought this up because it is a subject I am very familiar with and fond of. Canada has dealt with this matter IMO in a very modern and very Canadian way.

At one time Canada was in fact a theocratic state because our head of state was the monarch of Great Britain and as with most monarchs they claimed their rule by right of God. But even though the Queen is still our head of state, we are no longer a theocratic state; we are in fact a secular state because of the very charter you quoted – and here’s why.

There are two fundamental values guaranteed by our charter that make a theocratic state impossible … everyone’s fundamental freedom of conscience and religion (2a) and everyone’s fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression (2b).

And don’t forget … the separation of church and state works both ways. It also protects religions from a certain amount of interference from parliament and the courts – so be careful what you ask for.

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 24 2006, 10:02 PM Wrote:Now I'm not sure, but I believe that Canada has no Constitution or document pertaining to a moral division of church and state to this effect. Therefore, by the explanation above, shouldn't Canadian law at least reference religious context?

You are correct – and it does. Even though Canada is a secular state by virtue of the charter freedoms, that doesn’t mean the state has to be totally neutral or can’t be officially accommodating of faith and religion. In Canada our governments have no problem recognizing the importance of religion as part of local culture, accommodating religious symbols in public settings, allowing tax, dietary, holiday, Sabbath, and other kinds of exemptions. But 2a and 2b still trump all that – and in cases where rights are at risk versus the will of religions, governments have to protect individual rights and decide in favour of the individual.

Think of the alternative … think of what’s happening in countries right now where there is no separation of church and state and consider the human and civil rights abuses and even atrocities done in the name of the theocratic state.

In a discussion about homosexual marriage you may not think we’re talking about anything related to what’s happening in Afghanistan for example, but the underlying concept is identical --- organized religious doctrine dictating public policy and civil rights.

IMO this discussion is at the very core of what makes us Canadian … an ability to deal with the past and its baggage in a fair and accommodating way that still honours the principles we were founded on while at the same time furthering individual rights and freedoms for all. For all their democratic chest thumping I think Americans could learn a lot from our particular brand of democratic and accepting society.

[Oscar The Grouch]

Oh well, I'll let the courts and goverment decide. Maybe Harper will use the Notwithstanding Clause to homosexual marriage, maybe not.

Been fun wasting time with yall. :D


No hard feelings everybody, especially you Frost. :)

[darkpuppet]

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 25 2006, 08:11 PM Wrote:No hard feelings everybody, especially you Frost.  :)
[right][snapback]176950[/snapback][/right]

you sat down and calmly explained your views and arguments as well as took the time to read and consider opinions contrary to your own... that's very respectable.

[Frost__2001]

Oscar The Grouch,Mar 25 2006, 09:11 PM Wrote:Oh well, I'll let the courts and goverment decide.  Maybe Harper will use the Notwithstanding Clause to homosexual marriage, maybe not.

Been fun wasting time with yall. :D


No hard feelings everybody, especially you Frost.  :)
[right][snapback]176950[/snapback][/right]

No hard feelings at all, your entitled to your opinion, and how you feel about them, and that IMO is a very comendable thing to do, I have no ill feelings to anyone that has different views to my own, no matter what they are. I respect them regardless of who they are or what they may feel about issues like this, and I have to admit you made a good clear judgement soley on that and again I respect you for that. It dose not change my opinion of you at all, other then your a good guy and your a fellow FocusCanada.net member.

I will make it clear that I'm the type of person who will not flaunt my sexuality infront of others as so many in the GLBT community often do, or make it a issue at any given chance. To me this to me is a dead issue that is kinda dragging on at this point I have to admit, and I'm sure others are feeling the same ways at this point too, that aside it is good to know how some may feel on this issue, but it dose not change my mind on who they are, and that is fellow people on here connecting to talk about their cars, canadian issues, and other things on here.

As for Harper, I know that politically it would be a death sentance for him if he did try to repeal this law as everyone but his party had no issues with it till he saw the " Larger " picture of just how this issue would affect not only the GLBT community but all of Canada in the whole, and that's why he droped it and left it alone.

As for courts and what not of how marrage works I will say this, Gay or not for the courts to decide or not, now that is gay marrage is legal, this is a good thing for local Canadian economies as it helps put more money into citys, and government as more people now have the option to spend their money to get the marriage licnese, as well as get devoriced if it comes down to it. As of this date in time there has only been 1 recoreded devorce in Canada between members of the same sex, and that was 5 months ago.

[Oscar The Grouch]

One question, what's GLBT mean?

edit nm.... i get it :)

[2004ZX3]

I'm staying out of this one. Although I believe it's smart business.

[Oscar The Grouch]

2004ZX3,Mar 27 2006, 12:17 AM Wrote:I'm staying out of this one.  [right][snapback]177132[/snapback][/right]

Welcome to last week when I said that. :D

[NOS2Go4Me]

I walked away from the discussion as I found my fervent support for the matter was clouding my ability to support my beliefs and carry on a thoughtful, fact-based discussion.

Those flaming me... f*** you. Especially you Nate.

I'm the mirror image of Oscar... belief in the institution of marriage without faith or religion, but with the parties involved being a man and a woman. I decided a hell of a long time ago that any benevolent deity involved in the day to day of humankind was asleep at the switch and was therefore undeserving of my worship. But that's a topic for another thread.

Frost, I'm glad you didn't take anything I said personally.

Anyhow, all that matters in the end is if you're true to yourself and perhaps any religious affiliation you might have. I'm not afraid of debate with any one person on this site, but I can easilt recognize when the cards are stacked against me.

[ANTHONYD]

NOS2Go4Me,Mar 27 2006, 03:47 PM Wrote:I'm not afraid of debate with any one person on this site, but I can easilt recognize when the cards are stacked against me.
[right][snapback]177264[/snapback][/right]

Would you please for the love of God stop pulling that card.

We're not ganging up on you...you're views just don't add up (nothing personal)

[scoobasteve]

NOS2Go4Me,Mar 27 2006, 02:47 PM Wrote:I walked away from the discussion as I found my fervent support for the matter was clouding my ability to support my beliefs and carry on a thoughtful, fact-based discussion.

Those flaming me... f*** you. Especially you Nate.

I'm the mirror image of Oscar... belief in the institution of marriage without faith or religion, but with the parties involved being a man and a woman. I decided a hell of a long time ago that any benevolent deity involved in the day to day of humankind was asleep at the switch and was therefore undeserving of my worship. But that's a topic for another thread.

Frost, I'm glad you didn't take anything I said personally.

Anyhow, all that matters in the end is if you're true to yourself and perhaps any religious affiliation you might have. I'm not afraid of debate with any one person on this site, but I can easilt recognize when the cards are stacked against me.
[right][snapback]177264[/snapback][/right]

:hi: Back.... :ph34r: :rolleyes: