Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
- Thread starter Jo Canadian
- Start date
dave s said:
United Church of Canada
Also, now that the Anglican Church of Canada has ackowledged and accepted their first openly gay bishop, I foresee their stance on SSM softening considerably...
That's because there is no difference in rights. So what is the real problem? Social acceptance in my opinion.
Some people seem to be terrified that if same sex marriages are allowed to proceed with using the word "marriage", it will somehow besmirch or dissolve all existing, past, and prehistoric marriages. Or something like that.
There's this horrible fear that is connected to some people's belief that "marriage" is a religious institution, as opposed to a civil/legal concept.
Oh well.
There's this horrible fear that is connected to some people's belief that "marriage" is a religious institution, as opposed to a civil/legal concept.
Oh well.
It is about fear. My question is why amplify or impose this fear if there are no differences in rights?
What greater purpose does it serve?
What greater purpose does it serve?
The point I'm trying to make Jay, is that it is an issue of social acceptance forced upon by rule of law allowing SSM.
Rights have nothing to do with it. They are equal between civil unions and SSM.
Rights have nothing to do with it. They are equal between civil unions and SSM.
That has to do with uniformity. When engaged in civil union in one state, you cannot cross the other state which does not allow it and get those rights. If there was a law allowing civil unions across the US this would not be an issue.
And a change on a tax form doesn't mean much. If civil unions are implemented.
And a change on a tax form doesn't mean much. If civil unions are implemented.
I think not said:
...because all couples wishing to be married deserve to be able to do so, and are guaranteed their right to do so by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms...and they will have their rights upheld, because granting same sex couples the right to marry does not leave anyone victimized...
...in offering them civil unions, a minority group is being marginalized...it would be no different than if they denied immigrants the right to marry, and made them instead enter into civil unions...
That the right can't, or won't wrap their heads around this concept pisses me off to no end...equality for minorities cannot not be approached with compromises...either the right is granted to all, or it is revoked for all...
That article is from the states where at least they have the right to vote for or against it. (Which 13 states did in the last election and all had the right decision)
This is just the beginning in Canada, first this then religion which you can already see is a hidden agenda of the Liberals and gays supporters. They (left) will chip away at the moral fabric of this country till you won’t recognize it. They don’t like religious holidays, Christmas is a word that needs to be changed. It’s really sad when a small number of people can change what a great country Canada is. If you think Holland is a liberal country just wait, Canada will be it X 2 in 20 years.
I can see a revolt happening but like always Canada needs to have blood running down its face to make it mad.
At least we can look to the south and find people that have balls to stand up and tell the left “you can’t do this to us and you’re not going to”.
Now I’m sure the Rev and others will be all over this, that’s ok they are the ones I’m speaking about.
This is just the beginning in Canada, first this then religion which you can already see is a hidden agenda of the Liberals and gays supporters. They (left) will chip away at the moral fabric of this country till you won’t recognize it. They don’t like religious holidays, Christmas is a word that needs to be changed. It’s really sad when a small number of people can change what a great country Canada is. If you think Holland is a liberal country just wait, Canada will be it X 2 in 20 years.
I can see a revolt happening but like always Canada needs to have blood running down its face to make it mad.
At least we can look to the south and find people that have balls to stand up and tell the left “you can’t do this to us and you’re not going to”.
Now I’m sure the Rev and others will be all over this, that’s ok they are the ones I’m speaking about.
"...in offering them civil unions, a minority group is being marginalized...it would be no different than if they denied immigrants the right to marry, and made them instead enter into civil unions... "
Yes it would be different, because the definition of marriage isn't based on weather or not you were born in the country....and by that token, don't you have to be born in Canada to be PM? Surely that must piss you off too.
Yes it would be different, because the definition of marriage isn't based on weather or not you were born in the country....and by that token, don't you have to be born in Canada to be PM? Surely that must piss you off too.
Vanni Fucci said:
You keep shifting this into a political arena foisted upon all of us by years of politicians bullshit. I know many on the right that are gay. And I know many that are gay that are against SSM. People are considered "progressive" when they have open minds, and are not necessarily on the left. I also know people on the right that are atheists and people on the left that are religious and scientists that believe in God also.
The underlying main issue is social acceptance. And that is what SSM is all about. The sooner it becomes law the sooner people will begin to accept it.
Jay said:
Yeah there is, if you don't like SSM you're soaked in bigotry and prejudice. If you are all for it, you're a progressive lefty that cheers for equality. :roll: