Same-sex Marriage Debate is Officially Over in Canada

[Arrian]

Originally posted by MrFun



Of course you would be fine with it -- for straight people getting married, the words "civil union" has no connotation of "separate but equal."

But since gays and lesbians belong to a maligned minority group that is still faces discrimination, the words "civil union" do not have as 'neutral' of meaning.

Of for ****'s sake. I'm advocating that all legal contracts of union between two people, whether they are straight or gay, be labelled "civil union" by the government. That would be the same for everyone. The religious folks can get "married" in their place of worship. If their place of worship refuses to marry them (for instance, if they're gay), then methinks it's time to ponder whether or not to continue worshipping there.

-Arrian

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun


Marriage can be administered by either churches or in a secular manner, by the justice of the peace.

That is a legal not a religious perspective.

Religious homophobes are willfully ignorant of this distinction, and in order to strengthen their bigoted "argument" focus on marriage as a religious institution.

People who oppose gay marriage based on their religious faith are not (necessarily) 'homophobes' or 'bigots'. Calling them such only weakens your argument since it will stiffen their opposition.

But marriage has never been exclusively a religious institution.

Say what?

Marriage customs differ from place to place around the earth and any couple could call themselves married based on their beliefs but until recently legal marriage in western countries was defined by the christian church.

So gays and lesbians gaining equality through the same institution of marriage rather than the "separate but equal" rationalization of "civil unions" will not force churches to marry gays and lesbians.

I may be mistaken but I believe that issue has already come up in Canada and IIRC the courts decided they did have to do so despite church opposition.

I understand your opinion on this matter MF, but I believe that so long as gays take the 'all or nothing approach' you are doomed to failure.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I may be mistaken but I believe that issue has already come up in Canada and IIRC the courts decided they did have to do so despite church opposition.

I believe you are mistaken. While there have been instances of civil JPs, registrars or marriage commissioners being told they must marry gay people, I am not aware of any church being obligated to marry them.

THis actually seems a decent balance to me. Freedom of religion would dictate that you cannot force a church to marry anyone other than in accordance with the particular church's rules. ( I leave aside the practical issue of why ANYONE would WANT to be married in an institution where they completely not accepted)

The closest situation I have heard about was an instance where a gay couple was looking to hold their reception at a church run hall. I'm not sure how that one ended. I could see where the church would have to allow access if they generally made the hall publicly available for rental

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH

People who oppose gay marriage based on their religious faith are not (necessarily) 'homophobes' or 'bigots'. Calling them such only weakens your argument since it will stiffen their opposition.

Say what?

Marriage customs differ from place to place around the earth and any couple could call themselves married based on their beliefs but until recently legal marriage in western countries was defined by the christian church.

Ok -- I still say that in today's Western world, marriage is no longer exclusively a religious institution.

And as to your comment about religious opposition to equal rights -- the danger is that anyone can use religion to mask their bigotry in opposing equal rights for any type of minority group, and then say, "Oh, but I'm not bigoted. I oppose such and such because of my religious beliefs."

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian


Of for ****'s sake. I'm advocating that all legal contracts of union between two people, whether they are straight or gay, be labelled "civil union" by the government. That would be the same for everyone. The religious folks can get "married" in their place of worship. If their place of worship refuses to marry them (for instance, if they're gay), then methinks it's time to ponder whether or not to continue worshipping there.

-Arrian

I see what you're saying -- I still disagree though. I think it's more likely that gays and lesbians will someday in the near future be able to be included in the institution of secular marriage, before society makes a more fundamental change in redefining the word "marrage" and "civil union."

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MrFun




the danger is that anyone can use religion to mask their bigotry in opposing equal rights for any type of minority group, and then say, "Oh, but I'm not bigoted. I oppose such and such because of my religious beliefs."

BUt the bottom line is that

1. anyone can SAY anything they like of that type-- Freedom of speech would allow the biggest bigot in the world to state their freedom of bigotry even in the absence of all logic

2. Things like Freedom of religion and freedom of association ALLOW bigotry. If someone wanted to start a church that allowed only "white"people, that would generally be allowed within the confines of that church. Howver the second that church bought an apartment building, their refusal to rent an apartment to a black person would be an undefendable violation of human rights (Courts would not extend the religious freedom to the commercial enterprises )

The various "rights" out there can conflict all the time. people have the right to think bigoted things -- even within limits the right to express their bigotry-- However when they begin to ACT on their bigotry, they can run afoul of the law and the rights of others

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Flubber


I believe you are mistaken. While there have been instances of civil JPs, registrars or marriage commissioners being told they must marry gay people, I am not aware of any church being obligated to marry them.

THis actually seems a decent balance to me. Freedom of religion would dictate that you cannot force a church to marry anyone other than in accordance with the particular church's rules. ( I leave aside the practical issue of why ANYONE would WANT to be married in an institution where they completely not accepted)

The closest situation I have heard about was an instance where a gay couple was looking to hold their reception at a church run hall. I'm not sure how that one ended. I could see where the church would have to allow access if they generally made the hall publicly available for rental

After your post, I did a quick scan and I believe I am mistaken on this point (so now I wonder where I had the idea from).

[KrazyHorse]

People whose job it is to rile up the social conservatives into a frenzy of fear.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
How many atheists do you know who oppose gay marriage?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by SpencerH


After your post, I did a quick scan and I believe I am mistaken on this point (so now I wonder where I had the idea from).

As KH implied, it was discussed as a point of fearmongering -- that churches would be "forced" to marry people

It seemed stupid to me to ever think that. Churches now may refuse to marry heterosexual people for pretty much any reason they want

[Leifmk]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Marriage customs differ from place to place around the earth and any couple could call themselves married based on their beliefs but until recently legal marriage in western countries was defined by the christian church.

Not so. Entirely civil legal marriage has been available in most western countries since at least the middle of the 19th century. Longer in some places; for example in Scotland it's been around for as long as records exist.

[Sava]

Only lesbians should be allowed to have gay marriages because marriage is such a girly thing anyways. Gay men should get civil unions because it's less girly sounding.