|
Same sex marriage passed in Canada (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Little John |
"It's almost as if they are in denial that GOD hates them."
You are an idiot.
I have no problem with homosexuality, but in terms of religion it is not accepted. Religion is religion and I do not think that the government should entangle itself in it. |
|
|
| NOISE |
| quote: | Originally posted by Little John
"It's almost as if they are in denial that GOD hates them."
You are an idiot.
I have no problem with homosexuality, but in terms of religion it is not accepted. Religion is religion and I do not think that the government should entangle itself in it. |
No way. It's ABSOLUTELY true. How can someone be gay and religious at the same time? Every religion is against you. Accord to religion GOD hates you. So why care about being married in the church. I'm not an idiot. This gay "marriage" issue doesn't effect me nor do i care for religion. I'm stating how it is. |
|
|
| Little John |
Show me where it states that God "HATES" homosexuality?
Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, that is all I'm saying. |
|
|
| NOISE |
I don't know. I just feel like being a dick.
It's actually quite confusing. The Christian God forgives everyone. If you're catholic, the only way to be saved is by confessing your sins. I think being gay is considered a sin. I guess if you confess that you had some boy-boy action God forgives you just as long as you say your ten hail marrys. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by NOISE
I don't know. I just feel like being a dick.
It's actually quite confusing. The Christian God forgives everyone. If you're catholic, the only way to be saved is by confessing your sins. I think being gay is considered a sin. I guess if you confess that you had some boy-boy action God forgives you just as long as you say your ten hail marrys. |
I think you have half a knowledge of what you want to talk about.
Come back into the topic when you know what you're actually talking about |
|
|
| halo20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
Proud day to be a canadian!!!!!!! |
I've said before and I'll say it again... "Canada is the best country in the world", this only affirms my beliefs! |
|
|
| amb_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by halo20
I've said before and I'll say it again... "Canada is the best country in the world", this only affirms my beliefs! |
Amen. :) |
|
|
| MarkT |
Little John: marriage is no longer merely a religious sacrament...it is a legal status that is licensed by the state. If you're married in a religious institution, and that marriage is not registered with the state, it's not recognized as a legal marriage, correct? So long as that is the case, and so long as the legal status of being married conveys rights upon those who are married, the Church has no place in opposing the granting of said legal status to people who aren't even members of their religion! ie. the Church can mind it's business (it's religion and members) and I'll mind mine (my life, my legal status in the state).
Eviltree: Bentham (or was it Mill?) warned against the tyranny of the majority...but you're right in saying it is difficult to balance the will of the majority with the rights of minorities. I think one fair balance is that RIGHTS ARE RIGHTS and should be equally applied to all citizens. They cannot be conveyed on only SOME citizens and cannot be arbitrarily applied to miniorites in SOME cases. e.g. gays cannot be dicriminated against when seeking employment, medical treatment, etc...so why would it ok to discriminate when they seek the same LEGAL STATUS for themselves and their partners as heterosexual couples do when they are married IN THE EYES OF THE STATE?
If gays were ever to protest paying education taxes because they don't want kids then yeah, I'd give them the big " you, you're paying just like everyone else". No one has a "right" in that regard and yes, majority rules. I just don't think "majority rules" belongs in the topic of RIGHTS. Rights ought to apply to all citizens, unless there is good reason to withold them (eg. incarcerated criminals have their mobility rights taken away).
As for the religious arguments...they are not relevant to this topic, OTHER than to protect religious institutions for being forced to perform or recognize gay marriages in the context of their organizations. Christians cannot impose their Christian morality unto Muslims...those of Jewish faith cannot impose their teachings upon Buddists...so why the hell should ANY religion be able to impose it's morality on homosexuals by opposing them being married by the state??? Think about the hypocrisy of religious citizens standing against gay marriage when marriage has become a civil, legal status...yet demanding that their religious freedoms be protected from people who don't agree with their teachings! They want to have their cake and eat it too and that's not acceptable so long as state and Church are separate.
How can someone be gay and religious? well...times change. There was a time when it was ok to stone a woman who committed adultery. Some, such as the new Pope, are against moral relativism...this changing of morality over time...while some are not opposed to it and see it as the only thing that will preserve the Church. Also keep in mind that religious leaders have agendas...all the recent investigations into the Vatican supressing conflicting info about the biblicals Marys is but one example of how leaders have literally shaped their Church and are not just following the original teachings.
If I believe in God, or a creator, or whatever deity/deities/powers that be/etc that I choose, I can have a personal relationship with them, no? If there is one "god", then explain all the different religions...is one of them "right"? I'm forgeting who said this, but a great quote is "Just as different languages can express the same truth, different religions can express the same God". To suggest that any of us can "know" what god "wants" is incredibly naive, is it not?
I've always imagined an amusing scenario...a religious person who was against homosexuality standing before "god", having to justify why they hated someone or discriminated against them...and saying that it was due to what was written in a book (eg. the Bible)...a book written by people, not "god". Then the gay person stands before "god"...a person who lead a peaceful life, was kind to others, maybe even raised a healthy family, etc. If your "god" would strike him down into "hell" simply because he is gay...well...that's not my idea of what "God" would be like, lol.
Love God. Love thy neighbour. Spread the good word. It's pretty simple from a Christian standpoint. All the hate does NOT stem from the Bible...it stems from people who claim to act in the name of their god and their religion.
point being, "god" (in whatever form you perceive/believe in god) is bigger than any organized religion that was created and is perpetuated by mere people. To suggest that, by definition, gays can't be religious is to imply that you know more about "god" than is ever possible to know as a living human being.
I had an incredible professor at York, who happened to be Jewish...he really opened my mind about "god", suggesting that god is more of a passive creator. God is perfect, right? Well...than god wouldn't doesn't have emotions, as those are human/animal states...if god were to "hate", it would imply changing states...ie. god changing from being "happy" to "angry", for example. If god is perfect, yet changes, isn't that contradictory? To "change" while in a state of perfection implies a move to something that must therefore be imperfect. Of course, one could also argue that logic itself is a contruct and doesn't apply to god, but then we'd be getting into *really* abstract philospophy and that's an entire PhD thesis on it's own ;)
This has been quite the stream-of-consciousness post...and the last I'll post on the topic because I probably look *crazy*, LOL ;) |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by halo20
I've said before and I'll say it again... "Canada is the best country in the world", this only affirms my beliefs! |
I agree...
I could have just said that and kept it short, eh? :D |
|
|
| amb_ |
Mark:
Spirituality != Religion
:) |
|
|
| Irishaddict |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
it's unfortunate that the path taken wasn't a smooth one...but kudos for Martin for pushing it through. |
'bout friggin' time! |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Little John: marriage is no longer merely a religious sacrament...it is a legal status that is licensed by the state. If you're married in a religious institution, and that marriage is not registered with the state, it's not recognized as a legal marriage, correct? So long as that is the case, and so long as the legal status of being married conveys rights upon those who are married, the Church has no place in opposing the granting of said legal status to people who aren't even members of their religion! ie. the Church can mind it's business (it's religion and members) and I'll mind mine (my life, my legal status in the state). |
I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate here.
Arguably, it was under 'religious' circumstances that marriages were performed between a man and a woman, in many cultures. So, what if the religious community is only trying back what is theirs?
To many religious community, the def. of marriage is union between a man and a woman blessed by God or Allah or Vishnu or Zordon, master of Xaxon, whatever. To have homosexuals be granted marriage, to many, it's like ting on their fundamental religious beliefs. Yes, the term marriage is used in common terms applied not just in religious context, but it is still something sacred.
| quote: |
Eviltree: Bentham (or was it Mill?) warned against the tyranny of the majority...but you're right in saying it is difficult to balance the will of the majority with the rights of minorities. I think one fair balance is that RIGHTS ARE RIGHTS and should be equally applied to all citizens. |
Okay. Before we get into this issue, we must understand what the heck is a right. Generally put, a right is a claim on someone or something else. For example, if I buy a plane ticket to NY, that ticket gives me the 'right' to have a seat on that plane which goes to NY. So if someone takes away that ticket or don't allow me to get on that plane, then it would be a violation of my 'right'.
Right can be split into two 'sort' of rights. Positive right requires something, or someone else to do whatever action necessary to protect or promote that right. For example, if I have the right to shiny red ball because of a law that the govt passed, then the govt must do whatever to ensure that I have that shiny red ball. Negative right means a person or something do not do anything to violate a right. For example, if a person has right to life, as long as I do not harm that person, I am respecting his right to life.
Now to the comment on hand, lol. The problem is that ALL rights cannot be applied to every single citizen, because only certain groups enjoy certain rights. For example, Natives have dual citizenship of Canada and US ever since they are born as their right. So myself, as an immigrant who is now a Canadian citizen, cannot claim that right. It is important to distinguish whether a right to be... selective to certain groups or to be universal.
| quote: |
They cannot be conveyed on only SOME citizens and cannot be arbitrarily applied to miniorites in SOME cases. e.g. gays cannot be dicriminated against when seeking employment, medical treatment, etc...so why would it ok to discriminate when they seek the same LEGAL STATUS for themselves and their partners as heterosexual couples do when they are married IN THE EYES OF THE STATE? |
It's just me, but I think a lot of religious groups are against gay marriage because the gays seems to insist on using the term marriage. If the law says 'civil unions' with same rights and privileges as marriages, I'm sure there would have been less opposition.
True equality is a fallacy. No one will be ever equal to another politically, economically or socially.
| quote: |
If gays were ever to protest paying education taxes because they don't want kids then yeah, I'd give them the big " you, you're paying just like everyone else". No one has a "right" in that regard and yes, majority rules. I just don't think "majority rules" belongs in the topic of RIGHTS. Rights ought to apply to all citizens, unless there is good reason to withold them (eg. incarcerated criminals have their mobility rights taken away). |
Ah. The question of forfeiture. The question is, what rights should criminals have then? What are the basic universal right that should apply to everyone? Not the topic on hand, but nonetheless an interesting issue.
| quote: |
As for the religious arguments...they are not relevant to this topic, OTHER than to protect religious institutions for being forced to perform or recognize gay marriages in the context of their organizations. Christians cannot impose their Christian morality unto Muslims...those of Jewish faith cannot impose their teachings upon Buddists...so why the hell should ANY religion be able to impose it's morality on homosexuals by opposing them being married by the state??? Think about the hypocrisy of religious citizens standing against gay marriage when marriage has become a civil, legal status...yet demanding that their religious freedoms be protected from people who don't agree with their teachings! They want to have their cake and eat it too and that's not acceptable so long as state and Church are separate. |
Like I said before I think, religious arguments matter, because in a democracy, the source of power is the everyday citizen with views and morals that may come from religious views. So in a way, it's not the religious communities that are against gay marriage; it's a group of Canadian citizens (who has the voting power!) who are opposed to gay marriage.
| quote: |
How can someone be gay and religious? well...times change. There was a time when it was ok to stone a woman who committed adultery. Some, such as the new Pope, are against moral relativism...this changing of morality over time...while some are not opposed to it and see it as the only thing that will preserve the Church. Also keep in mind that religious leaders have agendas...all the recent investigations into the Vatican supressing conflicting info about the biblicals Marys is but one example of how leaders have literally shaped their Church and are not just following the original teachings.
If I believe in God, or a creator, or whatever deity/deities/powers that be/etc that I choose, I can have a personal relationship with them, no? If there is one "god", then explain all the different religions...is one of them "right"? I'm forgeting who said this, but a great quote is "Just as different languages can express the same truth, different religions can express the same God". To suggest that any of us can "know" what god "wants" is incredibly naive, is it not?
I've always imagined an amusing scenario...a religious person who was against homosexuality standing before "god", having to justify why they hated someone or discriminated against them...and saying that it was due to what was written in a book (eg. the Bible)...a book written by people, not "god". Then the gay person stands before "god"...a person who lead a peaceful life, was kind to others, maybe even raised a healthy family, etc. If your "god" would strike him down into "hell" simply because he is gay...well...that's not my idea of what "God" would be like, lol.
Love God. Love thy neighbour. Spread the good word. It's pretty simple from a Christian standpoint. All the hate does NOT stem from the Bible...it stems from people who claim to act in the name of their god and their religion.
point being, "god" (in whatever form you perceive/believe in god) is bigger than any organized religion that was created and is perpetuated by mere people. To suggest that, by definition, gays can't be religious is to imply that you know more about "god" than is ever possible to know as a living human being.
I had an incredible professor at York, who happened to be Jewish...he really opened my mind about "god", suggesting that god is more of a passive creator. God is perfect, right? Well...than god wouldn't doesn't have emotions, as those are human/animal states...if god were to "hate", it would imply changing states...ie. god changing from being "happy" to "angry", for example. If god is perfect, yet changes, isn't that contradictory? To "change" while in a state of perfection implies a move to something that must therefore be imperfect. Of course, one could also argue that logic itself is a contruct and doesn't apply to god, but then we'd be getting into *really* abstract philospophy and that's an entire PhD thesis on it's own ;)
This has been quite the stream-of-consciousness post...and the last I'll post on the topic because I probably look *crazy*, LOL ;) |
Okay. Do not confuse fundamentalist ignorant bigots with mainstream religious communities. There is a different between hating the sin and hating the person.
For example, I love Joe, but I hate Joe's bad drinking habits. Get the difference?:)
As for God question, no one really knows what's up with him. Some claim to speak to God and to most part, I would urge caution into heeding their words without sufficient reason.
Religion exists because the people want it to exist. Whether if there is an afterlife, we'll know when we die.
As some Buddhist person said, in the end, only the soul matters.
Okay, that's way off topic. And enough of me ranting. :D |
|
|
|
|
