The marriage "Saviours"
- Thread starter peapod
- Start date
RE: The marriage "Saviour
You've seen his crap before too, C. Did you bring him here or did he just follow you?
You've seen his crap before too, C. Did you bring him here or did he just follow you?
Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour
He hasn't posted any crap here so far, B. If/when he does, feel free to delete and edit at will. In the meantime, you're looking foolish.Reverend Blair said:
RE: The marriage "Saviour
A perfectly reasonable question considering the company she keeps, Warhawk.
A perfectly reasonable question considering the company she keeps, Warhawk.
Huh?
What company would that be, B? And how is that relevant to anything?
If you want to get really picky... I keep company with you, don't I?
Now then...
are you going to head back topwards the topic or are you just trolling?
What company would that be, B? And how is that relevant to anything?
If you want to get really picky... I keep company with you, don't I?
Now then...
are you going to head back topwards the topic or are you just trolling?
Re: RE: The marriage "Saviours"
actually, for me the church dont have a single word to say in that story because we talk about a civil marriage, not a religious one. so they can keep their freedom of religion. and in no case the church should be forced to perform same-sex marriage.
as for the part were you say that you dont know why someone would be gay, well, if you found out, ask for a nobel prize, nobody know for sure. for myself i ask me that question for a long time before i realise that i only had three choice : to live as an heterosexual with an husband that i dont love, to live alone all my life, or to accept myself as i am. i choose the last one and dont regret it now...
damngrumpy said:
actually, for me the church dont have a single word to say in that story because we talk about a civil marriage, not a religious one. so they can keep their freedom of religion. and in no case the church should be forced to perform same-sex marriage.
as for the part were you say that you dont know why someone would be gay, well, if you found out, ask for a nobel prize, nobody know for sure. for myself i ask me that question for a long time before i realise that i only had three choice : to live as an heterosexual with an husband that i dont love, to live alone all my life, or to accept myself as i am. i choose the last one and dont regret it now...
No, churches shouldn't be forced to perform ANY marriage. THey already have the right to deny a church wedding to non-members. (why a non-religious person would want a church wedding anyway is beyond me).cathou said:
However, if a couple who were members of the church wanted to marry, I can't see that being an issue. Not in my Church, anyway.
I'm not Catholic, though.
And yes, I think if you were a member of my church, you could be married there.
And yes, I think if you were a member of my church, you could be married there.
As it happens, Lutheran, one of the more conservative/traditional denominations. But given the way the minister has discussed the issue, I don't think his views are far off mine.
I grew up in the United Church.... I think they were one of the first to bless same sex unions, and were probably among the first to perform weddings.
I grew up in the United Church.... I think they were one of the first to bless same sex unions, and were probably among the first to perform weddings.
Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour
To use a favorite tool of the far left, it's what is not said that is important. No one from the Liberals or NDP has said absolutely that the tax exempt status will not be revoked, so until it is officially denied, it remains a distinct possibility.
As far as making churches do something, a church is a group of like minded people who worship together with their beliefs. There is no forcing of anyone to join a church, and people are free to leave. Most churches do not believe in SS unions or marriages (and yes, I know that some do, but even the Anglican church just announced a two year moratorium on the issue), so by the guidelines of their faith and belief, will not support it. I personally don't care what any religion does as long as it does not advocate the physical harm of an individual or group, so if some religions want to endorse SSM, then fine. If others don't also fine. However, I find it somewhat hypocritical for a Catholic (for example) to complain that the Catholic church will not perform SS marriages when their faith specifically prohibits it. The choice is then up to the individual to decide if they want to stay with a religion that does not reflect their views, and they are free to join a religion that better reflects their beliefs and views. Forcing a church that does not agree with SSM to perform SSM is simply forcing the viewpoint of others on the churches at that point. And as has been pointed out here on many occasions, a lot of left wing people really hate the thought of right wing views being forced on them. Why to they think then it is okay to force their views on others who do not hold the same viewpoint? There are enough churches out there for everyone to find the one that suits them best, including gays, if they are looking for a church. And if an individual of any sexual orientation is not looking for a religion or church, then what difference does it make? They would, by definition and common sense not want a church marriage anyway. And again, I repeat, I am not an active member of any church and espouse none of them, they all have their good points and faults.
Reverend Blair said:
To use a favorite tool of the far left, it's what is not said that is important. No one from the Liberals or NDP has said absolutely that the tax exempt status will not be revoked, so until it is officially denied, it remains a distinct possibility.
As far as making churches do something, a church is a group of like minded people who worship together with their beliefs. There is no forcing of anyone to join a church, and people are free to leave. Most churches do not believe in SS unions or marriages (and yes, I know that some do, but even the Anglican church just announced a two year moratorium on the issue), so by the guidelines of their faith and belief, will not support it. I personally don't care what any religion does as long as it does not advocate the physical harm of an individual or group, so if some religions want to endorse SSM, then fine. If others don't also fine. However, I find it somewhat hypocritical for a Catholic (for example) to complain that the Catholic church will not perform SS marriages when their faith specifically prohibits it. The choice is then up to the individual to decide if they want to stay with a religion that does not reflect their views, and they are free to join a religion that better reflects their beliefs and views. Forcing a church that does not agree with SSM to perform SSM is simply forcing the viewpoint of others on the churches at that point. And as has been pointed out here on many occasions, a lot of left wing people really hate the thought of right wing views being forced on them. Why to they think then it is okay to force their views on others who do not hold the same viewpoint? There are enough churches out there for everyone to find the one that suits them best, including gays, if they are looking for a church. And if an individual of any sexual orientation is not looking for a religion or church, then what difference does it make? They would, by definition and common sense not want a church marriage anyway. And again, I repeat, I am not an active member of any church and espouse none of them, they all have their good points and faults.
This isn't a tool of the left at all. It is just more fear mongering from the radical religious right bigots who are too frigging stupid to understand that they have no right to force their insane and bigoted religious dogma down the throats of people who do not believe in their fairy-tales.
I watched Stockwell Day debating same sex marriage in the House of Commons the other day...unfortunately, I wasn't able to watch any rebuttals, because I had to go to work, but what I found was amazing was he used the phrase "brave new world" about 4 times in 5 minutes...I wonder what he was trying to imply...