question regarding marriage

[Kitty_Chan]

At least in the US, this is about much, much more than taxes. In Canada, do all of these benefits also apply to couples who are not legally married? I don’t see guarantees to most of them in the charter of rights
laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html#garantie

I am Canadian, I was attempting to put some of that perspective across. I never said it was only about taxes i was just bringing up a couple points of a start, I hadnt even had a chance to respond much with Shadow fire before your post here.

To answer your question Married and Common Law DO have the same rights and now so does Same Sex. Your missing the highlights of this law that was passed.

Background: married claims as one, common law as 2 better tax break. there was complaints so it was made fair. now common is claimed as one. gays could claim as 2 now this law they can only claim as one. NO ADVANTAGE all I can say to gay couples is : “Hey come in the waters cold” the govts got you guys too. I know whos winning here the govt.

There is a privicy law in place, I cannot access anything without my husbands permission, even though married we are treated separate. No Advantage again, gays are under same law, they got nowhere. Its actually pointless to be married but the govt can collect those taxes.

By I believe it was April last yr when the law was passed the govt issued a warning to those who are justice of the peace’s who perform civil hall weddings. Those who would refuse to wed same sex couples were to hand in their resignation. They couldnt move to another area where they would not wed. But they had to quit, it was a precedent.

Engle a gay organization stated on their site. " we will not stop until we can be married in ANY church in Canada." The justice of the peace civil is not good enough.

So I put it to you or anyone, there is no advantage in the money area, or the “rights” area. Which was what this was toted as on the news btw. Only the location of the cermony is there potential advantage. Already the civil is confirmed, how long until the church (catholic or protestant, muslim) will be told they are violating the anti hate law thats also passed and new and have to marry gay couples. And yes US churches are watching Canada closely.

To your other question regarding annulments. By law a divorced couple is to wait 1 year before getting married. Most ignore this and live common law. The reason its a yr is to allow time. A widow is told to wait a yr before they make big decisions but most divorcees dont and contribute to the high rate.

If you check the public profile Im not Catholic so I dont know about specific Catholic rules.

It is really two entirely separate questions–civil vs religious marriage. In the US, it is civil marriage that is being sought. It is the religious marriage that is subject to the “club rules” and rightly so, in my opinion.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

So, if you are a Canadian, I am sure you will be angry that the definition of “marriage” has been corrupted by the godless Liberal government that was recently ousted by God who gave victory to the Conservatives.

I simply like you you made my day !

good for Mr Blair. are you in the UK?

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Wait…is someone on this forum actually agreeing with me that homosexuals should have equality?..holy **** its a birthday miracle!!

Sorry I haven’t responded as much though guys I’ve been busy with bday and school and such.

Actually God thought everyone should have equality, thats what His whole thing is. Jesus looking for the 1 lost sheep as it were. Everyone is important to Him.

Im trying to put across to you in our country the law was passed under questionable circumstances (no free vote) and most people are suspect in the churches about the goals of the gay community, Especially in light of them putting up ANY church on their website. btw it was off last time I looked and no I dont think they changed their minds because Ive heard it since in interviews.

The gay community didnt need this law, or may be better to say they could have put across a law like Murtad said the UK did. Now that would have been fair for all. I dont have any problem with gays wanting to stay together, it is their free will choice (I had a boss that was gay and had another women living with her) and it would be better health wise if gay people on a whole, did stay with one partner
But they do not, the gay lifestyle as its called has many partners which spreads infection.

Just because someone disagrees with a gay person doent mean they hate the person btw. Do you agree with everything your friend, teacher, parent does? probably not and you dont hate them right?

And never say sorry for being busy with school, weve all finished so dont have to worry anymore but you do

And not to forget Happy Birthday :extrahappy:

 

[shadow_fire]

Actually God thought everyone should have equality, thats what His whole thing is. Jesus looking for the 1 lost sheep as it were. Everyone is important to Him.

Im trying to put across to you in our country the law was passed under questionable circumstances (no free vote) and most people are suspect in the churches about the goals of the gay community, Especially in light of them putting up ANY church on their website. btw it was off last time I looked and no I dont think they changed their minds because Ive heard it since in interviews.

The gay community didnt need this law, or may be better to say they could have put across a law like Murtad said the UK did. Now that would have been fair for all. I dont have any problem with gays wanting to stay together, it is their free will choice (I had a boss that was gay and had another women living with her) and it would be better health wise if gay people on a whole, did stay with one partner
But they do not, the gay lifestyle as its called has many partners which spreads infection.

Just because someone disagrees with a gay person doent mean they hate the person btw. Do you agree with everything your friend, teacher, parent does? probably not and you dont hate them right?

And never say sorry for being busy with school, weve all finished so dont have to worry anymore but you do

And not to forget Happy Birthday :extrahappy:

Thanks for the happy birthday

I do think if god is real then he really would want equality it only makes sense.

But the one thing you said about the gay life style being infectious and having lots of partners…it really matters on the person there can be straight people who sleep around a lot of gay people who sleep around alot…and of course there is a funny little rubber thing called a condom that can really help spread the infection

Your correct about the not hating a person just because they disagree but some people really do seem to hate homosexuals for what they call an infliction and it can be quite depressing some times.

Thanks again for the happy b-day

 

[KatholikosMercy]

Your correct about the not hating a person just because they disagree but some people really do seem to hate homosexuals for what they call an infliction and it can be quite depressing some times.

A Christian gets the same prejudice. Culpable prejudice is an evil act, period. Unfortunately it mostly stems from ignorance. People need to open their mind to the plights of their fellow children of God and without Jesus its just about a hopeless cause for them to be able to do that.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

But the one thing you said about the gay life style being infectious and having lots of partners…it really matters on the person there can be straight people who sleep around a lot of gay people who sleep around alot…and of course there is a funny little rubber thing called a condom that can really help spread the infection

Well thats why God said for straight people to also not have lots of partners, that is true too.

If you read the bible and dont worry about all the “debatable” hot topics. Its a big book and if you just take God on what He says about how to treat one another. Along with ways to live our lives. You will find alot of sound advice for the human spirit.

oh and your welcome.

ps KatholikosMercy

well said

 

[Sixtus]

Christian conception of marriage is being attacked from all quaters:

Gay community and femenisim. marriage should allow for the full expression of both male and female, no one should be enslaved by marriage

 

[shadow_fire]

KatholikosMercy:
I’m not sure about the whole “without jesus its hopeless” thing I’m not prejudice at all yet I’m undecided about gods existance and I honestly think that Jesus was either fictional or had a mental disorder (sorry thats what I think) my jewish friend for example just thinks Jesus was some sort of prophet not God’s son yet he is one of the most tolerant people I have ever met…in fact he jokes about being my boyfriend some times when were talking with people just as a joke. So I REALLY don’t think “without Jesus help its impossible” Also seems like most Catholics I’ve met on here have not been tolerant in the least to me like that one guy who started quoting Catholic scripture when I was asking a question about marriage and not about my homosexuality.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

I’m not sure about the whole “without jesus its hopeless” thing I’m not prejudice at all yet I’m undecided about gods existance and I honestly think that Jesus was either fictional or had a mental disorder (sorry thats what I think) my jewish friend for example just thinks Jesus was some sort of prophet not God’s son yet he is one of the most tolerant people I have ever met…in fact he jokes about being my boyfriend some times when were talking with people just as a joke. So I REALLY don’t think “without Jesus help its impossible” Also seems like most Catholics I’ve met on here have not been tolerant in the least to me like that one guy who started quoting Catholic scripture when I was asking a question about marriage and not about my homosexuality.

With the help of Jesus on a supernatural level we would have divine intervention. If your only on a humanistic level then please realize his example was entirely motivated out of love.

Quoting scripture was probably done for the same reason. Not to ridicule you but to show you what it says about your situation. Christians believe God drew lines and set standards to give us opportuinites.

The wage of sin is death. Though I grant you these days the message of the world is that the wage of sin is pleasure.

Again from the humanistic stand point. Take a look at Not doing what the church says is sin versus the potential consequences for commiting the sin. The primary mental illness is to be out of touch with God in a spiritual sense. Health is a holistic matter. Jesus healed the body and mind as well as the soul. Niether are we whole if we neglect any of these areas. Once again, Gods will generally remedies all areas save for unexplained tragedy. If you believed I would ask you to trust in the love God has for you. He understands your doubt. We all have it.

 

[shadow_fire]

It did seem more like ridicule to me given the fact this is in the non catholic religion board and he is posting Catholic scripture in a post asking about regulations of marriage and not the Catholic morality of my homosexuality.

And responding to the rest of the post…I don’t believe in Catholicism anyway so that doesn’t do much for me. I believe there could be a god/goddess (or more then one) though.

 

[cor]

It did seem more like ridicule to me given the fact this is in the non catholic religion board and he is posting Catholic scripture in a post asking about regulations of marriage and not the Catholic morality of my homosexuality.

I’m sorry that some of the responses were not helpful to you.

And responding to the rest of the post…I don’t believe in Catholicism anyway so that doesn’t do much for me.

I understand; I think one should dialogue based on common ground.

I believe there could be a god/goddess (or more then one) though.

Good! Keep on exploring that with all your mind and heart. And ask yourself if God/Godess(es) would want you to use your sexual faculties in a homosexual manner. Or rather, without even expliciting thinking of what a God/Goddess would want, ask yourself, “Why do I have these sexual faculties?” The way human sexuality is biologically designed makes one wonder if men and women are not complementary in some special way. A man’s anatomy and physiology “fits” a woman’s in such a way that not only mutual pleasure but also reproduction is possible. So maybe then it is contrary to the design of your body to use your sexual faculties in a homosexual way. I haven’t used religious dogmas at all in this paragraph; I hope it gives you food for thought.

 

[shadow_fire]

I’m sorry that some of the responses were not helpful to you.

I understand; I think one should dialogue based on common ground.

Good! Keep on exploring that with all your mind and heart. And ask yourself if God/Godess(es) would want you to use your sexual faculties in a homosexual manner. Or rather, without even expliciting thinking of what a God/Goddess would want, ask yourself, “Why do I have these sexual faculties?” The way human sexuality is biologically designed makes one wonder if men and women are not complementary in some special way. A man’s anatomy and physiology “fits” a woman’s in such a way that not only mutual pleasure but also reproduction is possible. So maybe then it is contrary to the design of your body to use your sexual faculties in a homosexual way. I haven’t used religious dogmas at all in this paragraph; I hope it gives you food for thought.

Wow that has got to be my absolute favorite post in this whole thread…scratch that in this whole forum!

Well I believe that since I am physically attracted to men then it must be natural. Also mens anus is more sensitive and is more stimulated then females which wouldn’t make sense unless there were a reason “something” should be put up there.

 

[blessedtoo]

I am saying that I see no logical basis for denying the legal benefits of civil marriage to a same sex couple who are choosing to commit themselves to the same responsibilities as a heterosexual couple. I see no logical basis for the claims that doing so would cause harm to heterosexual marriages.

Karen, I think we’ve met before over this topic. If you are earnest in your quest for the truth on this issue, I urge you to get the book The Future of Marriage, by David Blankenhorn. It is written by a commited liberal and presents a thorough and specific refutation of gay marriage without evoking any hint of religion.

It is also helpful to take note of who are the most vocal advocates of same-sex marriage. You can zero in on the loudest voices by simply checking out some of their websites (Alternatives to Marriage Project, Andrew Sullivan, Judith Stacey). Prior to becoming outspoken supporters of same-sex marriage, these folks were all staunch OPPONENTS of marriage as it has been understood for, well, forever. Ask yourself why would people with such animosity and loathing for the instution of marriage become such strong supporters of it when it involves homosexuals? The goal of the movement is not to be included or to enhance or to improve the institution of marriage, but rather to redefine, remake, restructure it to include any and all varieties and combinations of indivuals who “love” eachother and wish to have the state recognize their “love”. That is not, nor has it ever been the state’s interest in the institution of marriage. The goal of marriage and family law should be (and always has been until the last 35 years) to support civil society’s efforts to strenthen marrige so that more children are raised by their own married mother and father in loving, lasting unions. The goal of the gay marriage activists is to rebuild family forms, to enshrine family diversity, to cast doubt and dismantle the concept of monogamy and life-long committment, and usher in a new era of “marital type” relationships that can include any number of participants.

 

[blessedtoo]

This has nothing to do with “redefining” males and females or with redefining heterosexual marriage in any way.

See above post and do a bit of research.

I see no reason to base state or federal law on the morality preached by a specific subset of a specific religion when the US was founded on the separation of church and state, freedom of religion and equal treatment for all.

Religion has absolutely zero to do with state interest in marriage. It is a civil matter and of great importance to society as a whole to insure that children (remember them?) are guaranteed the best possible chance of being raised in homes with their own biological mother’s and father’s. So tell me what interest does the state have in granting civil marriage to same sex partners? What benefit is there to society?

 

[cor]

Wow that has got to be my absolute favorite post in this whole thread…scratch that in this whole forum!

Thank you!

Well I believe that since I am physically attracted to men then it must be natural.

People use the word “natural” in different ways. Sometimes we use it to mean “It comes naturally to me.” Other times we use it to mean, “It’s as it is in the world of nature.” Still other times we use it to mean, “It is in accordance with my nature as a male human person.” And it’s this last sense that’s important (just because something comes naturally to you doesn’t mean it is good and there are many things in the world of nature that aren’t good like diseases for example) Did you mean what you wrote in this last sense?

I must admit it does seem somewhat reasonable to conclude from the fact that one has an attraction to be with other men that it is therefore in harmony with who I am as a man to pursue that attraction. I mean, why would the Powers that Govern the Universe give me this attraction if I wasn’t meant to have it and having it, pursue it? I admit that’s a powerful argument to be made.

However, we also know that there are many people attracted to prepubescent children yet you and I would probably consider this attraction to be “unnatural.” Same for the few people who are attracted to animals – I’m sure you, just as I, would consider this attraction to be “unnatural” as well. (I don’t mean to morally equate you with those who act on these attractions, please understand; I also don’t mean to say that these attractions are all equally unnatural). So, just because someone is attracted to something, doesn’t make that attraction natural. Do you agree?

But then why (in the cosmic sense of “why?”) do some people have these unnatural attractions? I don’t think reason alone gives us an adequate answer (In Christianity it’s because man was cast out of paradise and left to live in a chaotic world).

And is same sex attraction like attraction to prepubescent children and attraction to animals unnatural or is it natural? Maybe the latter two attractions come as a result of the environment and the former (same sex attraction) comes as a result of some genetic influence. But does that prove that the former (same sex attraction) is natural while the latter two are not? No it doesn’t. Because, we find ourselves in a world that is imperfect, chaotic. If there’s reason to say that our development in our enviroment can be imperfect resulting in some unnatural feelings then we should be open to the possibility that our genetics can be imperfect too. No one has a perfect body and likewise no one may have perfect genes. Since we live in this imperfect, chaotic, Christians would say “fallen”, world, we can’t employ the logic, "It is, therefore it is right"

Also mens anus is more sensitive and is more stimulated then females which wouldn’t make sense unless there were a reason “something” should be put up there.

You make a good point. Can anyone answer this satisfactorily? Why would God make the male human body in this way (i.e. able to receive pleasure through anal sex) if males’ receiving anal sex were not part of His design?

Maybe it’s like the appendix – a body feature that has no purpose. Or maybe it’s just another instance of the “chaos” in this world. (I guess these two musings are not mutually exclusive)

To be frank, your bringing it up (and my reading more about it on other websites) does introduces a slight difficulty in my belief that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

[blessedtoo]

You make a good point. Can anyone answer this satisfactorily? Why would God make the male human body in this way (i.e. able to receive pleasure through anal sex) if males’ receiving anal sex were not part of His design?

Sorry. This is an erroneous idea. Why does the doctor completely sedate the patient before a colonoscopy? Why do sex manuals for young homosexual men give step by step instructions on how to best “prepare” the orifice to avoid tearing, rupture, and pain? Why are male homosexuals so frequently stricken with rectal and intestinal infections and complications resulting from this act? This body part is meant for elimination, not reception. If there is any type of “pleasure” garnered from it’s misuse, it is along the same lines, IMO, as the “pleasure” one might experience from certain forms of S & M, bondage, or other pain/pleasure perversions.

 

[kellie]

Thank you!

You make a good point. Can anyone answer this satisfactorily? Why would God make the male human body in this way (i.e. able to receive pleasure through anal sex) if males’ receiving anal sex were not part of His design?

Maybe it’s like the appendix – a body feature that has no purpose. Or maybe it’s just another instance of the “chaos” in this world. (I guess these two musings are not mutually exclusive)

To be frank, your bringing it up (and my reading more about it on other websites) does introduces a slight difficulty in my belief that homosexuality is unnatural.

Maybe God wants to test our free will by making our bodies able to feel pleasure.

Personally, I find pleasure in going out with my friends and getting totally drunk, and I also find lots of pleasure in pigging out on cheesecakes, ice cream, chocolates, and other food.

Both of these things are sinful however, as well as not being good for my health. Therefore I try not to do them at all.

But my body is made to get delight in these acts.

However to live like Christ, I must refrain from these guilty pleasures.

Same could be said of homosexual sex.

 

[KarenNC]

**Karen, I think we’ve met before over this topic. **

Very possibly.

If you are earnest in your quest for the truth on this issue, I urge you to get the book The Future of Marriage, by David Blankenhorn. It is written by a commited liberal and presents a thorough and specific refutation of gay marriage without evoking any hint of religion.

I will see if the library has a copy.

It is also helpful to take note of who are the most vocal advocates of same-sex marriage.

I put much more emphasis on the actual gay and lesbian couples that I know personally than on the loudest voices or those who try to co-opt issues for their own political purposes. I don’t have to agree with every goal that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have or strategy they use to believe that racial equality under the law is a good thing, for instance.

**The goal of the movement is not to be included or to enhance or to improve the institution of marriage **

The goal of those whom I know personally is to have equal legal rights.

The goal of marriage and family law should be (and always has been until the last 35 years) to support civil society’s efforts to strenthen marrige so that more children are raised by their own married mother and father in loving, lasting unions.

Then the focus should be on divorce, marital infidelity and a culture that promotes personal irresponsibility rather than in blocking those who are crying out to assume the responsibilities of a legal, life-long, monogamous relationship.

Focus on those heterosexual parents who choose not to marry even though they have the option.
Focus on those heterosexuals who treat marriage as a disposable temporary state.
Focus on issues of domestic violence that tear apart families.
Focus on those who treat sexual relationships as merely casual and recreational and take the possibility of reproduction lightly.
Focus on lack of child support , involvement and responsibility by males (and some females) for the children they have caused to come into being through casual sexual relationships.
Focus on the need for appropriate and adequate sexual education so that children are wanted and born into families that have the best chance of actually raising them in a decent safe environment.
Focus on the issues of poverty, addiction and mental illness that lead to child abuse and neglect and cause families to be torn apart.
Look at the real everyday threats to children, not the theoretical ones brought up by the loudest opponents who have their own agenda.

Focus on actually strengthening those who want to take on the legal responsibilities and who take them very seriously–those who, despite lack of social support, are and have been in the desirable monogamous committed relationship, sometimes for decades, already and would gladly take on the legal responsibilities as well if given the opportunity–the ones who are treating marriage as marriage, as a lifelong monogamous commitment.

The goal of the gay marriage activists is to … dismantle the concept of monogamy and life-long committment…

In what way does a same sex couple asking for the legal responsibilities of marriage, including making it much harder legally to dissolve the relationship and spelling out specific legally enforcable requirements of support to any children, do this?

 

[blessedtoo]

I put much more emphasis on the actual gay and lesbian couples that I know personally than on the loudest voices or those who try to co-opt issues for their own political purposes. I don’t have to agree with every goal that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have or strategy they use to believe that racial equality under the law is a good thing, for instance.

That’s noble but naive. If you study some recent political movements you will see that what may have begun as a noble endeavor quickly evolves into radical political movements which are designed to completely unravel certain cultural constucts. Early feminists had nobel intentions when campaigning for the rights to vote, work outside the home, own property, etc. Yet the political movement which assumed the feminist mantle has turned the noble concept into something bordering on diabolical and nearly out of control. The Civil Rights Movement which began with the righteous intent of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was also kidnapped by radical political opportunists like the Black Panthers, Jesse Jackson, and Sharpton who, IMO, have done more to divide than unite. And now we have the issues of Affirmative Action, School bussing, etc., still dividing us as a country. While your homosexual friends (and mine) may appear to want nothing more that the same “rights”, the political machine which drives the movement wants something else entirely. I would also recommend that you truly observe exactly what it is your friends wish from their “marriage” arrangements. All the homosexual friends I have are not interested in “monogamy” as a part of their “marriages”. Even those who have been together for many, many years still entertain outside relationships within their primary couplings.

Then the focus should be on divorce, marital infidelity and a culture that promotes personal irresponsibility rather than in blocking those who are crying out to assume the responsibilities of a legal, life-long, monogamous relationship.

I agree completely. That is why organizations such as the Instutute for American Values are so important in this country and Canada. Their goal is to reinforce and strengthen that which keeps the instution of marriage healthy. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, multiple partners, and any other variety of arrangement will only serve to continue to tear down what is left of our understanding and respect for traditional marrige.

 

[blessedtoo]

In what way does a same sex couple asking for the legal responsibilities of marriage, including making it much harder legally to dissolve the relationship and spelling out specific legally enforcable requirements of support to any children, do this?

If the request is contrary to the purpose of civil marriage (which I defined in above post), it will serve to devalue the institution’s primary role in society. It will introduce the very real possibility of redefining the family (the cornerstone of society) as anything the individual participants wish it to be, rather than a civil arrangement which best benefits children and society as a whole.