Canada - The True Home of Freedom!

[pete]

It's related to the pro-choice argument, and not because both are immoral, but because both insist that such decisions must be left to individuals, to families, to loved ones.

To be blunt: why do you believe that you have the right to deny religious freedom to gay people who want to get married and whose church approves the marriage, when nobody is willing to deny YOU the right to worship, to marry, to live, to teach your kids, as you see fit?

Blunt works...period. good show, robert.

and to continue the advocacy (no pun intended) of "choice", here's to school vouchers and personal retirement accounts as choices to public schools and traditional social security... aye.

 

[Raewyn]

I don't think you were trying to make this thread X-rated. Michael Edward is just trying very hard to not speak of private parts wandering into the backdoor entrances of nether regions, vocal areas or by means of manual transport. These all are indeed ways males and females express love, not just same-gendered engagements of affection.

And I really like the last five words of your post. Testify!

Umm. that was very well put............ great tact!!!!! Thanks

 

[Melissa426]

To be blunt: why do you believe that you have the right to deny religious freedom to gay people who want to get married and whose church approves the marriage, when nobody is willing to deny YOU the right to worship, to marry, to live, to teach your kids, as you see fit?

So--again, and for the last time: why do you think it's OK to tell grown adults that they cannot read the Bible, attend church, worship, get married and start families, raise their kids, as their understanding of God leads them to believe is right and as their pastor and their congregation see fit?

1.I encourage grown adults to read the Bible, attend church, I invite them to attend the Sunday School I teach, if they want to start a family, go for it, and if they have the love and support of the congregation and pastor behind them, wonderful.
2.By law, gays cannot marry in the state where I live.
3. By church doctrine, gays cannot marry in the denomination I belong to even if state law allowed it. Why not? Plain and simple, it's against biblical teachings, as is idolatry, swindling, thieving, orgies, greed, slander, etc. Yes, there are a lot of things in the bible that are contradictory and out of touch with modern society. So be it. You are telling me modern Christianity can't and shouldn't pick and choose which biblical principles it follows and which it doesn't. In a perfect world, you'd probably be right.
4. You are asking me in the name of "religious liberty" to ignore this and actively support gay marriage. I am not fighting against gay marriage, I have never voted either for or against. But neither will I fight for it.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, but either, a) you're missing my point (which is: how come YOU and YOUR church are the ONLY legit ones?), or b) much more likely, you really are willing to deny rights to other people based only on your reading of the Bible. That's theocracy; they have it in Iran.

You don't get to do that. It's not legal. In the United States, it's un-Constitutional, for the same reason that it would be un-Constitutional for me to deny your right to worship and believe as you see fit.

Again, as before: nobody's demanding your support. Nobody, but nobody, is demanding that gay marriages take place in your church, which doesn't allow them. Nobody's even asking you to be polite to your next door neighbors--though it would be nice if you would, and it'd also be nice if you'd at least consider the possibility that your church may not be the only one God approves of. All anybody's asking is that you, your church, and your fellow fundamentalist Christians, leave others alone to think, or to worship, or to teach, or to marry, as they see fit.

You're insisting that people who have never harmed you are the problem, even the enemy; that gay people are somehow forcing you to believe things that you don't believe; that gay couples are soon going to be married in your church more or less at gunpoint. Where you're getting this stuff from, I can't say--but it's there, somehow.

Such claims are characteristic of closed ideological structures, because they're way out of kilter with reality. And I'd add--I don't mean to be rude, and for the 13th time I am NOT saying that you should change your beliefs, or that you and your Church have no right to them--but I find it very hard to believe that the sort of thing you're worried about is what the Almighty gets fussed about.

Let alone ships people to hell for.

And anyway, like it or lump it, you live in a secular democracy. (C.S. Lewis has a lot to say that's intelligent about the difficulties this poses for Christians.) And in such a society, in the not-very-long run, sorry, but ultimately--you won't get to keep imposing your religious beliefs on everybody else whether they like it or not, regardless of who's President and which silly Party's running things.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Robert,

I really don't see where Melissa is saying that her church is right for everyone, nor do I see where she has said that her beliefs are more correct than others. She's guilty simply of stating them (her beliefs), which is what we all do anyway.

However, I must agree with you that people need to become a bit more open-minded when it comes to 'alternative' lifestyles. We are all slightly different and have different needs, desires, and wants in spite of all being created in G-d's image (yes - that's in my bible too. Imagine that.) I know that people believe that, in spite of what some would argue to be evidence to the contrary (the tsunami being the latest, assuming you believe it to be an act of G-d), G-d can be merciful and beneficent. Otherwise, why bother acknowledging that there is such a being, let alone worshipping it? And, if we are all created in G-d's image, then gays are equally loved by G-d and should be permitted their own peaceful pursuit of happiness -- like the rest of us. Who's to say which is the "correct" way G-d meant us to be anyway? :idunno: It's all in your personal interpretation, isn't it. And Christians are taught it's good to love thy neighbor, etc., as I stated upthread. So why pick on one particular group who really might not want to have anything to do with you or care what you do or think? Isn't that unChristian?

 

[BlackCatBonz]

i dont think being gay should be considered "alternative".....that would suggest that one has a choice. i think most gay people would tell you that is just the way they are, and that is the kind of thinking they are railing against. people tell them that they dont have to be that way. i think that living in a nudist colony could be an alternative lifestyle but not being gay.
i dont think bringing god into the equation is very smart either........too many people put too much stock in interpretation of THE written word.
it's another case of a group of people adopting something and changing it to suit their needs, ever notice the many "versions" out there.
the problem with christian fundementalists is that they just cant leave well enough alone........they just gotta spread it around and save the rest of the heathens.
werent they fighting the "mother of all holy wars" before the moslems?
there always seems to be some cause.

shawn

 

[kenpo tiger]

i dont think being gay should be considered "alternative".....that would suggest that one has a choice. i think most gay people would tell you that is just the way they are, and that is the kind of thinking they are railing against. people tell them that they dont have to be that way. i think that living in a nudist colony could be an alternative lifestyle but not being gay.
i dont think bringing god into the equation is very smart either........too many people put too much stock in interpretation of THE written word.
it's another case of a group of people adopting something and changing it to suit their needs, ever notice the many "versions" out there.
the problem with christian fundementalists is that they just cant leave well enough alone........they just gotta spread it around and save the rest of the heathens.
werent they fighting the "mother of all holy wars" before the moslems?
there always seems to be some cause.

shawn

Hence the reason I used quotation marks.

As to bringing G-d into it, got your attention, didn't it? I don't have much experience with *Fundies*, as they have been described elsewhere in the forum. That's not to say that there aren't people around here who have very strong opinions (ahem) -- they just don't cloak themselves in the mantle of righteousness and they allow other opinions to be expressed and examined.

I don't consider myself in need of salvation because of my choice of religion, which happens to be the same I was born into. However, I also don't assume that those who believe differently than I do are in need of salvation. I guess that *fundamental* difference is what makes for good discussion.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

I guess that *fundamental* difference is what makes for good discussion.

indeed!

shawn

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, there is this:

"1.I encourage grown adults to read the Bible, attend church, I invite them to attend the Sunday School I teach, if they want to start a family, go for it, and if they have the love and support of the congregation and pastor behind them, wonderful.
2.By law, gays cannot marry in the state where I live.
3. By church doctrine, gays cannot marry in the denomination I belong to even if state law allowed it. Why not? Plain and simple, it's against biblical teachings, as is idolatry, swindling, thieving, orgies, greed, slander, etc. Yes, there are a lot of things in the bible that are contradictory and out of touch with modern society. So be it. You are telling me modern Christianity can't and shouldn't pick and choose which biblical principles it follows and which it doesn't. In a perfect world, you'd probably be right.
4. You are asking me in the name of "religious liberty" to ignore this and actively support gay marriage. I am not fighting against gay marriage, I have never voted either for or against. But neither will I fight for it."

But I rechecked--and on the whole, KT has an excellent point. Melissa hasn't really come out and written that she opposes this civil right.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Well, there is this:

"1.I encourage grown adults to read the Bible, attend church, I invite them to attend the Sunday School I teach, if they want to start a family, go for it, and if they have the love and support of the congregation and pastor behind them, wonderful.
2.By law, gays cannot marry in the state where I live.
3. By church doctrine, gays cannot marry in the denomination I belong to even if state law allowed it. Why not? Plain and simple, it's against biblical teachings, as is idolatry, swindling, thieving, orgies, greed, slander, etc. Yes, there are a lot of things in the bible that are contradictory and out of touch with modern society. So be it. You are telling me modern Christianity can't and shouldn't pick and choose which biblical principles it follows and which it doesn't. In a perfect world, you'd probably be right.
4. You are asking me in the name of "religious liberty" to ignore this and actively support gay marriage. I am not fighting against gay marriage, I have never voted either for or against. But neither will I fight for it."

But I rechecked--and on the whole, KT has an excellent point. Melissa hasn't really come out and written that she opposes this civil right.

:xtrmshock :asian:

No, she has not. She merely presents another point of view.

I enjoy reading what others have to say. Provokes thought, which is a good thing.

 

[Bester]

Well, it's almost official....

=====

Canada approves same-sex marriage





Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Posted: 9:48 p.m. EDT (01:48 GMT)


OTTAWA, Ontario (Reuters) -- Canada's Parliament Tuesday approved legislation to allow same sex-marriages across the country, despite fierce opposition from conservative politicians and religious groups.

Legislators voted by 158-133 to support the bill, which makes Canada only the third country in the world after Belgium and the Netherlands to permit gay marriages.

Most Canadian provinces already allow same-sex marriages, and Canada has become a popular destination for gay and lesbian couples from countries where these unions are banned.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/06/28/canada.marriage.reut/index.html
=====

The quote I like best is " "We are a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry pick rights. A right is a right and that is what this vote tonight is all about," Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said shortly before the vote. "

A nation, that thinks about peoples rights.
How novel.

When are we invading again? You immoral Canadians with your legalized escorts, and fully nude bars, and nation wide health care, now you are expanding peoples rights to be happy and miserable. Have you no concept of head-in-***-amerikun-corporate-decency?

Damn you, you freedom loving freaks!

Now you'll get the fruitcases all upset...and Dubya hates that.

Thats why I luvs you.

Great Beer, The "Ballet" and now, common human rights.
What a Country, eh?

:asian:

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, it's almost official....

=====

Canada approves same-sex marriage





Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Posted: 9:48 p.m. EDT (01:48 GMT)


OTTAWA, Ontario (Reuters) -- Canada's Parliament Tuesday approved legislation to allow same sex-marriages across the country, despite fierce opposition from conservative politicians and religious groups.

Legislators voted by 158-133 to support the bill, which makes Canada only the third country in the world after Belgium and the Netherlands to permit gay marriages.

Most Canadian provinces already allow same-sex marriages, and Canada has become a popular destination for gay and lesbian couples from countries where these unions are banned.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/06/28/canada.marriage.reut/index.html
=====

The quote I like best is " "We are a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry pick rights. A right is a right and that is what this vote tonight is all about," Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said shortly before the vote. "

A nation, that thinks about peoples rights.
How novel.

When are we invading again? You immoral Canadians with your legalized escorts, and fully nude bars, and nation wide health care, now you are expanding peoples rights to be happy and miserable. Have you no concept of head-in-***-amerikun-corporate-decency?

Damn you, you freedom loving freaks!

Now you'll get the fruitcases all upset...and Dubya hates that.

Thats why I luvs you.

Great Beer, The "Ballet" and now, common human rights.
What a Country, eh?

:asian:

Isn't it kind of childish trying to create such a blatant "Canada's better than the US" argument? There's nothing new in this discourse. Instead of saying that you agree with Canada's stand on the issue, and you disagree with the US on this issue, you instead attempt to use absolutist terms and attempt to demonize the entire US. Seems a little trollish to me. When are people going to discuss issues, and not engage in ad hominem attacks on each other? Oh well.

 

[Floating Egg]

Isn't it kind of childish trying to create such a blatant "Canada's better than the US" argument? There's nothing new in this discourse. Instead of saying that you agree with Canada's stand on the issue, and you disagree with the US on this issue, you instead attempt to use absolutist terms and attempt to demonize the entire US. Seems a little trollish to me. When are people going to discuss issues, and not engage in ad hominem attacks on each other? Oh well.

Oh, a few people will, now and then, but I imagine they'll always be in the minority.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just seems to me that in a day where the US keeps trying to limit and restrict, that their northern neighbor is seeking to expand and openup. To pass a law like that in the US would be political suicide for many, so they put themselves before the people. Up Morth, seems they put the people before themselves. As they said "it is important that you don't cherry pick rights. A right is a right" I think we've forgotten that here. Bester's a tad sarcastic at times, but I can see his point here.

 

[Flatlander]

Up North, seems they put the people before themselves. As they said "it is important that you don't cherry pick rights. A right is a right" I think we've forgotten that here.

As a resident, I have to disagree that our government "puts the people before themselves". Granted, there is a ton more acceptance regarding individual rights and equality of minorities, but it seems no matter who's in power, some level of corruption or other forms of poor behaviour taint the PMO or cabinet. The truth is, a politician is a politician irrespective of the country in which they ply their trade. It seems to me that Great Leadership is borne not in one's brand of citizenship, rather, it is learned and nurtured quite from within.

 

[Tgace]

Exactly. If there was a big enough uproar by the general population on ANY issue here the politicians would be pandering to get behind it. The "problem" here is either that most people dont care enough to get involved, or just plain agree with the goverment's stance. In reality its probably a combination of both.

 

[Andrew Green]

The "problem" here is either that most people dont care enough to get involved, or just plain agree with the goverment's stance. In reality its probably a combination of both.

Or the media and government have suffiecient control over a large enough portion of the population to make then think that everything is in there best interest. A mob is easier to manipulate then an individual.

 

[Tgace]

Maybe a bit...but thats just a little too x-files for me to believe as being the entire issue. Perhaps some people just cant accept the fact that a larger and more vocal section of our (US) society do not support some issues like gay marriage, or are just plain apathetic about the issue.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Or the media and government have suffiecient control over a large enough portion of the population to make then think that everything is in there best interest. A mob is easier to manipulate then an individual.

I'd first have to see evidence that the vast majority of the popular media has done anything EXCEPT advocate FOR gay marriage. A few conservative talk show host does not the vast popular media make, despite what a few paranoid folks might wish us to believe.

Maybe a bit...but thats just a little too x-files for me to believe as being the entire issue. Perhaps some people just cant accept the fact that a larger and more vocal section of our (US) society do not support some issues like gay marriage, or are just plain apathetic about the issue.

Why is it when the majority agree with certain peoples political views it's "The will of the people" but when the majority disagrees "they are being manipulated"? The whole theory seems a bit self-serving.

 

[Floating Egg]

If something happens in favor of the Conservatives, the Liberals decry the Conservative media. If something happens in favor of the Liberals, the Conservatives decry the Liberal media.

The truth is that the media is biased toward one thing and one thing only: money. If they succeed in entertaining the public they can go to their shareholders with smiling faces. How same-sex marriage fits into that, I don't know. It's conflict, which probably sells more than the absence of conflict.

Having said that, it appears that Spain has now passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.