Canadian Senator: Jesus would Vote with Me in Favour of Gay 'Marriage'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ani_Ibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ani_Ibi

Guest
Jesus would Vote with Me in Favour of Gay ‘Marriage’ Says Canadian Senator

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05070704.html

OTTAWA, July 7, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Senator Marilyn Trenholme Counsell, in comments made during debate of the impending same-sex “marriage” legislation Wednesday, made the astonishing claim that Jesus Christ would have voted in favour of the legislation as she did.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/images/2005/trenholme.jpg“As a Christian, I often ask myself ‘what would Jesus do?’” she said, reiterating a maxim often heard in Christian circles. She answered her question with, “In this case, in this time, I believe he would say yes.” Trenholme Counsell, as LifeSiteNews.com learned from the Senator’s assistant Rebecca Menard, was originally Baptist but converted to Anglicanism when she was married.

“After all,” the Chrétien-appointed Liberal from New Brunswick claimed, “we have come a long way from Old Testament days when adulterers were put to death; and we have come a long way in our understanding of human sexuality.”

As Robert A.J. Gagnon of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary explained to Zenit news, the Old Testament in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 declared homosexuality a capital offence, describing it as an “abomination” – something utterly loathsome to God. “The prohibition of same-sex intercourse is clearly picked up in the New Testament,” Gagnon added. “The basic categories of sexual immorality – such as same-sex intercourse, incest, solicitation of prostitutes, adultery, etc. – remained in place for believers in Christ.”

Trenholme Counsell, a physician, compared homosexuality to a “learning disability.” She added the unscientific claim that “One’s sexuality is as fundamental to who we are as the colour of our eyes and the shape of our hands,” implying that “sexuality” here refers to a tendency to either opposite sex or same-sex attraction. Because this same-sex attraction is immutable, her argument assumes, it would be cruel to expect persons with same-sex attraction to suppress those urges.

Evidence from biology reveals clearly that persons disposed to homosexuality are simply not born that way. “Studies to date – including the most important identical twin study ever done, one that factored out sample bias – indicate that homoerotic impulses are not congenital,” Gagnon explained. “Rather, whatever contribution is made through genes, hormones or brain-wiring is largely indirect and subordinate to macro- and micro-cultural factors.”

Read the LifeSiteNews.com Special Report:
Scripture on Homosexuality (Part 1)
A Christian Researcher Says Biblical Prohibition Is Categorical
[lifesite.net/waronfamily/homosexuality/…](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/homosexuality/scriptureand.html>http://www.lifesite.net/waronfamily/homosexuality/…)

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Is Homosexuality Genetic? Science Says Not
[lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04040609.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04040609.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04040609.html)
New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory
[lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05021002.html](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05021002.html>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05021002.html)
[lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/…](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/SSM_MD_evidence.pdf>http://www.lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/…)

See LifeSiteNews.com’s Defense of Marriage page with numerous resources at
[lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/<a%20href=http://www.lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/>http://www.lifesite.net/features/marriage_defence/)

tv
 
Canadian Senate Passes Second Reading of Gay “Marriage” Bill

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05070702.html

OTTAWA, July 7, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Canadian Liberal-dominated Senate passed the Bill C-38 same-sex “marriage” legislation through second reading by a 43-12 vote Wednesday. The Senate has adjourned until Monday, July 18, 2005, at 6:00 p.m.
The following 12 Senators – 10 conservatives and 2 Liberals – opposed the legislation: Tommy Banks (L-Alberta), James Kelleher (C- Ontario), John Buchanan (C- Nova Scotia), Wilbert Joseph Keon (C- Ontario), Ethel Cochrane (C-Newfoundland/Labrador), Noel Kinsella (C-New Brunswick), Gerald Comeau (C-Nova Scotia), Gerard Phalen (L-Nova Scotia), Anne Cools (C-Ontario), Terry Stratton (C-Manitoba), Consiglio Di Nino (C-Ontario), David Tkachuk (C-Saskatchewan).

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/images/2005/cools.jpgLong-time champion for life and family, Senator Anne Cools, voiced her opposition to the bill. “Honourable senators, as I said before, I wish to register my strenuous opposition to Bill C-38,” she said. “I believe that the issues have been falsely framed as Charter rights issues and equality issues. Marriage is not now, and never has been, a right. It has always been a grand privilege, with its origins as a sacrament of the church, governed by the canon law, received from the civil law into the common law. No sacrament of the church is now, or has ever been, a right.”

“I believe that the judgments of the lower courts finding marriage between a man and a woman as unconstitutional are themselves unconstitutional,” Cools continued. “In fact, the full weight of the Constitution of Canada for 140 years has been to defend and to protect marriage as the foundational unit of the family.”

“Marriage has been thought to be that institution which governs the heterosexual sexual union between a man and a woman,” Cools explained. “This sexual union is driven by the natural human and organic instinct towards reproduction. It is to this specific sexual union that nature and God have entrusted the grand mystery of life called procreation and the bringing forth of issue . . . the public interest in marriage is the phenomenon of procreation.”

“I believe that the conclusions of the Attorney General of Canada and a tiny minority of judges in the country are not only wrong and contrary to our Constitution, but their arrival at these conclusions were based in what I would describe as constitutional deconstruction, constitutional vandalism and, quite frankly, even some social engineering, because their result was not to extend rights to anyone. The result is to alter the fundamental nature and character of the institution of marriage.”

See the full Hansard of the Senate debate:
[parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/…](http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/<a%20href=http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/...2db_2005-07-06-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1>http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/…)

TV
 
**Senator Anne C. Cools
**
Room 178-F, Centre Block
The Senate of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
K1A 0A4
Phone: (613) 992-2808 toll free: 1 800 267 7362
Fax : 613 992 8513

Email: coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca
 
Ani Ibi said:
**
Senator Anne C. Cools**
Room 178-F, Centre Block
The Senate of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
K1A 0A4
Phone: (613) 992-2808 toll free: 1 800 267 7362
Fax : 613 992 8513

Email: coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca
Click to expand...

:clapping: I’ll be e-mailing her my thanks and encouragement!
 
Is it my imagination or is the culture of perversion drifting more and more away from reality.:confused: PF
 
40.png
WanderAimlessly:
Is it my imagination or is the culture of perversion drifting more and more away from reality.:confused: PF
Click to expand...
i don’t think it’s your imagination. this is getting wierder and wierder.
 
Culture of Death is merging with Culture of Schizophrenia.

next time someone will come out and say “I’m Jesus and voting in favor of gay ‘marriage’”
 
“we have come a long way from Old Testament days when adulterers were put to death; and we have come a long way in our understanding of human sexuality.”
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed we have come a long way.

“A long way on the road to WHAT,” is the question. Promiscuity used to be “a bad thing.” Along came the sexual revolution and it was all about being “free.”

Yeah, we’re sure free.

STD’s rampant, divorce over 50%, women turned into objects, children being raised by “villages,” instead of by parents, 40+ million babies slaughtered, fatal sexually transmitted diseases, breast and ovarian cancer rates skyrocketing… yep, that sounds like freedom to me!

:rolleyes:
 
40.png
abcdefg:
Culture of Death is merging with Culture of Schizophrenia.

next time someone will come out and say “I’m Jesus and voting in favor of gay ‘marriage’”
Click to expand...
abcdefg:

It’s either the Culture of Auditory Hallucination (Hearing a voice claiming to be Jesus saying something contrary that that which is said clearly by both Testaments of Sacred Scripture and by the Church He founded) or the Culture of Visual Hallucination (Seeing someone claiming to be Jesus writing something to them or signing something to them contrary to that taught in Scripture or by His Church) or the Culture of the Big Lie (not hearing or seeing Jesus but appropriating His name knowing that what they are saying is opposed by Scripture and by the Church).

I think it’s option #3 and it’s time to call them on it and ask why they’re so willing to follow the Father of Lies in pleading their case?

Charity is impossible without truth - His Holiness is right on that one.

Blessed are they who act to save the Innocent. Michael
 
Ani Ibi said:
**
Senator Anne C. Cools**

Room 178-F, Centre Block
The Senate of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
K1A 0A4
Phone: (613) 992-2808 toll free: 1 800 267 7362
Fax : 613 992 8513

Email: coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca
Click to expand...

I read the Passage - I wish I had her in place of either boxer of Feinstein.

So I also sent her an e-mail.

Goodnight. Michael
 
Thats exactly where that WWJD rubbish gets ya.

You often hear it said “What Would Jesus Do?” And I am always amazed that Jesus would do exactly what that political party would do or what that newspaper would do!

How are we to know what the most mystical heart and mind in history would do. I would never beging to even contemplate what Jesus would do in any circumstance as I simply don’t know.

I have the Bible and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to interpret it for me.

Gee, I am so lucky!
 
40.png
Fergal:
Thats exactly where that WWJD rubbish gets ya.
Click to expand...
Tell me about it. Jesus allowed us to have free will by dying on the cross for people who abused their free will to do what is abonimable to God.

Until they have died and raised themselves, I’ll consider myself at least as insightful as they at guessing WWJD.

Traditional Ang I love the way you summarized three possibilities, and I vote for #3 as well.

Alan
 
Senator Anne C. Cools
Room 178-F, Centre Block
The Senate of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
K1A 0A4
Email: coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca
Phone: (613) 992-2808 toll free: 1 800 267 7362
Fax : 613 992 8513

Senate sends marriage bill to committee

By DEBORAH GYAPONG

bcc.rcav.org/05-07-11/

OTTAWA (CCN) – The issue of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is hurtling through the Senate at lightning speed, having passed second reading July 6 by a 43-12 vote (with six abstentions) after the Liberal-dominated chamber voted to shut down debate.

“After one day of debate they invoked closure and they’re talking about the credibility of the Senate,” said Senator Gerry St. Germain, who described the action as “democracy denied.”

In a July 7 telephone interview from B.C., St. Germain said he quoted the recent pastoral letters on marriage by Archbishop Raymond Roussin, SM, of Vancouver in his Senate speech, including portions of the archbishop’s most recent letter, dated June 29, urging the Senate to “not allow the bill to become law.”

“I have never, ever seen this before in the Catholic Church, and I have been attending church conscientiously for about 65 years,” St. Germain told the Senate. “I have never seen them so concerned about an issue and the erosion of their particular position in society.”

St. Germain told CCN the Liberals want to “sweep this whole controversy under the rug, just hoping it will go away,” and are trying to minimize the number of witnesses appearing before the committee.

“Rather than minimize it, I believe we should be travelling so the people can appear before the Senate committee right across the country,” St. Germain said. “Let’s face it. There’s never been an issue where I’ve seen so many religious leaders banded together determined to try to convince Parliament that this is bad legislation.”

St. Germain said his office is getting some phone calls and letters, but people need to do everything they can to contact their respective senators.

“I think most people figure the cause is lost, and they shouldn’t,” he said.

“We cannot lose this war, or we will have lost one of the basic rights we have as Canadians: freedom of religion,” he said.

In the debates Liberal Senators have argued that there is a human right, flowing from the Charter, to same-sex “marriage.”

Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs went so far as to compare discrimination against homosexuals to that against blacks, but Tory Senator Anne Cools, who is black, said such comparisons are an “enormous mistake.”

continued…
 
St. Germain doesn’t see redefinition of marriage as a human rights issue. “I see it as a special interest group that has lobbied effectively,” he said.

“It’s like anything else the Liberals have done. They’ve responded to every special interest group, ignoring the will of the majority in the country.”

One Liberal Senator said she believed that Jesus Christ would support the legislation.

“As a Christian, I often ask myself: ‘What would Jesus do?” said New Brunswick Senator Marilyn Trenholme Counsell in the Senate July 6. “In this case, in this time, I believe He would say yes.”

“After all, we have come a long way from Old Testament days when adulterers were put to death; and we have come a long way in our understanding of human sexuality,” she said.

Through Archbishop Roussin’s January pastoral letter, St. Germain put on record a different view of Jesus.

St. Germain read these words of Archbishop Roussin into the Senate Hansard: “Finally, we hear the argument that Jesus accepted everyone as he or she was. Like Jesus, we must welcome everyone with unconditional love. We must treat people with homosexual attractions with full dignity and respect.

“However, Jesus did not teach that any behaviour is acceptable as long as someone wants it. The authentic Jesus called for moral conversion, and repentance. Just as the woman caught in adultery was told to go her way, and not to sin again, true love means to help our brothers and sisters to escape a path that leads nowhere.”

The Senate has adjourned until July 18, while the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs hears witnesses.

Committee hearings began July 11 at 6 p.m., with Attorney General Irwin Cotler as the first witness.

Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Archbishop of Quebec, is expected to represent the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on Wednesday, July 13.

– Contact your Senators –
 
As always, those who oppose same-sex marriage value the arrangement of genitals above the devotion of the couple.

There is no legal requirement for a mixed-sex couple to love eachother, and if there was such a requirement there is no scientific test to determine the state of love.

Marriage today is very different to that of 400 years ago, which in turn is different to 800 years ago and in turn is different 1600 years ago.

This is the natural progression of the awareness of the importance of love in a relationship.

Nor is this an issue of ‘special interest groups’. Such a complete lie is unfathomable. The majority of people want to mmarry the person they love. That is not a special interest group, that is what it mean to be human.

Those who oppose same-sex marriages make the rest of us question why? is it because they are afraid they married out of conformity to the genital-imperitive imposed by society? Was it to keep their parents happy? Are they disturbed that their ‘love’ is identical to same-sex love?

And then one has to ask why people with deeply held religious convictions support same-sex marriage? is it simply they know and recognise the unifor,ity of the emotions. that they know their love is a god given gift, and so is the love of two men or two women for each-other.

The cries of ‘no no no’ sound infantile to me.
 
Senator Marilyn Trenholme Counsell, in comments made during debate of the impending same-sex “marriage” legislation Wednesday, made the astonishing claim that Jesus Christ would have voted in favour of the legislation as she did.
%between%
Click to expand...
Wow! This woman actually knows the Mind of God!

And we know she know it just because she says she knows it!

What do we need a Bible and a Church for? Want answers to your questions? Just ask Counsell!
 
40.png
ega:
As always, those who oppose same-sex marriage value the arrangement of genitals above the devotion of the couple.

There is no legal requirement for a mixed-sex couple to love eachother, and if there was such a requirement there is no scientific test to determine the state of love.

Marriage today is very different to that of 400 years ago, which in turn is different to 800 years ago and in turn is different 1600 years ago.

This is the natural progression of the awareness of the importance of love in a relationship.

Nor is this an issue of ‘special interest groups’. Such a complete lie is unfathomable. The majority of people want to mmarry the person they love. That is not a special interest group, that is what it mean to be human.

Those who oppose same-sex marriages make the rest of us question why? is it because they are afraid they married out of conformity to the genital-imperitive imposed by society? Was it to keep their parents happy? Are they disturbed that their ‘love’ is identical to same-sex love?

And then one has to ask why people with deeply held religious convictions support same-sex marriage? is it simply they know and recognise the unifor,ity of the emotions. that they know their love is a god given gift, and so is the love of two men or two women for each-other.

The cries of ‘no no no’ sound infantile to me.
Click to expand...
A big part of the problem is that you seem to misunderstand what authentic love is. Homosexual conduct is not authentic love.
 
Are these senators on crack? :confused: Which Jesus are they talking about? Hopefully not the one I know.
 
40.png
ega:
As always, those who oppose same-sex marriage value the arrangement of genitals above the devotion of the couple.
Click to expand...
Canada. Decades ago, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau decriminalized homosexual practice. He said:

’The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.'

Now the state is saying it does have business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Bishop Henry proposed enacting a legal mechanism whereby any dependent adult relationship is recognized by and protected by Canadian law. The Church would be happy with such an arrangement. Such an arrangement would be inclusive of not only gay couples but of any couple in a caring relationship: sisters taking care of disabled sisters, for instance; nephews, stepsons, aunties, neighbours, friends.

In order to circumvent the movement to kill the inconvenient and unloved among us (instead of care for them), such legislation is desperately needed in Canada. The relevant laws are draconian and byzantine. Something as vital to the lives of all of us (at some point) should not be difficult to understand. It should be rationalized and accessible to all.

Whether or not such couples choose to have sex with each other is their business. Marriage, however, would remain a sacrament dispensed by the Church, according to its teaching.

By making the parody of marriage about genitalia, the gay lobby managed to exclude all sorts of needy couples from legal protection.

You say that all loving couples want to marry each other. Or something along those lines. Marriage might be a fantasy among a full range of fantasies, but actually committing to marriage is whole other thing. One should not marry based on a fantasy.

I support an Adult Dependent Union law for all people wishing to join under civil authority, regardless of the gender configuration of the couple applying. Leave the Church alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top