Same-sex Marriage Debate is Officially Over in Canada

[DinoDoc]

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Good lord, you homos sure are whiny. Even Asher, who's usually cool...

If you equate "whining" with advocacy for the high principle of equal civil rights and the recognition of the humanity of gays and lesbians, then you're being incredibly obtuse and grossly insensitive to the importance of such issues.

[KrazyHorse]

STFU whiner

[DinoDoc]

Indeed.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
STFU whiner

QFT

[Ming]

I see a lot of people just asking to be banned... Enough of this crap.

Discuss the TOPIC in a civl manner or you are toast.
No more thread jacking or spamming...

[CrONoS]

@Ming
at your avatar!

Edit:
The Christmas hat is..... incredible!

Edit2:

No more thread jacking or spamming...

oopps....

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Making love requires the consent of two people, so it's not an individual right.

So who do you need to get permission from to bash the bishop, Oncle B?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun

At one time interracial marriage was very controversial -- should we not have legalized it at the time because of its controversial nature?

It's not so much whether something is controversial so much as why it's controversial. Interracial marriage was not controversial because of a religious viewpoint. Opposition to interracial marriage is based on racism. I know of no biblical reference saying different races cant 'be joined before god' (or something to that effect). OTOH, gay marriage in the USA is controversial because of firmly held religious beliefs. We are not going to change those beliefs. Rather than continuing to stir the hornets nest, I've consistently advocated separating the legal issue of civil unions (which is not opposed by anywhere near the same number of americans) from the buzzword of 'gay marriage' that sends the funde's into a frenzy and triggers opposition by the moderate americans who dont oppose civil unions.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by SpencerH


It's not so much whether something is controversial so much as why it's controversial. Interracial marriage was not controversial because of a religious viewpoint. Opposition to interracial marriage is based on racism. I know of no biblical reference saying different races cant 'be joined before god' (or something to that effect).

If Christianity can drop its proscriptions against menstruating women, why can't it do the the same for gays?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Opposition to interracial marriage is based on racism. I know of no biblical reference saying different races cant 'be joined before god' (or something to that effect).

It was based on racism, but religion was used to justify the belief. (I think the parts of the Bible about not marrying Canaanites et al were used as the justification.) Plus, one of my co-workers recently married a woman whose religion dictates that interracial marriage is wrong. (Fortunately for him, they have a rather narrow view of "race," i.e., either you're black or you're not, so the fact that he's a Filipino didn't bother anybody in the congregation.)

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


If Christianity can drop its proscriptions against menstruating women, why can't it do the the same for gays?

It may do so (but I doubt it). The best that can be hoped for IMO, is gradual acceptance by individual christians that the biblical texts proscribing homosexuality are mistaken or incorrect (ie not the word of god) much in the same manner that most/many catholics use birth control (at least in the USA).

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by loinburger

It was based on racism, but religion was used to justify the belief. (I think the parts of the Bible about not marrying Canaanites et al were used as the justification.) Plus, one of my co-workers recently married a woman whose religion dictates that interracial marriage is wrong. (Fortunately for him, they have a rather narrow view of "race," i.e., either you're black or you're not, so the fact that he's a Filipino didn't bother anybody in the congregation.)

A quick look through articles on the subject suggests that there are quotes that may be taken out of context by extremists and used to forbid interacial marriage. I would suggest that the vast majority of christians who read those texts can understand that intermarriage from a biblical perspective is between people of different beliefs not skin colours. Such is not the case with homosexuality which appears to be clearly proscribed.

[Dinner]

If the PM can declare the debate over then a future conservative PM can declare the debate reopened. Still, it is good that Canadian gays now have equal rights.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
A quick look through articles on the subject suggests that there are quotes that may be taken out of context by extremists and used to forbid interacial marriage. I would suggest that the vast majority of christians who read those texts can understand that intermarriage from a biblical perspective is between people of different beliefs not skin colours. Such is not the case with homosexuality which appears to be clearly proscribed.

Sure, now that interracial marriage is generally accepted, it's obvious that the people who used biblical quotes to justify proscriptions on interracial marriage were wrong. Ditto with the people who used to use biblical quotes to justify slavery -- obviously they were using those quotes out of context (or something). Yet point out that the book of the Bible most often cited for its proscription of male homosexuality is the same book in which God demands animal sacrifices, says that menstruating women are unclean, forbids blood transfusions (or so says the interpretation set forth by the Jehovah's Witnesses), says that adultery should be punished by death, that handicapped people are unholy, that blasphemy should be punished by death, that slavery is acceptable so long as you're only enslaving heathens, etc., and that maybe it's a bit disingenuous to cherrypick the male homosexuality proscription in light of the numerous absurd/barbaric statements in the book (i.e., that maybe the male homosexuality proscription is being taken out of context, just like the passages that were used to justify proscriptions of interracial marriage and just like the passages that were used to justify slavery), and all of a sudden it goes from "I disapprove of the message, therefore the quotes must have been taken out of context" to "well, gays are awfully icky, so I see no reason to question the context of the biblical quotes being used to justify keeping homosexuals as second-class citizens." Well, balls to that.