How would you vote on the Canadian Alliance motion?

[Drake Tungsten]

And besides that, I prefer advocating for legally recognized civil unions -- not marriages.

Then you and I are in agreement. No need to argue.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

And besides that, I prefer advocating for legally recognized civil unions -- not marriages.

Then you and I are in agreement. No need to argue.

But I still disagree with your heterosexist presumption in regards to the institutional status of marriage and homosexuals.

[Drake Tungsten]

But I still disagree with your heterosexist presumption in regards to the institutional status of marriage and homosexuals.

OK then. Just know that I still don't care.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

But I still disagree with your heterosexist presumption in regards to the institutional status of marriage and homosexuals.

OK then. Just know that I still don't care.

Of course you don't care what I think -- your heterosexist presumptions closes your mind to a more progressive outlook in regards to this issue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who are you to judge, and say whether an entire group of diverse individuals cannot commit?

Commitment isn't really the issue. Consider a man driving down a dirt road during inclement weather. As the road sags, the truck starts to sink into the mud. Now, which would be the most prudent action? To forge ahead, or to turn back in the direction you came?

That's sort of my point. Commitment to an act that damages someone cannot be good for either of the people involved.

[Asher]

The obvious solution is to ban marriage entirely. It's all about equality.

The next step would be to ban religions, and deport all religious people to the southern US while accepting the sane US Southerners as refugees.

[Drake Tungsten]

Of course you don't care what I think -- your heterosexist presumptions closes your mind to a more progressive outlook in regards to this issue.

Nah, I don't care what the homo-haters think either. A pox on both your houses.

[Q Classic]

ok, so maybe marriage wasn't between man and woman in all cultures.

it was always a sacred bond, however. and i honestly think that heterosexuals these days besmirch it far more than homosexuals who want to get married now would.

it's hypocritical to say gays ruin family values when straights have children out of wedlock, divorce half the time, among other more damaging behaviours to these "family values".

[cinch]

The Dealbreaker for the "It's always been this way" argument:

****************************************
Marriage: not always this way


By RICHARD McLELLAN
Monday, August 11, 2003 - Page A11


Those opposed to same-sex marriage keep telling us that marriage is a sacred institution that has always been defined as the union of one man and one women to the exclusion of all others, with its primary purpose being procreation.

To those making such arguments, I commend two exhaustively researched books by the late Yale historian John Boswell. They are titled Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality and Same-Sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe.

The latter volume in particular provides astonishing and ample evidence that the definition of marriage cited above is not entirely accurate. From ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome through the Middle Ages, Boswell shows that same-sex marriages not only took place in public ceremony and legal sanction, but even took place in Christian churches, blessed by priests and with a liturgy essentially the same as that of opposite-sex marriages.

Prior to the 12th century, the Christian Church did little to regulate marriage (requiring nuptial blessings only for priests!), and only declared marriage a sacrament requiring ecclesiastical involvement in the 13th century at a time when priests could no longer marry. At the same time, a growing intolerance in society led the church into condemnation of same-sex marriages and homosexuality. It is interesting that the first ecumenical council rule against homosexual acts also imposed sanctions against Jews, Muslims, moneylenders, heretics and mercenaries. For a priest, the penalty for homosexuality was confinement to a monastery; for a layman, it was excommunication.

Despite these sanctions and repression, Boswell cites examples of same-sex marriages being performed in the Roman Catholic Church as late as the 17th and 18th centuries, although with severe repercussions for some of the matrimonial couples.

So much for the idea that marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman.

As for procreation, Boswell shows quite clearly that in classical societies procreation was not the foundation of marriage. Mutual consent and marital affection were the legal basis for Roman marriages. In the Christian era, even as late as the 12th century, theologians were arguing that "the ideals of Christian marriage were most fully realized when the marriage was never physically consummated," and that "marriage consisted in the mutual agreement of the couple, not in their carnal copulation." Once again, the concept that producing offspring is the foundation of marriage was established only in the late Middle Ages at a time of extreme intolerance for sexual relations of any kind.

It is worth noting that many of the manuscripts containing records of same-sex marriages and the liturgy are housed at the Vatican. Perhaps the Catholic Church wishes to hide the fact that its rabid homophobia is a relatively recent development.

Everyone interested in this debate should read Boswell's well-documented volumes, and should refrain from claiming that marriage has always been practised in the exclusionist way the Catholic Church defines it today.

Rather than hearing the argument "it's always been this way" (when clearly it hasn't) what I would like to hear from those opposed to same-sex marriage is a concrete explanation of the oft-repeated charge that permitting same-sex marriages will somehow damage, diminish or destroy the institution of marriage. What will be harmed? What will be lost? Perhaps the only loss will be your prejudices.

**************************************

Link

**************************************

*RE*-instate homosexual marriages now! And while we're at it, force the Catholic church to let priests marry, because "that's the way it was!".

[Ben Kenobi]

Boswell cites examples of same-sex marriages being performed in the Roman Catholic Church as late as the 17th and 18th centuries, although with severe repercussions for some of the matrimonial couples.

Nice work if you can prove it.

A newspaper article citing a scholarly work is not 'proof' of these things.

Prior to the 12th century, the Christian Church did little to regulate marriage (requiring nuptial blessings only for priests!),

Priests could marry?

Couple points here.

Even if these points are true,there have been times where the church has strayed from the teachings of the bible. The whole reason for the reformation was to correct some of these errors.

What does the bible teach regarding marriage?

Matthew 19:3-6

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

[Protoss72000]

I think people may be confused, marriage is about 2 people that love each other becoming 'one'. You cant say marriage is religous, because then all the atheist's are done for, you cant say its one man and one woman because then all the mormons and such who believe in polygamy are done for, you cant make it man and woman because all the gays would be done for. i dont think people should worry so much about the definition of marriage, if i love somebody and they love me and we decide to spend forever together, then we are married, i dont care what the government or the church has to say. I dont see why gays feel the need for a piece of paper to tell them they love someone or for straight peope have a priest(etc) to tell them.

EDIT: I wanted to add that i dont believe in polygamy, but i cant think of the last time i heard about a vote on polygamy, yet i hear about gay votes all the time. The gay community is very vocal and i think they draw to much attention to themselves and cause people to be more critical of them because of this.

[Drake Tungsten]

marriage is about 2 people that love each other becoming 'one'.

This is a rather recent definition of marriage and almost exclusively a Western one. Stop being so temporally and culturally biased.

[Protoss72000]

actually i am basing that on my humanity, i have the urge to live my life with one other person only and most gays that i have talked to feel the same way

[Drake Tungsten]

i have the urge to live my life with one other person only

I guess that's just you. I have the urge to live with at least five nubile and somewhat naughty people and I don't think I'm alone in that.

[Protoss72000]

there is a difference between lust and love