Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
- Thread starter Jo Canadian
- Start date
Nascar_James said:
Ummm...maintaining the separation of church and state is a smart goal for any politician...
Nascar_James said:
I'm guessing you've never seen an ultra-lift wing politician in your life if that's what you think...if anything, Martin tries to put forth a conservative-type agenda, but then the people put him in his place...this is why he has a tendency to flip-flop on a lot of issues...
"Yes, Paul Martin (Who by the way is an ultra-left wing politician) is Catholic, but he will pay the price (I hope) for his same sex marriage legislation at the next election."
You're calling Paul Martin ultra left wing? My God, he's more a part of the conservative(small c)/fiancial circles than anyone since Mulroney....He's more conservative than Joe Clark ever was.
You have a strange view of the left wing.
You're calling Paul Martin ultra left wing? My God, he's more a part of the conservative(small c)/fiancial circles than anyone since Mulroney....He's more conservative than Joe Clark ever was.
You have a strange view of the left wing.
RE: Gay advocates fight c
And of course here in BC (South Coast mainly)its not that unpopular just in certain circles.
And of course here in BC (South Coast mainly)its not that unpopular just in certain circles.
In my view, the Churches should lose some of their tax exempt status anyway. Chruches should be allowed the tax break for all works that assist people in the communtiy, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and providing shelter for the homeless. Those things should be encouraged and they should not pay taxes on funds raised for those purposes. Church property should be taxed like any other property.
When it comes to discriminating against others there is a fine line here. Churches should not be allowed make incorrect statements, about any group, and they should not be allowed to bully others, those seeking an abortion or gays or anyone else for that matter.
The time has come to ensure that no one is exempt from the law.
Should churches be required to perform weddings of the gay community? Probably they should, however at the present time it would serve no useful purpose to impose such a requirement on them. The religious community must be given time to come to grips with reality, after all some churches have only come to grips with the fact that the earth is round, recently.
For many in the religious community, they are frightened of the Devil, and that God will send a terrible deed upon them because we didn't do whatever they believe He said. They truly believe this stuff, and this is where their bigoted views come from.
This is the 2lst century yet some people not just Christians, but many others religious and other wise believe in devils and demons, witches, and spirits, and any number of different things to explain the world around them. The only healer of such a debate and battle is time. At one time the Church believed the earth was flat and you could fall of the edge, if you disagreed they might even have you killed as an agent of the devil, fortunately time has cured that extreme view, just like time will cure this extreme view.
Both sides of this debate need to examine their thoughts, actions and choices of words. Jesus preached understanding, love, and forgiveness, and I sure haven't heard or seen too much of that in this debate across the country.
When it comes to discriminating against others there is a fine line here. Churches should not be allowed make incorrect statements, about any group, and they should not be allowed to bully others, those seeking an abortion or gays or anyone else for that matter.
The time has come to ensure that no one is exempt from the law.
Should churches be required to perform weddings of the gay community? Probably they should, however at the present time it would serve no useful purpose to impose such a requirement on them. The religious community must be given time to come to grips with reality, after all some churches have only come to grips with the fact that the earth is round, recently.
For many in the religious community, they are frightened of the Devil, and that God will send a terrible deed upon them because we didn't do whatever they believe He said. They truly believe this stuff, and this is where their bigoted views come from.
This is the 2lst century yet some people not just Christians, but many others religious and other wise believe in devils and demons, witches, and spirits, and any number of different things to explain the world around them. The only healer of such a debate and battle is time. At one time the Church believed the earth was flat and you could fall of the edge, if you disagreed they might even have you killed as an agent of the devil, fortunately time has cured that extreme view, just like time will cure this extreme view.
Both sides of this debate need to examine their thoughts, actions and choices of words. Jesus preached understanding, love, and forgiveness, and I sure haven't heard or seen too much of that in this debate across the country.
RE: Gay advocates fight c
The Churches always complain about freedom of religion and religious discrimmination, yet they are committing hate crimes under the law, by the way some churches treat "non straight" people.
Personally if I was a "gay" I would nail the ones that can't keep their mouth's shut with hate crimes charges.
They may quote the bible and say two people marrying of the same sex is a sin yet the bible has the following quotes (King James Bible)
Incest approved:
Gen.19:31-36
Gen.20:12
Ex.6:20
If you do not believe me check them out.
The Churches always complain about freedom of religion and religious discrimmination, yet they are committing hate crimes under the law, by the way some churches treat "non straight" people.
Personally if I was a "gay" I would nail the ones that can't keep their mouth's shut with hate crimes charges.
They may quote the bible and say two people marrying of the same sex is a sin yet the bible has the following quotes (King James Bible)
Incest approved:
Gen.19:31-36
Gen.20:12
Ex.6:20
If you do not believe me check them out.
Re: RE: Gay advocates fight c
Oh ya, it's all there. I've studied the bible.
You gotta remember, No 1, that these guys quote only what is convenient to their argument. I personally don't find the bible useful as a source of support in any debate, mostly because I don't believe in it. I figure you can find anything you want in there. The hate mongerers just pick and choose so to me, it loses all credibility. If you can't include an entire piece of work to back your point, it's useless. The bible is ambiguous, which renders it a poor source of reference.
Your point about making churches accountable for their hate crimes is interesting. Way back when I first came out, I'd probably do just that. Now I'm older and lazy about it.
I figure organized religion is a sham and that the true colours are showing through on their own without me breaking a sweat. Maybe someone should suggest it to the Canadian chapter of Lesbian Avengers. :twisted: :twisted: Hmmm. They're a very proactive bunch. I may post the idea in another forum I visit. I'll keep you anonymous, but will credit a straight guy with the idea.
no1important said:
Oh ya, it's all there. I've studied the bible.
You gotta remember, No 1, that these guys quote only what is convenient to their argument. I personally don't find the bible useful as a source of support in any debate, mostly because I don't believe in it. I figure you can find anything you want in there. The hate mongerers just pick and choose so to me, it loses all credibility. If you can't include an entire piece of work to back your point, it's useless. The bible is ambiguous, which renders it a poor source of reference.
Your point about making churches accountable for their hate crimes is interesting. Way back when I first came out, I'd probably do just that. Now I'm older and lazy about it.
I figure organized religion is a sham and that the true colours are showing through on their own without me breaking a sweat. Maybe someone should suggest it to the Canadian chapter of Lesbian Avengers. :twisted: :twisted: Hmmm. They're a very proactive bunch. I may post the idea in another forum I visit. I'll keep you anonymous, but will credit a straight guy with the idea.
I'm not too worried about what Churches do; I view them as a club I don't belong to anyway. They can do what the heck they want, just like the local Rotary club.
Like all the fuss about the new Pope; he's like an elected leader of a foreign country. Doesn't involve me, so why should I care?
Like all the fuss about the new Pope; he's like an elected leader of a foreign country. Doesn't involve me, so why should I care?
RE: Gay advocates fight c
Face it, Jay, many of the hate sites on the web are church sponsored! They are filled with wrong information designed to scare people into hating gays. You can't argue that ... just Google it and read away.
Freedom of speech is essential, but hate mongering is not freedom of speech. You are intelligent enough to know the difference.
Face it, Jay, many of the hate sites on the web are church sponsored! They are filled with wrong information designed to scare people into hating gays. You can't argue that ... just Google it and read away.
Freedom of speech is essential, but hate mongering is not freedom of speech. You are intelligent enough to know the difference.
Cosmo, I guess I'm stupid because I don't agree...people say all sorts of crap against Christians, and yet the courts aren’t full of hate crimes charges....its a two way street.
You have to learn to accept that people are going to say things you disagree with, and some of those things you might think are hateful, but charging people for saying things was something we got ride of many, many years ago...Isn't it the left accusing the right of going backwards? Seems to me the opposite is true.
You have to learn to accept that people are going to say things you disagree with, and some of those things you might think are hateful, but charging people for saying things was something we got ride of many, many years ago...Isn't it the left accusing the right of going backwards? Seems to me the opposite is true.
Oh yes what a great BIGOT good old bishop henry is...
here is the the link to the disquisting letter this so called leader posted in a newspaper.
Bishop Henry - Pastoral Letter to be Released January 15-16
My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
Many assume that we are powerless, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been invoked and the Supreme Court has spoken and settled the same-sex issue. However, such an assumption is erroneous. The Supreme Court has said that Parliament may redefine marriage, it has not said that it must redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. The Supreme Court Justices talk about reading the Constitution,“expansively,” and that it is like a “living tree which by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.”
Nevertheless, I would suggest that there are more roots to the tree than simply the Charter of Rights and Freedom. There are also historical, cultural, philosophical, moral, and anthropological roots. The failure to attend to the health of all the roots runs the risk of killing the tree and destroying the public good.
Contrary to what is normally alleged, the primary goals in seeking legalization of same-sex “marriage” are not the financial or health or inheritance or pension benefits associated with marriage. The search for stability and exclusivity in a homosexual relationship is not the driving force. The principal objective in seeking same-sex “marriage”is not really even about equality rights. The goal is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society’s rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance.
It is significant to note that 18 months after same-sex “marriage” arrived in Canada (principally as a result of court decisions in Ontario and British Columbia), more than 95% of adult Canadian gays have chosen to ignore their new legal right.
The Supreme Court also refused to answer whether the Charter requires that marriage be redefined.
As Catholics we hold marriage to be a sacrament, a sacred covenant in which husband and wife express their mutual love, and join with God in the creation of a new human person, destined for eternal life.
However, without recourse to the sacramental reality and without reliance on a multitude of quotes from Sacred Scripture, we find ourselves sharing basic common ground with the majority of Canadians who understand marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, faithful in love and open to the gift of life. Marriage and the family are the foundations of society, through which children are brought into this world and nurtured as they grow to adulthood. As such, the family is a more fundamental social institution than the state, and the strength of the family is vital for the well-being of our whole society.
Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.
It is sometimes argued that what we do in the privacy of our home is nobody’ s business. While the privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, it is not absolute. Furthermore, an evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or in private.
Personal choice is exercised both in opting for the marital state and in the choice of one’s spouse. However, the future spouses are not free to alter marriage’s essential purpose or properties. These do not depend on the will or the sexual orientation of the contracting parties. They are rooted in natural law and do not change.
The committed union of two people of the same sex is not the same human reality as the committed union of one man and one woman. A same-sex union is not a physical union that transmits human life, producing children. A same-sex union is not the joining of two complementary natures that complete each other. Simply stated, a same sex union is not marriage. The idea that homosexuals can create same sex “marriage” through their individual choice is false. All the packaging in the world doesn’t alter substance.
Some would allege that opposing same-sex “marriage” is pure prejudice. This contention is also false. There are human rights laws, which say: men and women must be paid the same wage for the same work; an employer may not refuse to hire someone because of the skin colour; landlords may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. These decision uphold the rights of the individual and, at the same time, strengthen Canadian society. They encourage us to recognize the humanity of the other person.
Furthermore, a man and a woman wanting to marry may be completely different in their characteristics such as: colour, ethnicity, in wealth and social status, physical attributes, and educational background. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still a man and a woman, and the requirements of nature are respected. Two individual of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to same-sex couples is not discrimination. It is not something opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires such an opposition.
It is the right and the responsibility of all citizens who are troubled by the proposal to reinvent the institution of marriage, to enter into the debate and, with clarity and charity, to make their voices heard by their fellow citizens and our political leaders.
Please take the time to write, email and/or fax government leaders and your local member of parliament registering your objection to the proposal to reinvent the institution of marriage.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
F. B. Henry
Bishop of Calgary.
Wow! could he be anymore transparent! BIGOT! This is rich.
He told his parishioners that the goal of the homosexual movement is not simply to obtain the various rights and obligations of marriage. It is a "...powerful psychological weapon to change society’s rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance."
In a remarkable passage, he wrote:
"Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good. It is sometimes argued that what we do in the privacy of our home is nobody’s business. While the privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, it is not absolute. Furthermore, an evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or in private."
Hey Jay...hows about telling us just what kind of "government oppression" pastor henry has in mind when it comes to gays, lesbians and bisexuals....even better...why not look in the mirror and start dealing with their pedophile priests....gwad!!!! they are such hypocrites!
here is the the link to the disquisting letter this so called leader posted in a newspaper.
Bishop Henry - Pastoral Letter to be Released January 15-16
My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
Many assume that we are powerless, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been invoked and the Supreme Court has spoken and settled the same-sex issue. However, such an assumption is erroneous. The Supreme Court has said that Parliament may redefine marriage, it has not said that it must redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. The Supreme Court Justices talk about reading the Constitution,“expansively,” and that it is like a “living tree which by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.”
Nevertheless, I would suggest that there are more roots to the tree than simply the Charter of Rights and Freedom. There are also historical, cultural, philosophical, moral, and anthropological roots. The failure to attend to the health of all the roots runs the risk of killing the tree and destroying the public good.
Contrary to what is normally alleged, the primary goals in seeking legalization of same-sex “marriage” are not the financial or health or inheritance or pension benefits associated with marriage. The search for stability and exclusivity in a homosexual relationship is not the driving force. The principal objective in seeking same-sex “marriage”is not really even about equality rights. The goal is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society’s rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance.
It is significant to note that 18 months after same-sex “marriage” arrived in Canada (principally as a result of court decisions in Ontario and British Columbia), more than 95% of adult Canadian gays have chosen to ignore their new legal right.
The Supreme Court also refused to answer whether the Charter requires that marriage be redefined.
As Catholics we hold marriage to be a sacrament, a sacred covenant in which husband and wife express their mutual love, and join with God in the creation of a new human person, destined for eternal life.
However, without recourse to the sacramental reality and without reliance on a multitude of quotes from Sacred Scripture, we find ourselves sharing basic common ground with the majority of Canadians who understand marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, faithful in love and open to the gift of life. Marriage and the family are the foundations of society, through which children are brought into this world and nurtured as they grow to adulthood. As such, the family is a more fundamental social institution than the state, and the strength of the family is vital for the well-being of our whole society.
Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.
It is sometimes argued that what we do in the privacy of our home is nobody’ s business. While the privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, it is not absolute. Furthermore, an evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or in private.
Personal choice is exercised both in opting for the marital state and in the choice of one’s spouse. However, the future spouses are not free to alter marriage’s essential purpose or properties. These do not depend on the will or the sexual orientation of the contracting parties. They are rooted in natural law and do not change.
The committed union of two people of the same sex is not the same human reality as the committed union of one man and one woman. A same-sex union is not a physical union that transmits human life, producing children. A same-sex union is not the joining of two complementary natures that complete each other. Simply stated, a same sex union is not marriage. The idea that homosexuals can create same sex “marriage” through their individual choice is false. All the packaging in the world doesn’t alter substance.
Some would allege that opposing same-sex “marriage” is pure prejudice. This contention is also false. There are human rights laws, which say: men and women must be paid the same wage for the same work; an employer may not refuse to hire someone because of the skin colour; landlords may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. These decision uphold the rights of the individual and, at the same time, strengthen Canadian society. They encourage us to recognize the humanity of the other person.
Furthermore, a man and a woman wanting to marry may be completely different in their characteristics such as: colour, ethnicity, in wealth and social status, physical attributes, and educational background. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still a man and a woman, and the requirements of nature are respected. Two individual of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to same-sex couples is not discrimination. It is not something opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires such an opposition.
It is the right and the responsibility of all citizens who are troubled by the proposal to reinvent the institution of marriage, to enter into the debate and, with clarity and charity, to make their voices heard by their fellow citizens and our political leaders.
Please take the time to write, email and/or fax government leaders and your local member of parliament registering your objection to the proposal to reinvent the institution of marriage.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
F. B. Henry
Bishop of Calgary.
Wow! could he be anymore transparent! BIGOT! This is rich.
He told his parishioners that the goal of the homosexual movement is not simply to obtain the various rights and obligations of marriage. It is a "...powerful psychological weapon to change society’s rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance."
In a remarkable passage, he wrote:
"Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good. It is sometimes argued that what we do in the privacy of our home is nobody’s business. While the privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, it is not absolute. Furthermore, an evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or in private."
Hey Jay...hows about telling us just what kind of "government oppression" pastor henry has in mind when it comes to gays, lesbians and bisexuals....even better...why not look in the mirror and start dealing with their pedophile priests....gwad!!!! they are such hypocrites!
Re: RE: Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
Jay ... the last time I know of someone being killed for being christian involved lions. Homosexuals are beaten, killed and harmed every day. There is a difference between defending ... which I feel the need to do when the church gets going ... and attacking. I don't attack christians, but will defend myself when they propagate lies.
Jay said:
Jay ... the last time I know of someone being killed for being christian involved lions. Homosexuals are beaten, killed and harmed every day. There is a difference between defending ... which I feel the need to do when the church gets going ... and attacking. I don't attack christians, but will defend myself when they propagate lies.
RE: Gay advocates fight c
Good article, Pea. Illustrates my point ... this is an attack on me. I didn't start this fight, but if the gauntlet is thrown down, I won't back away either.
Good article, Pea. Illustrates my point ... this is an attack on me. I didn't start this fight, but if the gauntlet is thrown down, I won't back away either.
Good Morning Pea.
I'm not Catholic, so I can't be part of the looking in the mirror.....
"powerful psychological weapon to change society’s rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance.""
You don't agree with that statement?...There is more going on here than the right to change the marriage laws. Surly there is a movement to change society’s views on the matter...correct me if I'm wrong.
"Hey Jay...hows about telling us just what kind of "government oppression" pastor henry has in mind when it comes to gays, lesbians and bisexuals"
I think he simply means to keep the laws as they are (sort of the reason the government is charged with defining marriage)....I think he thinks this is an affront to the family...
I can understand the frustration, on both sides.
I'm not Catholic, so I can't be part of the looking in the mirror.....
"powerful psychological weapon to change society’s rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance.""
You don't agree with that statement?...There is more going on here than the right to change the marriage laws. Surly there is a movement to change society’s views on the matter...correct me if I'm wrong.
"Hey Jay...hows about telling us just what kind of "government oppression" pastor henry has in mind when it comes to gays, lesbians and bisexuals"
I think he simply means to keep the laws as they are (sort of the reason the government is charged with defining marriage)....I think he thinks this is an affront to the family...
I can understand the frustration, on both sides.
RE: Gay advocates fight c
Well, I'm off to bed for a wee nap ... but will follow this thread more when I wake up. Play nice while I'm gone, kids!
Well, I'm off to bed for a wee nap ... but will follow this thread more when I wake up.
Play nice while I'm gone, kids!Well of course you will defend it Jay, regardless of the facts or the truths...
Yes good old bishop henry would like some GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION against a minority.
Human rights complaints filed against Roman Catholic bishop:
A total of two complaints were filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission during 2005-MAR. Both object to the passages in Bishop Henry's letter that:
Groups together "homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography..."
Calls for governments to use "its coercive power to proscribe or curtail" homosexuality.
Carol Johnson filed the first complaint. She wrote in her letter: "I believe the publication of Bishop Henry's letter is likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt. These remarks are particularly dangerous when made by a person in a position of trust and authority."
Norman Greenfield also filed a personal complaint with the Commission on MAR-29.3 He was allegedly shocked when he found that Bishop Henry had released his name to the press. Complaints to the commission are supposed to be confidential. Greenfield said: "I'm not doing this because anybody in my family is gay, I'm just doing it because what Bishop Henry seems to think he can get away with saying in public against an identifiable group. I think the debate over same-sex marriage has gotten way out of hand, and we need to bring it back to some level of civility. "
bishop henry is bigoted hate mongering low life..
Yes good old bishop henry would like some GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION against a minority.
Human rights complaints filed against Roman Catholic bishop:
A total of two complaints were filed with the Alberta Human Rights Commission during 2005-MAR. Both object to the passages in Bishop Henry's letter that:
Groups together "homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography..."
Calls for governments to use "its coercive power to proscribe or curtail" homosexuality.
Carol Johnson filed the first complaint. She wrote in her letter: "I believe the publication of Bishop Henry's letter is likely to expose homosexuals to hatred or contempt. These remarks are particularly dangerous when made by a person in a position of trust and authority."
Norman Greenfield also filed a personal complaint with the Commission on MAR-29.3 He was allegedly shocked when he found that Bishop Henry had released his name to the press. Complaints to the commission are supposed to be confidential. Greenfield said: "I'm not doing this because anybody in my family is gay, I'm just doing it because what Bishop Henry seems to think he can get away with saying in public against an identifiable group. I think the debate over same-sex marriage has gotten way out of hand, and we need to bring it back to some level of civility. "
bishop henry is bigoted hate mongering low life..
Re: RE: Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
But of coarse we are discussing freedom of speech...beating and killing people is neither lawful nor condoned by Christians.
And if that’s the last time you heard about it, you haven't been paying attention to the issue...understandably, I suppose, you’re just not sympathetic.
http://www.christianpersecution.info/
I've heard in Kosovo they like to rape Nuns...we can all imagine why the Nuns are singled out.
I used to work for a guy...he told me that back in the 50's they used to go to the downtown park and beat up Gay folk. (The park I guess was frequented by Gays) he certainly wasn't a Christian, and I don't think he was smart enough to read....What he was doing is covered by law. Assault and battery is the charge that applies here. Taking away freedom of speech is wrong and it is a noble cause to defend freedom of speech.
Cosmo said:
But of coarse we are discussing freedom of speech...beating and killing people is neither lawful nor condoned by Christians.
And if that’s the last time you heard about it, you haven't been paying attention to the issue...understandably, I suppose, you’re just not sympathetic.
http://www.christianpersecution.info/
I've heard in Kosovo they like to rape Nuns...we can all imagine why the Nuns are singled out.
I used to work for a guy...he told me that back in the 50's they used to go to the downtown park and beat up Gay folk. (The park I guess was frequented by Gays) he certainly wasn't a Christian, and I don't think he was smart enough to read....What he was doing is covered by law. Assault and battery is the charge that applies here. Taking away freedom of speech is wrong and it is a noble cause to defend freedom of speech.