Same Sex Marriage the Looneys...

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Upon studying up on this matter, I find the original article posted here very, very dubious. First off, it is extremely sloppy reporting. They make only the vaguest references to incidents without giving specifics - names of towns, names of people involved in the cases, etc. It’s always “a man in this province said this” “A woman in that province experienced that.” Um, who, what, where, what are the specifics? You expect me to just take this guy’s word that these things happened? I’m not saying they didn’t, but I certainly can’t judge one way or the other when the “reporter” uses no details what so ever, even in regards to this legislation:

"As I write, two Canadian provinces are considering legislation that would likely prevent educators even in private denominational schools from teaching that they disapprove of same-sex marriage, and a senior government minister in Ontario recently announced that if the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of homosexuality or gay marriage, it “would have to change its teaching.”

Which Canadian provinces? What is the name of the bills being proposed? What is the name of the senior govenrment minister and what government department was he a part of? Who is supporting this legislation, who is working against them? What is the exact language in the bills. The article says “would likely prevent educators…” “would *likely *prevent?” Why don’t you just present the legislation for us to read ourselves rather than relying on the National Review to tell is what it “likely” means?

Coptic Christian, do you even try and think for yourself? From this article, we have no idea what the legislation even is or the wording in it. You just take the National Review’s ( an infamously racist magazine by the way who has repeatedly had to fire upper level staff members for racist propaganda - what a great source of information) word for it that this legislation 1. is actually being proposed 2. actually prevents free speech and 3. has any chance of actually passing. After all, legislators try and enact hundreds of pieces of legislation every year that have no chance in heck of being passed.

Any article worth its salt wouldn’t just make these claims without even TRYING to provide facts to back them up, such as the legislators names promoting this bill, or what the bill even is.**

I have never seen a more poorly referenced article outside of a student news paper.

For my part, I tried doing google searches to find a copy of the actual bill and the language in it, but could ot find any mention of it aside from right wing groups claiming it exists. If the authors are genuinely concerned with this legislation, and not just making **** up to stir up the homophobes, wouldn’t it have been helpful to inform the public of the name of the legislation and who is promoting it so that people can mobilize against it? When conservative news sources talk about genuine legislation that goes against their interests, I have always seen them say the exact name of the bill, exactly who sponsored it, what court is handling it (if it is under judicial review), and background on the sides for and against said legislations. Why is none of that present here?

I’m not saying that this is for sure made up, I believe it to be possible because I do know that Canada has free speech restrictions, but this seems very very fabricated to me, the vagueness of the article, complete lack of details, and the fact that despite my searching I can’t find any evidence of this legislation actually existing except in the minds of martyr wannabes.

**Coptic Christian, do you have any evidence what so ever there is any truth to this story? **What is the name of the legislation, the provinces that are promoting it, the legislators promoting it, a copy of the bill, and how likely is the bill to pass?

Until you can provide this information, this thread is pointless because you are discussing what hypothetical legislation could hypothetically say. How can you, or anyone, judge legislation without even being able to read said legislation?

For my own part, I admit it was wrong of me to just treat your post as truthful and respond to it as if it was real. i should have verified your post first, because if I had, this would have been my first post on the subject. Show me the actual legislation, or for that matter, show me any evidence it is actually real.

Once you have provided me with an actual copy of the proposed legislation, then I can review it’s language. Right now, my view is that the National Review is *probably *lying about all of this. Until I am proven otherwise, my opinion is that either there is no such bill, or it is a bill that does not have the implications being claimed.

however, if you can provide any actual information about the legislation, I will certainly take a look and if it does do what the National Review claims, reiterate my strong opposition against it.

**
If this isn’t a giant lie, it shouldn’t be that hard to find an actual copy of the legislation and the details surrounding it. Coptic Christian, I await for you to back up your claims. If you can’t provide such evidence, I await your apology to the gay rights community for juging their movement based on false information you didn’t bother to verify.**

I for one, apologize to all Canadians for criticizing their country about this specific legislation without looking for facts of its existence first.** Even if the legislation turns out to be real, it would still have been wrong of me to just immediately believe something bad about Canadians without being shown actual evidence of wrongdoing first.**
 
BodiBatt said:
it is very, very common for perpetrators of oppression to paint themselves as the victim. This is how they justify oppressing a group of people, they aren’t doing it because they just look down on that group and want to treat them as less than human…it’s always about “no, if we give X group rights, then we will lose our rights and we will be oppressed, so you see, we have to keep oppressing them because if we don’t, they will oprress and/or kill us.” It’s what the Nazis said against the Jews, and what racists said against Medgar Evers.

You always want to posit any kind of violence or oppression against a group as pre-emptive defense. Oh, if we don’t keep the blacks slaves, they will kill all the white people in retribution upon being freed! If we don’t kill all the Jews, they will destroy us and our society! If we (speaking of the Chinese) don’t suppress Christians, then they will come after us and undermine our institutions and security! And look, here are isolated examples in which a white/German/chinese person DID get harmed/oppressed/killed by a black/Jew/Christian, so we can use that to justify anything we do from now on!

Much like how the U.S. used massacres by Native Americans against white settlers as justification for wide scale genocide against all Native Americans.

You guys certainly know how to play the game. Unfortunately, more and more people are able to see through your little ruse these days, including Christians. More and more Christians, including Catholics, are accepting homosexuals and gay marriage, so you really do look silly when you try and tell me the Christian churches in my town with gay pride flags out front to show solidarity with the Pride movement are ultimately planning to drive themselves underground and force themselves to be martyrs.

You (speaking of anti-gay promoters, not Christians as a whole, as I don’t see them as one and the same) aren’t going to get marytred, at least, not because of the gay rights movement. You’re just going to become increasingly irrelevent in society. I think to you, that’s worse. At least maryrdom is dramatic and gives you bragging rights. Being relegated to the kooky bigoted uncle people roll their eyes at at family gatherings probably is a lot less appealing sounding, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Dude, no one is talking about killing gay people… except you. But people ARE talking about forcing the Church to ‘marry’ gay people.
 
sllhouette said:
religioustolerance.org/hom_marb45.htm

lifesitenews.com/news/calgary-bishop-court-wrong-to-force-marriage-commissioners-into-same-sex-we/
Click to expand...
Did you assume I wasn’t going to actually click on these links and verify them?

Neither link you posted had anything to do with proposed legislation currently being considered which would curtail the free religious speech of private school administrators in privately funded schools.

The first one lists a 2005 complaint to the Candian govenrments’ human rights council about actions by a bishop.

The second is from 2011 and concerns Christian churches being required to perform gay weddings in Saskachewan. When I first read this article, I thought it was about people like priests working for a Church being forced to perform gay marriage sceremonies, and was apalled.

But then I noticed that the article used the term “marriage commisioner” and I thought, hmmm, what is a marriage commisioner? I lokoed that up, turns out it is NOT a private religious official like a priest. They are publically appointed government positions. Um, of course your employer (the government) should be able to dictate how your job works. I have to do plenty of things at my work I don’t like, but guess what, if I don’t do them, I get fired, because my job is to do my job as my employer instructs me. Of course an employer has the right to tell an employee what their job description is, and fire them if they don’t do their job. These marriage commisioners work for the government, so the government should get to fire them if marrying gay people is part of their job and they refuse to do it. If they dislike it so much, then they should get jobs working for religious employers who do not perform gay marriage ceremonies. Problem solved. I have no sympathy for people who don’t want to do their jobs unless they are being told to do something illegal. I’m a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and I’m not about to get a job at restaurants and then refuse to serve people any dish that has meat on it and then cry “oppression” when I get fired. If it mattered that much to me, I should either work at a vegetarian restaurant or work in another industry.

I have heard of secular people who work for Catholic schools or institutions with strict morals clauses, who then are fired for things that I don’t think are wrong at all, like living with a partner without being married. I have then see these secularists complain about how they are being persecuted. No sympathy from me. They decided to work for a Catholic employer with a morals clause. The fact that I don’t think the fired person’s actions were morally wrong doesn’t change the fact that they broke the rules of their employment and therefor their firing was justified. But that works both ways. A Catholic who willingly works for a secular institution (government or otherwise) can’t then cry crocodile tears for having to abide by that secular employer’s rules.

I went to the candian governments’ website, where you can search for legislation either currently on the books or currently being considered by the government. I searched under various terms; “christian” “homosexuals” “school” “religion” “students” “educators” and “catholics,” but there were no returned search results that yielded anything even remotely related to what the OP is claiming.

I am 99% convinced this entire thread is built on a lie posited by the National Review and believed eagerly by wannabe martyrs.

Also, I really don’t appreciate you assuming I’m so blindingly stupid I would just say “oh look, two links, that MUST be proof, not even gonna click on them to verify.” Although, considering the ease with which I originally believed Coptic Christian’s claims, perhaps I deserve your disdain and assumption of my stupidity.
 
interestedman said:
LOL…yes, the government is going to start killing off Catholics and forcing Christianity to be an underground movement. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
Click to expand...
Right, because–well–that has never happened before?
 
BodiBatt said:
Did you assume I wasn’t going to actually click on these links and verify them?

The first one lists a complaint to the Candian govenrments’ human rights council about actions by a bishop.

The second is from 2011 and concerns Christian churches being required to perform gay weddings in Saskachewan. When I first read this article, I thought it was about people like priests working for a Church being forced to perform gay marriage sceremonies, and was apalled.

But then I noticed that the article used the term “marriage commisioner” and I thought, hmmm, what is a marriage commisioner? I lokoed that up, turns out it is NOT a private religious official like a priest. They are publically appointed government positions. Um, of course your employer (the government) should be able to dictate how your job works. I have to do plenty of things at my work I don’t like, but guess what, if I don’t do them, I get fired, because my job is to do my job as my employer instructs me. Of course an employer has the right to tell an employee what their job description is, and fire them if they don’t do their job. These marriage commisioners work for the government, so the government should get to fire them if marrying gay people is part of their job and they refuse to do it. If they dislike it so much, then they should get jobs working for religious employers who do not perform gay marriage ceremonies. Problem solved. I have no sympathy for people who don’t want to do their jobs unless they are being told to do something illegal. I’m a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and I’m not about to get a job at restaurants and then refuse to serve people any dish that has meat on it and then cry “oppression” when I get fired. If it mattered that much to me, I should either work at a vegetarian restaurant or work in another industry.

I have heard of secular people who work for Catholic schools or institutions with strict morals clauses, who then are fired for things that I don’t think are wrong at all, like living with a partner without being married. I have then see these secularists complain about how they are being persecuted. No sympathy from me. They decided to work for a Catholic employer with a morals clause. The fact that I don’t think the fired person’s actions were morally wrong doesn’t change the fact that they broke the rules of their employment and therefor their firing was justified. But that works both ways. A Catholic who willingly works for a secular institution (government or otherwise) can’t then cry crocodile tears for having to abide by that secular employer’s rules.

Neither link you posted had anything to do with proposed legislation currently being considered which would curtail the free religious speech of private school administrators in privately funded schools.

I went to the candian governments’ website, where you can search for legislation either currently on the books or currently being considered by the government. I searched under various terms; “christian” “homosexuals” “school” “religion” “students” “educators” and “catholics,” but there were no returned search results that yielded anything even remotely related to what the OP is claiming.

I am 99% convinced this entire thread is built on a lie posited by the National Review and believed eagerly by wannabe martyrs.

Also, I really don’t appreciate you assuming I’m so blindingly stupid I would just say “oh look, two links, that MUST be proof, not even gonna click on them to verify.” Although, considering the ease with which I originally believed Coptic Christian’s claims, perhaps I deserve your disdain and assumption of my stupidity.
Click to expand...
I didn’t find anything about the legislation. But I did find the first two parts of the article so I linked them. Sorry if I offended you.

As for the first link the problem is that the church was placed under lawsuit for internal communications. Apparently we don’t have the right to talk these things amongst ourselves.

The counselor in question found another person to perform the job. No harm was done. Seems like a good way to get along to me. I don’t understand why the two people had to attack him for disagreeing with them.

I really don’t understand the style of conversation in which all you do is try to attack and insult the people you disagree with. Ad hominem logic just does not make sense to me.

Rather than launching an attack on me you could take the fact that I did not post a link about the legislation as an admission that I don’t at the moment have a link to provide.

Point is, being hostile isn’t winning you any arguments. In fact, it is just setting people against you and your cause.
 
interestedman said:
Certainly not in Canada.
Click to expand...
The point is that it has indeed happened before by various governments. One should be watchful for signs leading down that path. Most prior governments where such has occurred also had a point in their history where the same claim could have been made.
 
sllhouette said:
I didn’t find anything about the legislation. But I did find the first two parts of the article so I linked them. Sorry if I offended you.

As for the first link the problem is that the church was placed under lawsuit for internal communications. Apparently we don’t have the right to talk these things amongst ourselves.

The counselor in question found another person to perform the job. No harm was done. Seems like a good way to get along to me. I don’t understand why the two people had to attack him for disagreeing with them.

I really don’t understand the style of conversation in which all you do is try to attack and insult the people you disagree with. Ad hominem logic just does not make sense to me.

Rather than launching an attack on me you could take the fact that I did not post a link about the legislation as an admission that I don’t at the moment have a link to provide.

Point is, being hostile isn’t winning you any arguments. In fact, it is just setting people against you and your cause.
Click to expand...
And I just realized that the quote that I put up of you for the two links I had was not the one I had intended… sorry bout that.
 
**
MarkInOregon said:
Right, because–well–that has never happened before?
Click to expand...
Mark’s and Sillhoute’s logic; because the holocaust happened, any time anything I dislike happens to Catholics anywhere in the world, it is logical to then begin fatalistically preparing for a possible Holocaust against Catholics.

For some reason, the best way to prevent a Holocaust to Catholics is to not let gay people get married. After all, we can all remember when interracial marriage was legalized, and the very next year all Mormons (avid detracters of interracial marriage at the time) were hunted down and murdered by the American government.

Oh wait, interracial marriage didn’t lead to the murder of Mormons by the American government? Well…no matter, I still for some reason think gay marriage will potentially lead to my children being fed to the ovens.

Even when that thing you didn’t like actually never happened at all, it was made up by a right wing fanatical web site The National Review.

So your view is that Christians should begin preparing for a second holocaust because the National Review **lied **and claimed that the Canadian government is proposing legislation to restrict Catholic rights?

By the way, I also searched google and LexisNexis (an enormous world wide database that can search news archives and goverernment databases), and I also found no inkling of this legislation, nor did I find any substantiation in the claim that a senior government official said that Catholics needed to change their beliefs.

hey, Mark, guess what I heard today from a very reliable source? That there is legislation being proposed here in the U.S.A. that would make it illegal from anyone in Oregon to own a motorcycle. Are you going to now prepare for the Holocaust against Oregonians because some chick on the internet told you Oregonians can’t buy motorcycles? Since that, apparently, is the way you operate.

Completely unsubstantiated rumor on the internet about a rights infringement in a country you don’t even live in?

ALRIGHT EVERYONE, INTO THE SURVIVAL BUNKERS, MOVE MOVE MOVE!!!

What is it like to have to go through life with that kind of paranoia, I wonder? It must be exhausting!
 
sllhouette said:
If we don’t learn from our mistakes we are bound to repeat them.
Click to expand...
yes, and the lesson learned from the Holocaust is that out of control Nationalism and cults of personality (as Hitler was) is a really, really dangerous thing. It taught us the dangers of censorship (as in the decades leading up to the Holocaust, the Nazis went on a huge campaing to censor information to the public so that their nation relied on a steady stream of state approved propaganda, while squashing any dissenting viewpoint through jail or death. It also taught us the dangers of living in isolation - that is, other countries ignoring horrific human rights abuses in other lands because it doesn’t affect them directly. It also taught us how easy, tempting, and dangerous it is to scapegoat a population for the ills of society…though of course people had been doing that to the Jews for centuries before the Holocaust. It taught us the dangers of fascism and totaltarian societies. It taught us that “just following orders” is not an excuse for evil.

The lessons of the Holocaust are many and varied, but there is one lesson that did *not *come out of the Holocaust, and that is “if I hear some wacky rumor with no basis in fact on the internet, my first reaction should be to speculate that maybe my great great grandchildren will be genocided based on that rumor.”
 
BodiBatt said:
**

Mark’s and Sillhoute’s logic; because the holocaust happened, any time anything I dislike happens to Catholics anywhere in the world, it is logical to then begin fatalistically preparing for a possible Holocaust against Catholics.

For some reason, the best way to prevent a Holocaust to Catholics is to not let gay people get married. After all, we can all remember when interracial marriage was legalized, and the very next year all Mormons (avid detracters of interracial marriage at the time) were hunted down and murdered by the American government.

Oh wait, interracial marriage didn’t lead to the murder of Mormons by the American government? Well…no matter, I still for some reason think gay marriage will potentially lead to my children being fed to the ovens.

Even when that thing you didn’t like actually never happened at all, it was made up by a right wing fanatical web site The National Review.

So your view is that Christians should begin preparing for a second holocaust because the National Review **lied **and claimed that the Canadian government is proposing legislation to restrict Catholic rights?

By the way, I also searched google and LexisNexis (an enormous world wide database that can search news archives and goverernment databases), and I also found no inkling of this legislation, nor did I find any substantiation in the claim that a senior government official said that Catholics needed to change their beliefs.

hey, Mark, guess what I heard today from a very reliable source? That there is legislation being proposed here in the U.S.A. that would make it illegal from anyone in Oregon to own a motorcycle. Are you going to now prepare for the Holocaust against Oregonians because some chick on the internet told you Oregonians can’t buy motorcycles? Since that, apparently, is the way you operate.

Completely unsubstantiated rumor on the internet about a rights infringement in a country you don’t even live in?

ALRIGHT EVERYONE, INTO THE SURVIVAL BUNKERS, MOVE MOVE MOVE!!!

What is it like to have to go through life with that kind of paranoia, I wonder? It must be exhausting!
Click to expand...
Ok, new trick. Misrepresent the oppositions opinions and make them sound crazy.

The only purpose of the reference to history is that we should learn from it. It has nothing to do with gay people and the connection was one you fabricated.

What lessons? Good people who are trying to do good things can commit atrocities. Do I think that people are going to go around rounding up Catholics? No. At least, I really hope not… But will injustices be committed against the Church and the people of the Church? We are in danger.

Our concern is people telling the church how to operate, and what to believe. We will not recognize gay marriages, we will not stop advocating against abortion and contraception, we will not give away contraceptives etc… We will not stop being Catholic.

Perhaps there is a sense of paranoia creeping through the Church. But there is a reason for that. Anti-Catholic sentiment is high.
 
To be charitable, he might have realized that it was way out of line before he saw your response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top