Gay advocates fight churches' charity status

[Cosmo]

Yet again, I repeat: Marriage is NOT religious. It is a legal matter. The manner in which one chooses to facilitate a marriage frequently includes religion ... of many sorts, but the actual marriage is a legality. If it were simply religion, the argument would be carried out in the churches, not in our legislature.

It's about laws. It's not about religion. If it were about religion, I'd like someone to explain the drive thru marriage places in Vegas! That's one odd religion!

I support any church's right not to perform SSM ceremonies. Religion is, as you stated, generally predicated on a holy book of some kind. I have no quarrel with religious organizations staying true to their tenets. I think it's sad that some of us have been raised in strong christian homes, yet are excommunicated from our religious roots by prejudice, but sad is not illegal. There are plenty of religious ... even christian ... organizations willing to perform SSM ceremonies. Finding one is the responsibility of the couple wanting to marry.

Your comments indicate that the bible is the authoritarian word on religion. I would argue that. Some of us do not believe in that particular book of teachings. Even some straight people I know do not believe. To bring religion into the argument is not helpful. It is irrelevant to the legalities.

 

[Gordon J Torture]

Yet again, I repeat: Marriage is NOT religious. It is a legal matter. The manner in which one chooses to facilitate a marriage frequently includes religion ... of many sorts, but the actual marriage is a legality. If it were simply religion, the argument would be carried out in the churches, not in our legislature.

Yes, but what you are not trying to understand is that when you change the rules of one of these matters, it will contradict the other. If by law SSM becomes legal, then now you will have millions of religious people who believe they live in an unjust society. They will be left exactly where you are now. Is that really a solution?

The only solution is to change the name. Think about it.

 

[Gordon J Torture]

Your comments indicate that the bible is the authoritarian word on religion. I would argue that. Some of us do not believe in that particular book of teachings.

Actually I am an atheist but I study all religions from a historical perspective.

 

[Cosmo]

Actually I am an athiest but I study all religions from a historical perspective.

You would be a most interesting person to talk with. I'm not athiest ... I am agnostic. I, too, have spent time studying many different religions. I'm big on not making a judgement call until I have some idea of the topic. In the end, my spiritual views are a strange eclectic collection from many different faiths.

I sorta figure they are all basically correct, the problem arises with the human application of higher philosophies.

As far as SSM, I would never presume to request any religion to change their views. My only request is to offer me the same courtesy.

 

[Gordon J Torture]

As far as SSM, I would never presume to request any religion to change their views. My only request is to offer me the same courtesy.

I believe those are your intentions, but how do you stop millions of people from feeling they live in an unjust society after the law changed to completely contradict their religious beliefs? ... Will you tell them they misinterpreted the bible? ... Tell them it's just their perception that is being contradicted? ... Both those things may be true, but people will not accept those things as answers.

I simply saw my idea as a way to bypass religious tension on the government in order to give homosexuals all the equal rights they want. The word may be different, but you would no longer be denied privilages that heterosexuals enjoy. However, if you perceived this idea as a way to "shut up pesky queers", than others are likely to do the same. Back to the drawing board I guess.

 

[Cosmo]

RE: Gay advocates fight c

I think you and I have differing ideas of what marriage is, Gordon. Marriage, itself, is a legality. The way people often get there is through their religious channels. But the two are separate. I actually have been married in a church (briefly, when I was 19 and still trying to follow the "easy path) and it all had to be legalized through government channels. So was the divorce. The church had no part in that.

I don't see how extending a legal right to anyone could offend another's religion. It doesn't change the meaning outside the religious ceremony. I think churches ought to have the right to deny SSM ceremonies so I'm not asking for any concession on their part. Churches can keep their definition within the confines of their rituals without asking the rest of the world to abide by their rituals.

I don't think it's simple semantics. I would never expect any church to modify their definition outside their own walls.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

On a similar track, Roman Catholics have the legal right to get divorced, even though their religion forbids it...

 

[Gordon J Torture]

I think you and I have differing ideas of what marriage is

I don't think we really do. We just predict different consequences as a result of an action.

I personally feel very strongly that many religious people will believe they live in an unjust society if ss "marriage" is made legal. I am not saying I agree with them, only that they will be left exactly where you are now because of their perception that the word "marriage", when used in the context of law, has the same meaning as when it's used in church.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Roman Catholics also have the right to wear condoms, even though their religion forbids it...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Ah never mind... :x

 

[Gordon J Torture]

Roman Catholics also have the right to wear condoms, even though their religion forbids it.

That it is not nearly as touchy of subject, and it's also an alternative to abortion which they consider even worse and 99% of them can relate to this. It's completely different.

On a similar track, Roman Catholics have the legal right to get divorced, even though their religion forbids it...

Yeah, and how many people have been beaten the sh*t out of by gangs of people because they got divorced?

It is not nearly as emotional of a subject for people. You will see, if this ever happens. I guarantee.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Roman Catholics also have the right to wear condoms, even though their religion forbids it.

That it is not nearly as touchy of subject, and it's also an alternative to abortion which they consider even worse and 99% of them can relate to this. It's completely different.

On a similar track, Roman Catholics have the legal right to get divorced, even though their religion forbids it...

Yeah, and how many people have been beaten the sh*t out of by gangs of people because they got divorced?

It is not nearly as emotional of a subject for people. You will see, if this ever happens. I guarantee.

All I was doing was showing that religious tradition and law do not coincide a lot of the time...

...and really that is just for the benefit of people who still wish to believe that marriage is a religious institution, which it is not...

...either way, you and Cosmo were having a delightful converstation, and I apologize for my intrusion...

 

[Gordon J Torture]

All I was doing was showing that religious tradition and law do not coincide a lot of the time...

...and really that is just for the benefit of people who still wish to believe that marriage is a religious institution, which it is not...

I agree with you man. The only problem is, I feel many religious people will become so emotional if SSM passes, it will result in increased violence. I do not want that to happen.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I agree with you man. The only problem is, I feel many religious people will become so emotional if SSM passes, it will result in increased violence. I do not want that to happen.

If it does result in increased violence, then those perpetrating the violence should be, and will be, arrested and tried for their crimes. Personally, I doubt much will come of it. Those so vehemnetly opposed to SSM are small in numbers, but big on rhetoric. Many of the tactics they've use so far show them to be cowards.

 

[Gordon J Torture]

I should add that despite my being atheist, my wife is catholic. Out of respect for her beliefs I allowed my oldest daughter to be baptized. During the entire ceremony I couldn't help but think "what a crock of sh*t this is". When the preist started dumping water all over my duaghter I almost stood up and punched him in the nose. My hands were shaking I got so mad. I didn't expect that to happen. I am over it now, but I can sort of relate to how the religious will feel about this. That is why I am trying explain "marriage" from their perspective.

 

[Cosmo]

Vanni ... I always enjoy your perspective. I'm glad my folks didn't get along too well ... as Catholics we ended up with 5 kids in the family as it was!

Gordon, I think the point you are making is valid. And I think I was, in fact, missing it slightly. I was not being intentionally obtuse ... I appreciate your persistence in expressing yourself.

I do agree that many people will see a change as an abandonment of the government in terms of their faith. Perhaps they are right.

I do not believe the church has any place in politics. The separation of the two is an enormous step forward, in my view. Yes, people will not like it. They didn't like it when slavery was abolished either, nor was there total support when us chicks got the vote back in 29, but eventually correct thinking prevailed and public opinion grew to fit the acts of decency. Today slavery is unthinkable and I trust that one day discrimination against homosexuals will gain that same status. It takes time.

But a first step needs to be made. Someone, somewhere in a position of power has to say, "Enough". This is our society's opportunity to do that. Whether we as a country choose to do so or whether we choose not to is quite telling to me in terms of measuring our spiritual growth and our capacity for goodness.

The fact that I have spent hours and hours in forums discussing this issue is an encouraging sign to me. That people are willing to have rational debate about it makes me optimistic that things are changing on a basic level in our society. I admit I get tired of talking about it because for me it is such a non-issue, but when I am engaged by someone who has given it thought as you have, I come away believing there is hope.

Prejudice is not part of my makeup so sometimes I do have difficulty understanding the thinking of people who persecute others. I'm amazed at that, considering the Romanian/Irish stock I come from, but something within me cannot comprehend judging another human on their sexual orientation, colour, faith, etc. I watch what people do and how they treat others and really, that's all that matters to me. It leaves me at a disadvantage to view this type of issue from the perspective of others, at times.

I do stand by my opinion, though. I want the right to marry who I love. Period. It's unfortunate that this may create a crisis of faith for some, but maybe that's all part of their growth too.

 

[Gordon J Torture]

Period. It's unfortunate that this may create a crisis of faith for some, but maybe that's all part of their growth too.

Yes, it is possible they might re-examine what their religion is all about, or they might completely reprobate the entire idea and wage virtual war. I for-see a perpetual reciprocation of law regarding anything that continues to use to word "marriage". I also believe most blacks would agree a peaceful transition into freedom would have been superior to a violent one, even if it was based on deception.

I see this as war, and after studying some Sun Tzu philosophies, I see deception as the means to victory, and winning without fighting superior to winning through violence.

The reason I see my idea as the solution is because no religion would then be using the word that describes the union of any two people in it's doctrine. Thus, the road to freedom and equality (which is what I am all about), would be far less emotional and far more peaceful, yet resulting in the same outcome. I really see "marriage" as just a word, and that the religious will never change their oppinion on this extremely emotional issue. If you can't change their opinion, why not simply outsmart them? .. That's how I see it.

 

[Cosmo]

RE: Gay advocates fight c

I'm big on strategy too, Gordon, when it comes to most things. Every now and then, though, I get my attitude on and nothing but full frontal assault satisfies me. This is one of those very rare cases in my life.

You make a valid point. Your way is probably smarter, and even might work. But this is personal to me ... I'm not a pacifist and every now and then the kick ass gene comes out. With this issue it has, in spades. I'm frustrated by years of bs about being gay and that plays a role.

In general, I would handle things with cool headed logic, as you espouse. This is just one of those off times for me.

 

[Gordon J Torture]

Gordon, I think the point you are making is valid. And I think I was, in fact, missing it slightly. I was not being intentionally obtuse ... I appreciate your persistence in expressing yourself.

Persistance is a virtue ... I think? ...

Sometimes it is difficult to communicate thoughts into written words, especially when your also trying to communicate other people's thoughts lol.

I am sorry for being unclear. I must add, it has been a rare thing here for me to debate with someone who actually sticks to the topic and presents only relevant facts. This has been encouraging indeed.

 

[bluealberta]

To the point of the thread, the questions that must be asked are why would the gay community want to have the churches charitable status revoked?

As most churches preach against homosexuality due to their faiths and beliefs, it would seem that most gays would not want to have anything to do with a so-called church marriage in one of these churches. And as there are churches that wll perform SSM, this would also seem to be an inducement to belong to that church.

Hypothetically, if a gay couple approached the Catholic Church requesting a church marriage, that would seem to be simply to get attention and pushing the envelope. This same couple could just as easily approach the United Church and be granted their wish, so to do otherwise is to be disingeneous.

If the point in all this is to diminish the role of churches in Canada, then the only way to guarantee that is to outlaw religion. Surely no one would promote that? The charitable status of churches allows them to do very good work all over the world, and to deny that would be a huge mistake.

Surely the answer for gays who want to be married in a church is to belong to a church that supports their viewpoints, not try and force a church that does not believe in homosexuality to alter their beliefs, faith, and tradition. Or is the ulitimate goal to force every church to change and force every church to perform SSM? Again, surely that cannot be the hidden goal of the gay community?