|
Notable quotes from MPs on Same Sex Marriage (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU STARTED THIS THREAD:conf: :conf: |
Im talking about the banning of pitbulls and banning of smoking... like what he was referring to |
|
|
| zokissima |
| quote: | Originally posted by kabelicious
However, "marraige" has existed pre-religion so....why make it the sole property of religious beliefs to exert control over that term? Since the glaciers retreated, people have been "married" (bound together) in all forms of culture, religion, etc. - it shouldn't be something that is solely designated as a religious ceremony. It's a human RITUAL, period. Romans, Greeks, Egpytians all had room for homosexuality in their cultures prior to ours - and they existed for MILLENIA! NO ONE has the right to control it in my mind.
If you're church dosen't want to marry gays, then don't. That's the choice of the church but that is the only choice it deserves. |
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. union of man and woman to one bound relationship IS a product of religion, be it Christianity, or the loose beliefs held by the Romans, Greeks, etc. I keep saying, you have to make a distinction here between civil rights and marriage for the sake of union. I dont' know where out of my post you got that there is no space for homosexuals in our society. I said the exact opposite, that they DO deserve equal rights. If two guys or two gals decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, they deserve the financial benefits of anyone else making that choice, and that is fair and equitable treatment. However, just don't go and call it marriage. The law can be extended, or a new clause can be introduced. Again I stress that distinction between relition and humanity be drawn, because as much as it's unfair to have homosexuals treated differently, it's also as unfair to have them tread over time-honoured traditions, traditions that to some are considered sacred and unalterable. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
OK so which MPs said these things?
Here it is:
| quote: |
"Marriage is the union between men and women and has been that way since the beginning of time. It's meant to stay that way… anything else is not civilized. It's not acceptable."
(Janko Peric, Liberal MP, Toronto Star, August 3, 2003)
"It's sort of corny, but a constituent phoned up and said, 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.’ … If it's two adults, where do we stop? What about a grandma that wants to marry her grandson or an uncle that wants to marry his niece? Where do you stop?"
(Roy Cullen, Liberal MP, Toronto Star, August 3, 2003)
"Then what's next? Multiple marriages? Multiple spouses?"
(Tom Wappel, Liberal MP, London Free Press, May 24, 1999)
"And, I'm afraid, and I'm not the only one afraid of this, it could lead to mothers marrying sons and all kinds of things," Kilgour said."
(David Kilgour, Liberal MP, Montreal Gazette, December 8, 2003)
"All of these things are being cleared to create same-sex benefits as a means in which to bring about, I suspect, same sex marriage recognition throughout.… There is obviously an agenda being pursued (and) it's not one that I agree with."
(Dan McTeague, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Ottawa Citizen, November 4, 1999)
"[T]he definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Counsel from my department have successfully defended, and will continue to defend this concept of marriage of court… I continue to believe that it is not necessary to change well-understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals may find."
(Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister, Letter, April 24, 1998)
Liberal MP Tom Wappel told the press that there's an "unofficial agenda" in the Justice Department to legalize gay and lesbian marriages. "I don't agree that a marriage can be or should be anything but a marriage between one man and one woman," he said.
(Liberal MP, Toronto Star, May 27, 1999)
|
Surprised?
This is why im very critical of the media. When a Conservative backbencher says the same thing its national headlines. When a Liberal backbencher or even cabinet minister says it hardly anyone notices. The moral? Dont just rely on what the media presents. Do your own research. |
|
|
| kabelicious |
| quote: | Originally posted by zokissima
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. union of man and woman to one bound relationship IS a product of religion, be it Christianity, or the loose beliefs held by the Romans, Greeks, etc. I keep saying, you have to make a distinction here between civil rights and marriage for the sake of union. I dont' know where out of my post you got that there is no space for homosexuals in our society. I said the exact opposite, that they DO deserve equal rights. If two guys or two gals decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, they deserve the financial benefits of anyone else making that choice, and that is fair and equitable treatment. However, just don't go and call it marriage. The law can be extended, or a new clause can be introduced. Again I stress that distinction between relition and humanity be drawn, because as much as it's unfair to have homosexuals treated differently, it's also as unfair to have them tread over time-honoured traditions, traditions that to some are considered sacred and unalterable. |
I completely got your point on that - but I disagree about not calling it marraige when same-sex couples are wed. My point was that marraige itself has existed long before our modern day religions and it shouldn't be something only reserved for religious ceremony. The concept of marraige was developed by society first and then claimed by the church second. If same sex couples wed, it's marraige as well - "civil union" just dosen't cut it.
And the time-honored traditions are just that - long before church, marraige was a ritual of human origin. No one holds the right to the term "marraiage" or defining it as such a secular thing. I completely respect the religious viewpoint but I disagree here. |
|
|
| zokissima |
| quote: | Originally posted by kabelicious
I completely got your point on that - but I disagree about not calling it marraige when same-sex couples are wed. My point was that marraige itself has existed long before our modern day religions and it shouldn't be something only reserved for religious ceremony. The concept of marraige was developed by society first and then claimed by the church second. If same sex couples wed, it's marraige as well - "civil union" just dosen't cut it.
And the time-honored traditions are just that - long before church, marraige was a ritual of human origin. No one holds the right to the term "marraiage" or defining it as such a secular thing. I completely respect the religious viewpoint but I disagree here. |
Hmm, VERY good points, thanks for the clearup :)
I guess my issue was equating the term marriage to mean the same thing between man and woman, and man/man woman/woman, but that's invalid, considering I had a biased view of what "marriage" means. Either way, good food for thought. |
|
|
| loca |
| quote: | Originally posted by kabelicious
The concept of marraige was developed by society first and then claimed by the church second. If same sex couples wed, it's marraige as well - "civil union" just dosen't cut it. |
Okay this may just be in Europe but as far as I know, a couple (same sex or otherwise) who weds outside of the church will call it a civil union, not a marriage.
We don't refer to it as marriage unless the union has been undertaken in some religious way. I find all this strange to be honest. I may be wrong but i believe the gay community in Europe is quite happy with it being called a union. I haven't heard of anyone complaining about it over there :conf:
I have some gay friends here, and none of them are making a big deal out of this "we want it to be called marriage" stuff. I mean - i know this is probably going to sound bad but i'm finding it hard to express my thoughts without seeming rude - why can't things just be left where they are? What's so bad about it being called union if most people associate the word "marriage" to the relgious unification of a couple? Really how is it going to make your relationship so much better by calling it a marriage rather than a union? It's not like things would stop there (at least it doesn't look like it), there would always be something else.
Don't get me wrong i'm all for equal rights for the minority but there is a difference between equal rights for a minority, and stepping all over the majority to please the minority. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by loca
Okay this may just be in Europe but as far as I know, a couple (same sex or otherwise) who weds outside of the church will call it a civil union, not a marriage.
We don't refer to it as marriage unless the union has been undertaken in some religious way. I find all this strange to be honest. I may be wrong but i believe the gay community in Europe is quite happy with it being called a union.
|
And this ALL that Stephen Harper wants yet he is labelled anti gay. If he were a TRUE conservative he wouldnt even want gay unions. We should be lucky that there are no true conservative parties in Canada. On the world scale, our conservative party is just left of centre or centrist at best.
| quote: |
I haven't heard of anyone complaining about it over there :conf: |
because if canadians arent complaining about something they arent happy.
| quote: |
I have some gay friends here, and none of them are making a big deal out of this "we want it to be called marriage" stuff. |
because generally its the white, straight society that is self hating that over exaggerate everything.
| quote: |
I mean - i know this is probably going to sound bad but i'm finding it hard to express my thoughts without seeming rude - why can't things just be left where they are? What's so bad about it being called union if most people associate the word "marriage" to the relgious unification of a couple? Really how is it going to make your relationship so much better by calling it a marriage rather than a union? It's not like things would stop there (at least it doesn't look like it), there would always be something else. |
because political correctness dictates otherwise. Not to mention that the left wing in this country needs to have something to scare everyone with to make them vote for them.
| quote: |
Don't get me wrong i'm all for equal rights for the minority but there is a difference between equal rights for a minority, and stepping all over the majority to please the minority. |
Most people are for equal rights. But equal rights also include religious rights. |
|
|
| JRinger |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
And this ALL that Stephen Harper wants yet he is labelled anti gay. If he were a TRUE conservative he wouldnt even want gay unions. We should be lucky that there are no true conservative parties in Canada. On the world scale, our conservative party is just left of centre or centrist at best. |
This is bull, and you know it. Harper HAS to take that position publicly or his party wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell at taking power in Ottawa. Many of the "official" Conservative positions have been tempered by their recognition that they need to tread carefully in order to appeal to a wide enough audience and avoid getting labelled as a fringe party. It is for this reason that so many voters are afraid of what is "really" behind the official Conservative platform. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by loca
|
I have never thought of someone married under the state and not a church to be a "civil union". Have allways just considered that the same thing as a marriage under the church, just performed by a different body.
i dont konw anyone up here who really really consider being married not my church a civial union. unlike in europe, i guess we just dont quite look at the matter the same.
i think if we generally considered or referred to civil marriages as "civil unions" then there prolly wouldnt be such a big deal to have gay marriages titled marriages and not unions.
-jem- |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by JRinger
This is bull, and you know it. Harper HAS to take that position publicly or his party wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell at taking power in Ottawa. Many of the "official" Conservative positions have been tempered by their recognition that they need to tread carefully in order to appeal to a wide enough audience and avoid getting labelled as a fringe party. It is for this reason that so many voters are afraid of what is "really" behind the official Conservative platform. |
No harper's biggest flaw is that he was honest with his personal feelings. Id like to hear what martin really thinks about this. The only person i think is being candid with his support of gay marriage is poor old Jack Layton.
People say they want honesty from politicians yet when they are honest people dont like it or they have a hidden agenda.
How about this. Martin says hes a devout catholic. Devout catholics dont support ANY gay union. But since that is not what the majority wants, Liberal policy is different from personal policy. Same thing with the conservatives. |
|
|
| loca |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jem_hadar
I have never thought of someone married under the state and not a church to be a "civil union". Have allways just considered that the same thing as a marriage under the church, just performed by a different body.
i dont konw anyone up here who really really consider being married not my church a civial union. unlike in europe, i guess we just dont quite look at the matter the same.
i think if we generally considered or referred to civil marriages as "civil unions" then there prolly wouldnt be such a big deal to have gay marriages titled marriages and not unions.
-jem- |
I'm surprised that you guys don't call it what it is, a civil union, considering the fact that Canada is so hell bent on being politically correct :/ |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by loca
I'm surprised that you guys don't call it what it is, a civil union, considering the fact that Canada is so hell bent on being politically correct :/ |
Politcal correctness means that sometimes you have to use feelgood words and redefine the english language to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy about themselves for doing good for the world. Even though they have pretty much accomplished nothing.
I know its confusing to an outsider but you will get used to it. Well actually hopefully you dont get used to it.
PS Political correctness can only favour non christian, non white, non male and non minority entities therefor anything that could be construed as favouring the church is not politcally correct.
Political correctness means its ok to refer to religious christians as "dinosaurs, fanatics, out of touch with reality etc" but it's not cool to say these things about other religions. |
|
|
|
|
