Globe and Mail:
Ottawa - Canada is on its way to becoming the third country in the world to openly embrace homosexual marriage after the House of Commons gave its final approval last night to a bill that changes the definition to include same-sex couples.
The historic 158-133 vote capped an intense and divisive two-year Commons battle that maintained its political drama to the end, as Liberal minister Joe Comuzzi resigned from cabinet yesterday because he could not support his government's move.
Ral Mnard, a gay Bloc Qubcois MP who has been one of the leading proponents of the bill within his party and within Parliament, said the vote was extremely important. "If you are gay, [no matter] who you are, whatever are your rights, you have the right to be in love," he said as his eyes welled with tears. "And I am very proud today for what we have done."
NDP Leader Jack Layton held a victory party with staff to celebrate both the same-sex vote and last week's final vote on the NDP budget amendment.
"I think Canada is now sending out a signal that it is possible to really provide full equality to people with different sexual orientations and to celebrate those relationships," Mr. Layton said. "I think it will sound a real clarion call around the world and perhaps reduce the hatred and the animosity and perhaps move toward a society where all are really considered equal."
But, just as there were celebrations, so too was there a feeling of dejection and loss among those who had worked hard to block the bill. Religious groups held prayer vigils after the final count was read and other opponents who had crowded the public gallery of the Commons walked quietly away.
Conservative Vic Toews, who has fervently opposed same-sex marriage, said he does not think the issue is closed.
"There are still a lot of concerns about how effective this bill is going to be in terms of protecting religious freedoms," he said. "What I have heard from people right across this country is, they're very unhappy with the way the Liberal government has rammed this matter through."
In the end, 32 Liberals voted against the government and five were absent, including Natural Resources Minister John Efford, who has been ill with diabetes.
On the other side of the House, three Conservatives stood against their own party to support same-sex marriage as did New Democrat Bev Desjarlais when she voted against the bill.
Mr. Layton, who had demanded that his caucus support the legislation, said last night that she has lost her critic's position and will move to the back benches but would not be kicked out of caucus. Ms. Desjarlais said she accepted that there would be consequences for opposing the party.
The passage of the same-sex legislation also brought the curtain down on one of the most tumultuous sessions of Parliament in recent history. Using obscure procedural manoeuvres and even a direct appeal to the public, Prime Minister Paul Martin managed to keep his government afloat in spite of a persistent attempt by the Conservatives and Bloc to force an election over allegations of corruption exposed by the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.
All that remains for the same-sex bill to become law is debate in the Senate, where Liberals vastly outnumber the opposition Conservatives and are expected to pass the bill early next month.
Belgium and the Netherlands are the only two countries to have legalized same-sex marriage, but Spain is on the verge of passing a similar law that will soon be put to the King for final approval.
Alex Munter, of Canadians for Equal Marriage, praised last night's vote, as well as gay and lesbian Canadians who have long advocated for gay rights. "This is a proud and exciting day to be a Canadian."
The Liberals outnumber the opposition in the Senate nearly three to one, with 64 Liberals, 22 Conservatives, five Progressive Conservatives, five independents and one New Democrat.
The bill will be referred to the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee as early as today, where Conservatives are vowing to oppose it.
Stephen Harper, the Conservative Leader who has been consistent in his opposition to same-sex marriage, said last night's vote would not put the issue to rest.
"I think it will be an issue to come to Canadians in the next election and there will be a chance to revisit this in a future Parliament," he said.
"It's in our program and we'll obviously ask the next Parliament their views on this issue. My views haven't changed because Mr. Martin made a deal with the Bloc."
After the vote, Mr. Harper went to a caucus meeting immediately and did not comment, while Mr. Martin dashed out the door, wishing all a good summer.
That's great news! It's taking forever for the world to fold 100%, but at least we know it can happen.
Unfortunately, I foresee our country being the last for that to ever happen.
Good for Canada...
But if the Dems get their way (Unlikely considering the direction they are going), they may allow gay marriage in here sooner than we think...oh wait...nah...
Makes me REAL glad they aren't in power right now...
Don't turn this into a political, gay hating debate.
![:]](https://www.lighthead.net/misc/mofo/smilies/biggrinshaded.gif)
I am just voicing my opinion on it. If you disagree, then flame me on AIM...
I was somewhat shocked by some comments that Harper made linking the legalization of gay marriage to the proliferation of Quebec separatists, since such a great deal of support for the bill came from the Bloc Quebecois.
I really can't believe that the Conservatives are fighting this one so hard, especially to stoop to making claims like that. And to think that if they get into power, they're actually going to waste time and money trying to get the law overturned.
Hey im not mad at this, heres my opinion. All love is ok for me, but some acts or feelings i don't preform or do.
Oh for God's sake people. Will you just give it a rest. So Gay people YOU DON'T KNOW want to get married? So bloody what? I can't beleive people are making a big deal out of this.
Just let them get on with what they want to do. I have far more pressing concerns myself, like deciding when to stop browsing forums and go take a dump.
I kinda agree.
I don't even know why it was illegal in the first place.
I just don't support it.
i can't think of any rational reasons against gay marraige. if two people of the same sex get married, it doesn't affect you at all, so why are you interfering in their lives by telling them who they can or can't marry. makes me sick.
I don't support it, if just for the reason that studies and surveys have shown the life expectanty of someone engaging in homosexual behaviour is about half that of someone who doesn't, and that's not including AIDS. In my mind, that puts it along the same lines as alcohol abuse and cigarettes.
but who are you to make that decision for someone else? do you agree with banning cigarettes and alcohol? also, those "studies and surveys" sound very dodgy to me. what is it that kills off these sodomizers? gay bashing? and, i doubt banning gay marraige is going to stop gay people being together and having sex.
Quote:
but who are you to make that decision for someone else? do you agree with banning cigarettes and alcohol? also, those "studies and surveys" sound very dodgy to me. what is it that kills off these sodomizers? gay bashing? and, i doubt banning gay marraige is going to stop gay people being together and having sex.
Who said I am and who says it does? As for how homosexual behaviour leads to medical problems, I could go into detail, but that wouldn't be very appropriate for the PG level of the board.
And yes, I do agree with banning cigarettes.
Quote:
As for how homosexual behaviour leads to medical problems, I could go into detail, but that wouldn't be very appropriate for the PG level of the board.
No, feel free to.
And yes, I do agree with banning cigarettes.
Trust me, when you start paying tax, you'll take that back.
Quote:
And yes, I do agree with banning cigarettes.
Trust me. when you start paying tax, you'll tkae that back.
I agree with Craig, Tobacco - no matter the country is a large industry. And no matter the poisonous ingredients inside the Tobacco corparation is also extremely strong. Without Tobacco....well, Craig knows what.
Back to the Gay Marriage topic,
Yay for Equal Rights! Personally, I don't really care but good for the gay community. This is a major blow to the idiot we all know as Bush.
Quote:
Trust me, when you start paying tax, you'll take that back.
Oh, DEAR ME, yes! And it will put those poor ashtray factories out of business as well! :.rolls eyes.:
Quote:
No, feel free to.
For example, researchers at St. Pauls Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia published a report in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology that concluded: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently 20 years of age will not reach their 65th birthday.
~~
Sodomy causes perforation of the bowels and fisting causes stretching of the womb; these are two practices common among homosexuals.
~~
The article also said that the Centers for Disease Control reported that almost half of male patients with syphilis claimed homosexual or bisexual contacts, despite the fact that gays are only a small percentage of the population. Compiled studies by leading medical researchers show that:
Youths engaging in homosexual behavior are 23 times more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than strictly heterosexual youths.
Lesbians are 19 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had syphilis, twice as likely to suffer from genital warts, four times as likely to have scabies.
Male homosexuals are 14 times more likely to have syphilis than male heterosexuals. They are also thousands of time more likely to have AIDS.
Alrighty. Lesson time for Mr. Antipode.
There's a certain sense of equalibriam and balance in the tabacoo industry. Please note that the law is set in a way which more or less tells people THESE THINGS WILL KILL YOU!!! no one is being forced to buy cigarettes. People have this wonderful little thing called "free will", if you've heard of it, which allows them to LISTEN TO THE HUGE-ARSE GENERAL SURGEON'S WARNING, not to mention the insane amount of propaganda which is released worldwide saying "stop with the smoking" (Bloody Constantine... I wanted a Hellblazer movie, not a "Smoking is bad, m'k!" lecture).
But, wait? Addictions, correct? *Blink* Ooooh. Wait. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You are suggesting that because people's bodies are tuned to a frequency that you, personally, disagree with, that it should be banned to prevent people from partaking of it?
Sort of like how homosexuals have a horemonal instinct to be aroused by members of the same gender, nespas?
Ok, now, you say you'd prevent people from doing this for their own eventual health, very noble, but you're not considering how damn unhealthy it is on the psyche to live each and every one of your day feeling that you are sick, horrible wrong and even a CRIMINAL for just having urges which are not controllable. I mean how would you feel if marrying females was illegal, because of the health risks? That would do a bigger job on your brain that any amount of STD would do on your body.
Back to smoking for a bit, let's say you DID ban them.
Do you have ANY idea how much that would cost people? Every day people, you included? The tabacco tax is one of the biggest that a person will pay, besides the automatic deductions (overshadowed only by petrol tax, I believe).
If smoking was banned, millions and millions of tax dollars/pounds would be lost per month, and the only way to get it back is to either lower spending, thusly hospitals and other such public services would be reduced and suffer, or the hardworking people of the world would get a pretty hefty tax increase, and as someone who just had 500 taken from me by the government this month, I doubt ANYONE would be happy with that.
So, smoking does cause health risks, but it also keeps the hospitals which will eventually be their self-made deathbeds open and running. As I mentioned, the entire world is saying STOP SMOKING without actually making it illegal, if someone doesn't listen, it's their own decision.
Likewise, the entire world has this whole anti-gay vibe about it, but they have just as much right to get in bed with eachother as anyone else, damned be to the health risks afterwards.
I'm probably going to annoy a lot of people by saying "I'm not touching the sensitive area of gay marriages" despite, knowing that is the topic at hand at this time, but Anti seems to be wanting to ban gay marriages for the health risks, more for whatever whacked reason right wingers are throwing around this week.
I disagree, wholeheartedly.
Quote:
For example, researchers at St. Pauls Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia published a report in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology that concluded: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently 20 years of age will not reach their 65th birthday.
Those statistics are meaningless because they show no link to being homosexual.
Quote:
Sodomy causes perforation of the bowels and fisting causes stretching of the womb; these are two practices common among homosexuals.
You don't have to be homosexual to perform those activities, nor do you have to perform those activities to be homosexual, so this is also irrelevent.
Quote:
The article also said that the Centers for Disease Control reported that almost half of male patients with syphilis claimed homosexual or bisexual contacts, despite the fact that gays are only a small percentage of the population. Compiled studies by leading medical researchers show that:
Youths engaging in homosexual behavior are 23 times more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than strictly heterosexual youths.
Lesbians are 19 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had syphilis, twice as likely to suffer from genital warts, four times as likely to have scabies.
Male homosexuals are 14 times more likely to have syphilis than male heterosexuals. They are also thousands of time more likely to have AIDS.
Again, irrelevent because they are not directly linked with homosexuality itself.
Homosexuality, like heterosexuality and bisexuality, is a state of mind and taking part in sexual activities doesn't necessarily have to be a part of it. And I have trouble thinnking of any sexual acts that two men or two women can perform on each other that a man and a woman could not also perform.
Anal sex? Straights can do it.
Oral sex? Straights can do it.
Fingering? Straights can do it.
Fisting? Straights can do it.
It seems to me that the issue at hand isn't homosexuality being unhealthy, because homosexuality in itself isn't unhealthy, but sexual education and awareness all around.
Perhaps these alleged higher STD rates in homosexuals is due to homosexuals not feeling able to talk so openly about their sexuality as heterosexuals, due to fear of persecution. That is a real problem, and the answer to it is not for people to simply "stop being homosexual".
VCP, are you trying to say that there is such a broad difference between being HOMOSEXUAL and engaging in homosexual BEHAVIOUR? That since the law in Canada supports homosexuals, NOT the behaviour that they don't necessarily engage in, that it's a separate matter entirely?
Then why don't you just propose that those sexual techniques are made to be illegal, instead of homosexuals themselves?
Quote:
VCP, are you trying to say that there is such a broad difference between being HOMOSEXUAL and engaging in homosexual BEHAVIOUR? That since the law in Canada supports homosexuals, NOT the behaviour that they don't necessarily engage in, that it's a separate matter entirely?
Because frankly, that's B.S.
Sexual acts cannot be considered "homosexual behaviour" or indeed "heterosexual bahaviour", only sexual acts unto themselves.
If one man giving another man anal sex can be considered "homosexual behaviour" then would a man giving a woman anal sex be considered "heterosexual behaviour"?
In that case both acts carry just as much risk.
Repeated deviant sexual practices, no matter what they are, can lead to medical problems. It's not really a secret that the sexual organs were made for something, and if you use them for something else, whether in a hetero- or homosexual context, problems can arise. The fact that homosexual couples don't even have the option to use them how some would say "correctly" means they have a higher risk of those problems.
ERGO, homosexuals have a higher rate of risk of disease and physical problems than heterosexuals.
But I'm not here to debate with you people. I came to present my statement, and back it up. Nothing more needs to be said from me.
Good day.
...so, in that case, having sex with a comdom should also be illegal, as it is not for procreation, and carries a (reduced) health risk?
Male homosexuals are 14 times more likely to have syphilis than male heterosexuals. They are also thousands of time more likely to have AIDS.
That may be so, but it's still there choice if they want to get married, isn't it?
And this whole AIDS thing is kinda getting on my nerves. A normal person can get AIDS if they are donated blood which carries the virus in it, as well as having un-protected sexual intercourse.
I think people forget about this.
Quote:
Repeated deviant sexual practices, no matter what they are, can lead to medical problems. It's not really a secret that the sexual organs were made for something, and if you use them for something else, whether in a hetero- or homosexual context, problems can arise. The fact that homosexual couples don't even have the option to use them how some would say "correctly" means they have a higher risk of those problems.
ERGO, homosexuals have a higher rate of risk of disease and physical problems than heterosexuals.
Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is not the "safest" sexual act.
You say that "homosexual behaviour leads to medical problems" and so you are against gay marriage, but it seems to me that what you actually mean is "sexual acts lead to medical problems". And even the latter statement in itself is not entirely true, as it is possible to maintain a varied and exciting sex life and still remain healthy if you are responsible enough.
But you have to realise that the dangers of unsafe sex do not apply only to homosexuals, and that there is nothing about homosexuality that inherently leads to unsafe sex. You should also realise that it is possible to be homosexual and have a very healthy and safe sex life, or even no sex life at all should they wish so.
I have to wonder how you think that a ban on gay marriages would lead to a lower rate of health problems due to unsafe sex. Marriage is supposed to encourage monogomy is it not? And do you honestly think that more people would practice unsafe sex more often if homosexuals are allowed to marry?
Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is not the "safest" sexual act.
That's why men should marry bagels.
I was somewhat shocked by some comments that Harper made linking the legalization of gay marriage to the proliferation of Quebec separatists, since such a great deal of support for the bill came from the Bloc Quebecois.
I thought his manipulation of Muslims and Asians was far worse. We do not need a community of racial minorities who think freedom of speech means their religious beliefs have any say in a secular government. He's wreaking havoc to garner votes.
So Gay people YOU DON'T KNOW want to get married? So bloody what?
Actually, a lesbian couple I've known my whole life got married recently after BC legalized it. It was heartwarming. What makes you think I don't know any homosexuals? I live in Vancouver for Christ's sake.
And yes, I do agree with banning cigarettes.
Trust me. when you start paying tax, you'll tkae that back.
Hehehe, this is why marijuana is next on the list in Canuckistan. Did you know that weed is Canada's biggest agricultural product, and that if BC alone were to legalize and tax it in the same way as tobacco it would singlehandedly pay for the 2010 Olympic Games?
nespas
For the record, it's n'est-ce pas.
The fact that homosexual couples don't even have the option to use them how some would say "correctly" means they have a higher risk of those problems.
Something tells me Antipode's never heard of a d ildo.
But seriously, if these guys had their way we'd be even MORE overpopulated than we already are.
My thoughts?
God: "Oh crap, they're overrunning the earth... again. Jesus! What are we going to do about these humans, they breed faster than rabbits."
Jesus: "You could try the flood again."
God: "True... But it didn't go over very well. Not to mention a few thousand years later they're already all over the place again. Any other ideas."
Jesus: "Er... make more sterile?"
God: "Nah, they'd just use someone else's hoohoo juice."
Jesus: "Er... ok. I'm out."
God: "Oooo! I got it! Make sex not lead to over population. We'll call it 'gays', same sex relationships! It'll be a hit."
Jesus: "Um, won't your followers berate and shun that?"
God: "Of course not! I told them to love everyone remember? Have I EVER made a mistake?"
Jesus: "..."
~Rico
To be perfectly honest, I really don't care. o_O If gays wanna be gay, it'd be no use trying to force them to be straight. Likewise it'd be near impossible for me to like a man in the same way I like women, as I was born 'straight' as it were. ^_^ That's my opinion, and it's not up for discussion, children.
Quote:
Hehehe, this is why marijuana is next on the list in Canuckistan. Did you know that weed is Canada's biggest agricultural product, and that if BC alone were to legalize and tax it in the same way as tobacco it would singlehandedly pay for the 2010 Olympic Games?
It would also pay for our tuition. And Medicare. But that's another topic.
Any argument one could give against gay marriage ultimately defies the fact that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want, regardless of the consequences on their personal lives. So what if some study links sodomy to bowel obstruction or your penis falling off? This doesn't affect me or you.
Excuses aside, religious beliefs are just about the only opposition that gay marriage faces. But guess what folks? Not only is marriage not an exclusively Christian concept, its entire existence links more to finance than religion. If Christians don't want to allow gay marriage, fine. That's their religious right. However, they can't tell everybody else what they can and can't do.
Also, it looks like Spain is number four.
Anti, no matter what your thoughts on homosexuality and whether it is unhealthy or not, it is not your place to tell other people how to live their lives. your views border on fascism.
The Senate approved the bill today, in case anyone cares.
Hang on...
so it's no legal in Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada and NO WHERE ELSE?
...
That does surprise me, we really are further behind than i thought. It's not legal in the UK that means...
Interesting, I thought we were pretty equal but it obviously turns out we're not.
I've been waiting for an opportunity to slip this into a discussion ever since I first heard about it, on the day it happened, over two years ago.
I think there's a case of this in Nebraska, too.
All of this fuss over gay marriage, and yet something like this gets virtually zero publicity. The word "agenda" springs to mind somehow.
I can't see the UK passing a law against homosexual marriage though.
I must say I'm quite pleased to see more countries accepting homosexuals as equals. Okay, it'll take time, but these things always do.
I can't see how homosexuality was designed by anybody to prevent overpopulation - if it was, it isn't working - but it's something that is for the most part the decision of the individual, and not something forced on them.
If I was attracted to the same gender (Gender Neutral most days) I know there'd be nothing I could do about it. I don't think I'd want to try very hard either.
I blogged about this before.. hold on.. I'll pull it out..
Heya,
As for homosexuality, I think I have something to say. Recently I've
been reading a bunch of books on how storge turns to eros. 
Here's a
short list:
Mary Pytches - Between Friends (Overcoming the obstacles to friendship)
John White - Eros Defiled
John White - Eros Redeemed
There's another writer.. Barbara something. Can't remember it offhand.
My personal favourite is the Mary Pytches one. Opened my eyes to
scrutinize my own friendships. ^_-
Enjoy!
Soo Tian
This is from the [emergentmalaysia] list.. any Emergent-minded Christian thinkers here?
And no.. 10 years hasn't changed my Christian thinking.. it's taken a lot of bashings to reinforce it though. Remember those days debating with Zif? 
Hoooo boy, not going to even google what those are. Already got a nervous twitch from Torn today. o.-
~Rico (One day I wanna meet a nice guy and move to a bigot free country with him. Still waiting to find either.)
I can't remember offhand who it was who said it, but someone earlier on in the topic mentioned that the point is here the allowance of homosexual marriage; and that marriage is a Christian concept and thus Christians have a right to be upset about such a matter. Now, while technically this is true, one also has to take into account that these days such a thing as non-Christian marriage exists, i.e. recently in the UK we had a Humanist marriage which was entirely a legal and binding agreement, or at least along those lines. Taking that into account, if it's that sort of agreement that they're entering into, technically speaking there isn't a leg to stand on.
However.
I think Christians have a moral obligation to speak up when something is wrong. It's the call of a Christian to stand up for moral correctness in a world that's more or less corrupt. If you have Christians around when you start talking about matters such as homosexuality, let alone homosexual marriage, then you should expect them to make a noise about it. Likewise, I daresay if you began to make remarks that were in some way racist when you had a member of the race you were making derogatory remarks around, I daresay it wouldn't take long for them to make a racket at you either.
You can't expect someone to stand idly by when you do something that to them is blatantly wrong. This topic is about homosexual mariage being made legal. The reason that it's been illegal up until now is because the laws that a large amount of countries have are usually based on some sort of religious values system. For example, the UK's laws are mostly based on Christian values: it's illegal to steal, it's illegal to kill and so on. A long while ago, it was probably illegal to have sex outside of marriage. It's still illegal to have sex if you're under 16, which coincidentally happens to be the age you're allowed to be married with parental consent. You can't ignore the interconnectedness of those two laws.
One other thing I'd like to add. Yes, Christians are called to love all people. But, there's a massive difference between loving someone and accepting their behaviour as alright. For example, my mother isn't proud of the reputation one of my brothers has made for himself. Has that stopped her loving him? Not one bit. I know a few people who are homosexual. I speak with them on a regular basis, and they're pretty good friends, whom I love and care about. Does that mean I think their inclination is wholesome? No, it doesn't. Will I stop loving them because of it? Not one bit.
Furthermore, you can't love someone without it causing you to act. If you have a friend whom you know, for example, is a shoplifter, you would tell them to stop for their own good. If you see someone you care about breaking the law, you advise them not to do so because you love them. Because you care. Not because you want to condemn them.
What I'm saying is, don't be surprised if Christians make a fuss about this, but also don't take it the wrong way either. We're (for the most part) not trying to condemn you, we're telling you what we see as right because we care. We don't hate the individual person, or the collective people as a whole. What we hate is when people are led astray and do wrong.
Anyway, I think I've ranted long enough.
~SilverShadow.
I don't think I can exactly say anything that hasn't been said already. I believe that everyone has a right to do what they want to do with their lives, and in this particular issue I don't exactly see anything necessarily bad or destructive. I just think it's up to the individual what morals they are to live by. Not the governments. Naturaly, I'm not saying the governemt shouldn't stop us from blowing up buildings or anything crazy like that. ^^;
~T2K
Quote:
so it's [legal] in Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada and NO WHERE ELSE?
I believe you forgot Spain. Oh, and for the moment (particularly since they're looking for a way to get rid of it), the state of Massachusetts.
...marriage is a Christian concept and thus Christians have a right to be upset about such a matter. Now, while technically this is true, one also has to take into account that these days such a thing as non-Christian marriage exists.
Actually no, technically, this is not true. See, I dunno if you ever took history, but human beings have been marring each other for millennia, since long before Christianity was invented. The Romans had marriage. The Greeks had marriage. The Egyptians had marriage. The Chinese had marriage. The Vikings had marriage. The ancient native civilizations of the Americas had marriage. Most anthropologists figure cavemen had some rudimentary form of marriage. Buddhism has marriage. Hinduism has marriage. Islam has marriage. Judeasim has marriage.
Sorry, but the universe does not revolve around Christianity. Hard though it may be to believe, there was a world, a very functional one I might add, long before Christ showed up. Christians do not have a monopoly on marriage. Which brings me to this.
The reason that it's been illegal up until now is because the laws that a large amount of countries have are usually based on some sort of religious values system. For example, the UK's laws are mostly based on Christian values: it's illegal to steal, it's illegal to kill and so on.
Those are the fundamental tenets of literally any mainstream belief system imaginable, including the ones that came from times long, long before Christ, and from places far, far away from Rome. Christians do not have a monopoly on the common systems of morality that operate in virtually every civiliation, on which every societal construct in the history of mankind is based, and which are ingrained in each and every human being's mind.
While I don't disagree that British civilization was at one point governed in an oligarchial fashion by the church, it's not as though "Thou Shalt Not Kill", etc, were somehow exclusive to Christianity. Besides, those days were called the Dark Ages for a reason. We're still recovering from those.
See, back then, it was a capital crime, punishable by hanging, stoning, burning, or worse, to disobey any of the Ten Commandments, including such favourites as "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbour's House". Obviously that particular commandment is utterly ridiculous. "Remember The Sabbath Day And Keep It Holy" kind of went extinct when 7-11s started popping up. "Honor Thy Father And Thy Mother", "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery", and "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Unto Thy Neighbour" are personal matters and really none of the government's business.
Today's free, democratic societies are comprised of people of all religions, of all races and colours and beliefs, and are engineered to accomodate those people. Laws are written based on whether something provably infringes on the rights of other citizens, and no longer based on what ancient texts say. Commandments like "Thou Shalt Not Have Other Gods Besides Me" and "I Am The Lord Your God" have no place in such a society. They were written out of social consciousness ages ago. Then, a sizeable group of citizens in the society called Canada wanted to marry other consenting adults of the same gender. Thus, government chose in a democratic fashion to make this legal, because such an act would not infringe upon the rights of other citizens. Our society is freer because of it, and another piece of baggage left over from the Dark Ages has been shed. Religious freaks can jump up and down all they want, but until they can prove that their rights are being infringed upon, their blathering has no relevance.
My point is this. Society got over religion a long time ago. I hope religion will likewise get over society, before it makes an ass of itself.
Quote:
I can't see the UK passing a law against homosexual marriage though.
Homosexuals already aren't allowed to marry in the UK.
What SS said, I agree with what he said. Too many people are taking either one extreme stance or the other, "destroy all gays" or "love them no matter what they do." That isn't very representative of how things really are. It is possible for God to love everyone and still have commandments for us to follow at the same time.
And Cycle, it's funny you should mention that marriage is an institution of man. Because when it comes down to it, why is that so? I honestly don't think we would have come up with marriage on our own. Look at what science teaches us about "human sexual instincts," and tell me that we could have developed it on our own, and why. I believe that God gave the institution of marriage to us, and it started way back with Adam and Eve. And it would be inconsistent for us to automatically assume that God didn't have a role in things even before Jesus Christ was born on the Earth. So this would mean that marriage is a sacred institution and that there are reasons it was given to us.
Of course, if you don't consider any religion to be true as is obvious from your prejudiced statements, or Christianity in specific, then what I just said will have no meaning to you except as context for what I believe. But Christianity existed long before Christ was born on the Earth, the Old Testament can tell you that much. I just wanted to point out that Christians, believing their religion to be true, do have a leg to stand on when it comes to preserving the sacred institution of marriage. Whether the rest of society chooses to ignore that and the other civilizations that have fallen because of their corruption of marriage and sex in general (you seem to know your history; you figure that one out), is up to society.
I have tried to avoid posting before because honestly, I don't like to argue on points like this when such important things like religion and freedom are at stake. And I'm not sure it would do any good, since most people by the time they are old enough to post on this board have made their minds up about God and religion. But I was already thinking along the same lines as SilverShadow, and I'm glad he was able to articulate what a lot Christians actually think about this whole debate.
Quote:
And Cycle, it's funny you should mention that marriage is an institution of man. Because when it comes down to it, why is that so?
We thought up butterscotch pudding on our own and that's way more important than marriage. So I believe it's very possible. You don't give the human race enough credit.
Everyone knows that marriage is about as sacred as a dead, decaying rat. If it's such a big deal, then why do most people who marry get divorced? Let the homosexuals have their marriage. Maybe they might have better divorce rates.
Read more carfully, Cyc. I said concept, not invention. At no point did I say marriage was exclusive to Christianity either. I'm well aware it existed in various forms beforehand. I don't need a history lesson from you to know that. Maybe I should have said "non-religious marriage", as such things do exist; that is, folks can get married down the registry office rather than going to all the bother of a religious affair. Recently there was a humanist wedding in Scotland for example, which was more based on legalese than anthing else. However, I'm well aware that other cultures and religions engage in an act similar in many ways. And some even call it the same thing. The point is, the Western cultural concept of marriage is mainly based on what Christians widely recognise as marriage; ie, their own concept of it. This is why they get upset about such things. I daresay people of other religions would feel upset if their government were to take a concept from their religion and pervert it in some way. This is why Christians get upset to see marriage being used in a way it wasn't intended. This wouldn't be the first time some sort of religious concept has been taken and used like this. Look at Christmas and Easter for example. I bet the number of folk who celebrate present-getting day and chocolate-egg-eating day exceeds the number of those that actually celebrate aforementioned events. Again, these are both from the Christian faith, but it wouldn't surprise me to find there are other such events from other religions that have been used in such a way.
Quote:
Christians do not have a monopoly on the common systems of morality that operate in virtually every civiliation, on which every societal construct in the history of mankind is based, and which are ingrained in each and every human being's mind.
No they don't, and neither did I say that they do, nor did I try to imply as such. Note that I said "based on some sort of religious values system", and that I happened to use the UK as an example, which has a lot of laws based on Christianity. I'm well aware that other countries are likely to base their laws on the moral standing of other religions; for example upon Judaism in Israel, Islam in Iraq(?), perhaps upon Hinduism in India and so on. Would you have made as much of a fuss if I'd used one of those as an example?
Quote:
..including such favourites as "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbour's House".
Sorry, what version did you look that up in? Unless I'm very much mistaken, you should replace the word "house" with "wife". Of course, it covers posessions as well in some translations too. Anyway, of course it's ridiculous taken out of context. You're told not to covet these things so that it won't lead you to do wrong (for example, committing adultery. Or stealing). It may sound daft out of context, but then again, so would the command "thou shalt not kill" if you were in the middle of a battlefield fighting for your life, wouldn't it?
Quote:
...and "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Unto Thy Neighbour" are personal matters and really none of the government's business.
OK then. So if you're ever accused of a crime, you'll be perfectly alright about it if the witnesses lie and you end up in jail or worse. I'll remember that one. In a modern day context, this one would read along the lines of "Do not pervert the course of justice by lying".
Quote:
See, back then, it was a capital crime, punishable by hanging, stoning, burning, or worse, to disobey any of the Ten Commandments...
And to an extent it still is, albeit the punishments are different and it isn't applied to all of them. For example, if you kill, steal, bear false witness or commit adultery (depending on with whom and other factors), you stand to face some form of punishment, usually along the lines of imprisonment or, depending on where you live and what law you broke, death.
Quote:
Besides, those days were called the Dark Ages for a reason.
"Most commonly, as applied to European history, the term "Dark Ages" was originally used to denote the 900-year period we now call the Middle Ages. This concept of a "Dark Age" was first created by Italian humanists and was originally intended as a pejorative sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Later historians expanded the term to include not only the lack of Latin literature, but a lack of material cultural achievements in general. Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope. The rise of archaeology and other specialities in the 20th century has shed much light on the period and offered a more nuanced understanding of its positive developments. Other terms of periodization have come to the fore: Late Antiquity, the Early Middle Ages and the Great Migrations, depending on which aspects of culture are being emphasized. Most modern historians dismiss the notion that the era was a "Dark Age" by pointing out that this idea was based on ignorance of the period combined with popular stereotypes: many previous authors would simply assume that the era was a dismal time of violence and stagnation and use this assumption to prove itself.
In Britain and the United States, "Dark Ages" has been occasionally used by professionals, with severe qualification, as a term of periodization. This usage is intended as non-judgmental and simply means the relative lack of written record, "silent" as much as "dark." "
Sorry, wasn't that the reason you meant?
And as for infringement on rights. If you're going to be legalistic about it, homosexual marriage is an infringement on the right of Christians to practice their religion as they see fit. The reason being that the government is saying that, by law, it has to be allowed to happen. You'll find that many Christians think otherwise, based on their belief system. As the Western cultural idea of marriage is based on the Christian concept, that is the government in effect telling Christians how they are to practice their religion on this point. Therefore, that infringes on their right that I mentioned before. While I admit that not permitting homosexual marriage could be seen as an infringement of their right to it, technically they don't have one. The reason being that most countries' law systems ae based on religious beliefs, which don't allow for homosexuality. Seeing as, for the most part, the rights people are legally allowed are written in a similar manner, then it could be argued they don't have the right. Of course, you could argue that they don't have to be married in a Christian manner, and it could be humanistic or whatever. But I think the angle I'm coming from is still clear.
Oh, and one last thing. Maybe it was intended, maybe not, but the way in which your last post was written felt like you were deliberately trying to insult my intelligence and my belief system. I can give examples if you really wish, but I think you can find them yourself. Please refrain from that.
~SilverShadow.
Errgg. Reading a whole paragraph or two in uber small text about the origin of a single word barely pertaining to the topic hurts my head.
Quote:
And as for infringement on rights. If you're going to be legalistic about it, homosexual marriage is an infringement on the right of Christians to practice their religion as they see fit.
Christians can practice their religion how they see fit just as well as they could have before. You're implying that since Christians can't STOP gays from getting married that their rights are being infringed? Nonsense. Noone has complete control over their environment nor do they deserve it. I'd say it were being infringed if we forced random christian men into marrying eachother.
Infact I think we should do that. It could be a reality show. And then it turns out one's a woman. Of course the audiance always knows this. BUT THE TWIST? THE OTHER ONE'S A WOMAN TOO! =O (Of course that would make for some very ugly woman. That should satisfy Harley in her topic.)
Undoubtedly somebody's already attempted this...
Exactly Cyke. Just like in America, you have a right to something up until it infringes on others rights. As an example you have the freedon to worpship any religion you choose up until you try to use it to impede anothers legal rights.
~Rico
