|
It Begins: Extremist Gays Attack Church (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| naesean3 |
All you homophobes in this thread - I'll do you all a favour and:
WHIP IT OUT WHIP IT OUT!! |
|
|
| k la |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
Apparently, everyone does over that part about homosexuality. As opposed to jesus's central message of loving thy nieghbour.
Selective reason at its best |
Its sad but true. I say let them marry, its not affecting me. Im sure when I get married it will be about me and my wife and not about being bitter of homosexual marriages. Even from a "business" point of view the church is going about this all wrong. If they are in the business of "saving" people then I would presume they would be a lot more effective in not focusing on the things they dont agree with and trying to seek out the good in people?! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
That just relates to discrimination, but having civil unions for gays AND marriage for straights is NOT discriminatory.
|
I certainly is discriminatory. Anytime you exclude a group of people from something you are discriminating based on some criteria. In this instance it is sexual preference. Essentially, what you are doing by creating a separate catagory for homosexual unions is marginalizing them. "Sure you can be united but you cannot be married." What this says is that marriage between a man and a woman is different then between two men or two women. By highlighting the difference you are giving it a diminished status (conatively if not legally), which in turn sends the message that the homosexual couple does not have the same importance as the heterosexual couple.
And again, this is unconstitutional, the courts have ruled you cannot exclude people from a status availible under the state based on sexual orientation. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I suppose many Churches would disagree...fair enough, from their standpoint. |
The United Church of Canada supports homosexual marriage and plans to preform them. This is hardly surprising as it is the only church in Canada that will accept homosexuals as equals in God's eyes. |
|
|
| TrueToTheCrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The United Church of Canada supports homosexual marriage and plans to preform them. This is hardly surprising as it is the only church in Canada that will accept homosexuals as equals in God's eyes. |
Please. Id hardly put my soul's fate in that religion's hands. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
What this says is that marriage between a man and a woman is different then between two men or two women. |
It is different, and that's the point. A heterosexual marriage is worth more to society than a gay union because it can produce children - which is vital to our survival. The state SHOULD give more benefits to married couples as a result. That happened in the past, for example, where childless couples couldn't receive a child tax credit - and rightly so!
| quote: | By highlighting the difference you are giving it a diminished status (conatively if not legally), which in turn sends the message that the homosexual couple does not have the same importance as the heterosexual couple.
And again, this is unconstitutional, the courts have ruled you cannot exclude people from a status availible under the state based on sexual orientation. |
The (activist) Supreme Court had a chance to declare traditional marriage unconstitutional, and it did not.
Am I entitled to Veteran's Benefits? Why is the state discriminating against non-Veterans? |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by amb_
Yeah I did. I fail to see how civil law affects blood relationships... |
The state will no longer recognize blood relationships. It's as if they no longer exist.
In the past, the state couldn't interfere a great deal in private family affairs, in part because the family was an institution that pre-dates the state and as a result demanded its respect.
Now, there are only legal relationships administered by the state. If the state gives you a benefit, it could just as easily revoke that benefit. :nervous: :nervous:
Bill C-38 is nothing more than a massive power grab by the state, and an intrusion into our private lives. Before it, the state had to defer to instititions like the family, marriage and God, which acted as checks on the state's power. Now, the state is supreme, and we have to defer to it. :eek: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
It may seem like he's acting like a baby, but the idea he has is one I've advocated for a long time.
If most people generally don't have a problem with the idea of a civil union for same-sex couples and the hang up is basically with the term "marriage", then just stop using that term in the civil realm.
Leave "marriage" to the churches (and each religion can decide for themselves if they wish to "marry" same-sex couples or not).
From a government / civil stand point, there will no longer be "marriages" for either straight OR gay couples, but rather some sort of civil union which entitles each type of couple to the same civil benefits / responsibilities. |
I agree 100% with this and so do most people who support gay rights but oppose using the word marriage. Protection of charter rights must extend to ALL parties involved including gays and religious people. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
It is different, and that's the point. A heterosexual marriage is worth more to society than a gay union because it can produce children - which is vital to our survival. The state SHOULD give more benefits to married couples as a result. That happened in the past, for example, where childless couples couldn't receive a child tax credit - and rightly so!
The (activist) Supreme Court had a chance to declare traditional marriage unconstitutional, and it did not.
Am I entitled to Veteran's Benefits? Why is the state discriminating against non-Veterans? |
Well, if anyone had cause to question whether or not you were a bigot before they certainly have their answer now.
Your argument about homosexual marriages not being worth as much to society as heterosexual ones is very dangerous. If you are going to base value to society on the ability to produce children they you will also have to include infertile couples and couples who do not intend to have children amongst those that are worth less. Subsequently, by your argument, once a woman has gone throgh menopause the marriage she is in should be nullified and a civil union declaired in its stead. Come on man think, you're smarter then this!
With regard to Veteran's benefits you are making an erroneous argument. Veteran's benefits are earned benefits given based on the criteria that the receiver is a veteran. Spousal benefits are given based on the fact that one has a spouse. Since all persons are equal under the law having any spouse, be it of the same sex or opposite sex, be it common law or via marriage would, does, and should entitle you to said benefits. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I agree 100% with this and so do most people who support gay rights but oppose using the word marriage. Protection of charter rights must extend to ALL parties involved including gays and religious people. |
I think my solution is the best one allowed under our present constitution. Remove marriage as an institution of the state. Replace marriage with civil union for all. This would allow everyone to be the same in the eyes of the state thus satisfying the constitution. Marriage would then become a religious rite only. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Well, if anyone had cause to question whether or not you were a bigot before they certainly have their answer now. |
Only in a country as messed up and corrupt as Canada would a person advocating gay rights be accused of being a bigot. :rolleyes:
The truth is, a majority of gays would have been happy with civil unions. Only the extremists (gay and straight), who want to destroy the nuclear family and expand the power of the state, wanted Bill C-38.
| quote: | | If you are going to base value to society on the ability to produce children they you will also have to include infertile couples and couples who do not intend to have children amongst those that are worth less. |
Granting certain rights to childless couples (such as spousal tax benefits) doesn't infringe on the rights of couples with children. Then there are other rights (ex. child tax credit) which are NOT granted to childless couple - that's the right thing to do because they aren't providing the same services to society that couples with children are. I don't hear a great outcry from chlidless couples demanding "equality" with families with children.
Whereas with Bill C-38, the way rights are granted to gays DOES infringe on the rights of straight couples. That's wrong, and there was a better alternative.
| quote: | | With regard to Veteran's benefits you are making an erroneous argument. Veteran's benefits are earned benefits given based on the criteria that the receiver is a veteran. Spousal benefits are given based on the fact that one has a spouse. |
Parental benefits are earned, because the government recognizes the imporant role that families have in propagation and socialization.
| quote: | | Since all persons are equal under the law having any spouse, be it of the same sex or opposite sex, be it common law or via marriage would, does, and should entitle you to said benefits. |
No, because a gay union can't produce children - the most important part of a marriage - and is therefore not equal in terms of its contribution to society. Because of that, you can't expect to receive the same benefits from society. Even so, civil unions would have granted those rights anyway. What Bill C-38 did was deny the unique character of the nuclear family. So much for diversity. :rolleyes:
***
http://www.enshrinemarriage.ca/english/declaration.aspx
Article 5 - Marriage is about more than equality
All government policies are intentionally preferential. If we want welfare or veterans’ benefits, or child-support, or marital benefits, we have to qualify for them. Such policies are ordinary forms of distributive justice through which, for its own good, the state discriminates in favour of some people, and some relationships, and not others. So an absence of “equality” is not a good argument against such policies. As same-sex partnerships already receive the same benefits as marriages, however, something else is at issue: an attempt to persuade the public that such partnerships are of the same value to society as marriages. But they can only be made so by denying the unique contribution of marriage as a biologically-unitive, child-centred institution. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| ^^^^ your arguments are based on alarmest propaganda. I understand your concern, however, it is unfounded. |
|
|
|
|
