Attack on Religious Freedom Begins in Earnest in Canada - Battleground Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WanderAimlessly

Guest
**Attack on Religious Freedom Begins in Earnest in Canada - Battleground Homosexuality
***Paper: Clergy but Not Faithful Should be Allowed to Express Opposition to Homosexuality
*By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, October 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The gloves have come off, the Parliamentary debate in Canada has moved beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ and on to refusing freedoms for those with religious beliefs opposed to homosexuality and those with conscientious reasons for opposing it. The mere suggestion of a ‘Defence of Religions Act’, to be put forward should the attempt to restore traditional marriage fail, has created a firestorm in the overwhelmingly pro-gay media and in Parliament with the Liberals, NDP and Bloc arguing ferociously against such a proposal.

Full Story​

PF
 
Yes, I saw this. I live in Canada. There is virtually no discussion in the newspapers, etc. on the immoral lifestyle of those who practice homosexuality. Probably because it’s a hate crime now to say anything that might incite hatred towards this group of people.

Glad to know that someone in another country is paying attention to what is going on here. Thanks.
 
D.R.R said:
Yes, I saw this. I live in Canada. There is virtually no discussion in the newspapers, etc. on the immoral lifestyle of those who practice homosexuality. Probably because it’s a hate crime now to say anything that might incite hatred towards this group of people.

Glad to know that someone in another country is paying attention to what is going on here. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I get alot ot stories on Canada from Lifesite.com.

PF
 
WanderAimlessly said:
**Attack on Religious Freedom Begins in Earnest in Canada - Battleground Homosexuality
***Paper: Clergy but Not Faithful Should be Allowed to Express Opposition to Homosexuality
*By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, October 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The gloves have come off, the Parliamentary debate in Canada has moved beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ and on to refusing freedoms for those with religious beliefs opposed to homosexuality and those with conscientious reasons for opposing it. The mere suggestion of a ‘Defence of Religions Act’, to be put forward should the attempt to restore traditional marriage fail, has created a firestorm in the overwhelmingly pro-gay media and in Parliament with the Liberals, NDP and Bloc arguing ferociously against such a proposal.

Full Story​

PF
Click to expand...
We can’t express our opposition but clergy can? That’s hypocrisy.
 
bones_IV said:
We can’t express our opposition but clergy can? That’s hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
This is just another example of Positive Law trying to suppress people from defending Natural Law. They know that if there is a groundswell of opposition, the Positive Law will not survive. Since this Positive Law is diametrically opposed to Natural Law, we are under no obligation to follow the Positive Law if passed.

PF
 
For me, the issue with this proposed legislation is that it would allow the marriage comissioners to refuse wedding same sex couples. If someone is employed by the government…then they wed what is legal under the government. Allowing them to refuse gay couples would logically extend them the right to refuse interracial couples ect.

However, I am completely for protecting religious instiutitions from being forced to wed gay couples…of course this is alreay the case…they can’t be forced to. The legislation seems pointless.
 
bones_IV said:
We can’t express our opposition but clergy can? That’s hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Unless a clergyman is suggesting this, it’s not hypocrisy at all. Let’s try to be accurate in our terminology.

According to Merriam-Webster, hypocrisy is
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
Click to expand...
To suggest that the public be prohibited from expressing anti-homosexual views, but make an exception for clergy, out of deference for their religious roles, is a logically consistent position to take. And it is not hypocritical, because most who advocate this do not believe other than they are saying, nor do they wish to make anti-gay statements themselves which they would prohibit others from doing.

The situation you describe is not hypocrisy, but betrayal of our deeply held western tradition of freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.
 
Digitonomy said:
Unless a clergyman is suggesting this, it’s not hypocrisy at all. Let’s try to be accurate in our terminology.

According to Merriam-Webster, hypocrisy is
To suggest that the public be prohibited from expressing anti-homosexual views, but make an exception for clergy, out of deference for their religious roles, is a logically consistent position to take. And it is not hypocritical, because most who advocate this do not believe other than they are saying, nor do they wish to make anti-gay statements themselves which they would prohibit others from doing.

The situation you describe is not hypocrisy, but betrayal of our deeply held western tradition of freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges my friend. To advocate this amendment is to advocate a dictatorship.
 
Gnosis said:
However, I am completely for protecting religious instiutitions from being forced to wed gay couples…of course this is alreay the case…they can’t be forced to. The legislation seems pointless.
Click to expand...
Then again there are the lawsuits against the Knights of Columbus for refusing to allow same sex weddings and receptions in their Halls.
 
There has been one lawsuit…and that’s because the Knights of Columbus did not make their policy clear and booked the wedding, only to cancel it after the women had invested signifcant time and money into it.
 
Gnosis said:
There has been one lawsuit…and that’s because the Knights of Columbus did not make their policy clear and booked the wedding, only to cancel it after the women had invested signifcant time and money into it.
Click to expand...
Nope. The two women were coworkers of the Knight. They knew he was Catholic. They knew what the policy was. They entrapped him to make a political point. The also tried to entrap him around an assault charge, but the time they alleged for the crime was a time when he was away on vacation.
 
Ani_Ibi said:
Nope. The two women were coworkers of the Knight. They knew he was Catholic. They knew what the policy was. They entrapped him to make a political point. The also tried to entrap him around an assault charge, but the time they alleged for the crime was a time when he was away on vacation.
Click to expand...
There is also the case of the Knights having to close down a childrens group because a Gay man tried to entrap them by wanting to be a group leader. The knights just closed the group down and when that happened the Gay guy was really upset. Too bad he couldn’t do anything about it…🙂
 
Gnosis said:
There has been one lawsuit…and that’s because the Knights of Columbus did not make their policy clear and booked the wedding, only to cancel it after the women had invested signifcant time and money into it.
Click to expand...
One lawsuit so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top