"Same-sex debate no place for religion" Canada

[CowPie]

Minister says "religion has no place in gay marriage"

---

FREDERICTON - The Roman Catholic Church should keep its nose out of the government's same-sex marriage legislation, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew suggested yesterday.

Asked about plans by church groups in Quebec to launch a campaign against same-sex marriage, Mr. Pettigrew said the government and churches should not get involved in each other's affairs.

"I find that the separation of the Church and the state is one of the most beautiful inventions of modern times."

---

This seems silly. I would rather have a few thousand years of tradition behind me informing my thoughts rather than the view of Mr. Pettigrew.

Religion can be catholic, protestant, whatever; but it can be star trek too...

www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=7774f292-106c-4987-953a-94c7a3a85fe1

[BWF89]

I didn't read the whole article but heres my opinion on same sex marriage:

Anyone who opposes it (gay marriage) is opposing progress. How can we tell our kids that it's ok to be gay and stop gay people from being teased and harrased when they aren't allowed to be how god made them and get a marriage so they can be a "real" couple...

EDIT: What's the difference between the idea of a black man and white woman getting married 60 years ago (during segregation) and a woman and a woman getting married now? Both were (and gay marriage is) taboos but sociaty said this is redicules and everyone should be equal. So we over came it (segregation) and progressed...

I'm not a liberal in any sence of the word. I just believe people should be granted their constitutional rights to the "Pursit of happiness" without being outlaws...

[jakeslife]

After an internal debate in my mind to post here on this topic, I've decided to, even though this thread has the potential for fire.

From a neutral standpoint, I too believe that the separation between church and state can be a great thing, but it can also be a bad thing. This is the thing about morals, ethics, and beliefs...each person's are different. No matter what book they believe, no matter what faith, each person is individual. I see the modern church acting in one mind, one voice, and one belief. Again, this has its pros and cons.

From a not-so-neutral standpoint, yes, I am gay. I would like to believe that when I find the person that I want to spend the rest of my life with, grow with, learn from, and help travel through life, that I can proclaim my love for them and be treated equally. While I see the debate over gay marriage (in the US at least) as nothing more than a huge political circus, I also believe in that human right.

Human Right. When looking from one angle, marriage is a human right. You find someone you love, who you want to be with for the rest of your life, that makes you feel like nothing else you've ever felt, you proclaim that through various ways, whether it be a ceremony, jewelery, etc.

From another angle, "marriage" has been politicized...this has happened through many ways: benefits from your work or the government, recognition by a certain entity. It has moved away from the basis of two people entering a commitment to be there for each other until they die, to a policy. It's a black-and-white policy now held by corporations in benefit packages, policies, insurance, etc., and a social status.

I have to say that because of how I feel about the current state of things on the gay marriage front, I have no official stance. I too have a tradition that goes back thousands of years, but it is not focused on the aspects of physical love or commitmet, it is focused on the commitment you have to a higher power, whoever it may be in your life. There are many roads that lead to the same place.

I have many issues with the gay community--the focus on promiscuity and sex, and partying (i.e.: drugs). While this is a stereotype, I believe that all stereotypes come from truth. But I also think I do a fairly good job at loking at things objectively (it's a must with what I do).

[jdodson]

I didn't read the whole article but heres my opinion on same sex marriage:

Anyone who opposes it (gay marriage) is opposing progress. How can we tell our kids that it's ok to be gay and stop gay people from being teased and harrased when they aren't allowed to be how god made them and get a marriage so they can be a "real" couple...

EDIT: What's the difference between the idea of a black man and white woman getting married 60 years ago (during segregation) and a woman and a woman getting married now? Both were (and gay marriage is) taboos but sociaty said this is redicules and everyone should be equal. So we over came it (segregation) and progressed...

I'm not a liberal in any sence of the word. I just believe people should be granted their constitutional rights to the "Pursit of happiness" without being outlaws...

gays should be alloted the same rights under the law that anybody else is.

[Lynx]

The pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution. That point aside it is my personal belief that marriage is a religious institution and the definition of marriage should be defined by the religious institutions that practice it. If the government has to get it's life-controlling little hands on this aspect of our lives they need to term all unions between two people as civil unions and withdraw from marriage totally.

[kleeman]

I don't think it matters whether you call it "civil-union" or "marriage" the point is whether you have the same rights under law. At present this is not the case in many US states and so allowing gay civil unions but not gay marriage is therefore (hypocritical) discrimination pure and simple. I am an atheist but am married (in a registry office) and have the same rights as a religous person. If I wanted to be "married" in a religous sense I would get religion. If the catholic church is advocating (state) discrimination against gay people because they don't approve the gay lifestyle they have intruded on the domain of the state and should be legitimately criticized.

[Zundfolge]

We're going through similar silliness here in the States as well :rolleyes:

[Libertarian Rant]Same sex marriage, different sex marriage ... WTF does either of these have to do with National Defense, International Relations and Regulation of Interstate Commerce?

Federal Government shouldn't even have the word marriage on any of its books ... its none of the fed.govs business, nor is it part of their realm of power as defined by the constitution (those three things in italics above are ALL the constitution gives the federal government power over).

Furthermore, why should the state have anything to do with marriage (other then the simple enforcement of contract law).

I'm straight, and married ... about 8 years ago I had to go down to the courthouse, pay a fee and beg permission from the state to "legally" marry my wife. What a crock ... as a freeman I shouldn't have to come groveling to the state and pay their extortion in order to be "allowed" the basic human right of marriage.


No sir, As a Christian I don't believe homosexuality is moral, but by God it's none of the governments (or my) business if two men or two women want to make a lifelong commitment to each other.[/libertarian rant]

[adbak]

I am a firm believer in the Separation of Church and State. With the myriad religions and sects/branches thereof, there are going to be differing -- even opposing -- views on everything. Religion is what guides individual people. And while it can and in almost all cases does teach right from wrong, it can also be used as a reason for bigotry. Religion in and of itself is a beautiful thing, but Man corrupts it when it's used to further one's agenda.


The pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution.

You are correct, but there's also an Elastic Clause, aka the "Necessary and Proper" clause, built into the US Constitution (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/gahff/html/ff_060500_elasticclaus.htm). This clause dictates that civil laws in one state applies to all other states in the Union. So when miscegenation was outlawed in one state, any interracial couples married there were considered married in the other states. However, America and its Congresspersons seem to look the other way when the DoMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was passed, especially since Massachusetts now allows same-sex marriages.

However, if Religion would like a say in the matter, it can always deny the blessing of the Church and choose to not marry them.

A brief aside: I said "same-sex" marriage instead of gay marriage because the two terms are NOT interchangeable. Gay marriage implies that only gays and lesbians are the ones getting married. "Same-sex" marriage is the more PC term since it only talks about the biological sex of those getting married instead of their sexuality. This includes bisexuals who are in a homosexual relationship.

[CowPie]

I don't know. I feel that religion does have a role in it. These are people elected by religious people who say "screw the church"...it does't sit well with me, it seems like a man on a mission rather than a man representative of Canada.

[az]

" would rather have a few thousand years of tradition behind me informing my thoughts rather than the view of Mr. Pettigrew.

Religion can be catholic, protestant, whatever; but it can be star trek too..."


Two thousand years of tradition of fear, ignorance, oppression, bloodshed, shame...


In referece to Star Trek, didn't Captain Picard make a speech about this sort of thing when the people of a developing planet regarded him as a god?

[az]

"These are people elected by religious people "

What?!?

His views are probably the views of the majority. That is why the las was made in the first place. Aren't you being a little egocentric? Not everybody is a conservative christian. Obviously, many religious people feel okay with gay marriage. It's not like the church is being forced to perform these ceremonies.

[Adrenal]

I don't know. I feel that religion does have a role in it. These are people elected by religious people who say "screw the church"...it does't sit well with me, it seems like a man on a mission rather than a man representative of Canada.
I don't know what possible role religion has. Sure, they dislike it, and think anyone who does it has, what was it, 'condemned their souls'. But, even if they're right, its not 'their' souls.
Thats just want i think, and, naturally, anyone is entitled to their own view, but i strongly believe gay marriage should be allowed. Assuming of course they love one another, same with heterosexual marriage

[az]

"would rather have a few thousand years of tradition behind me informing my thoughts "


That one still gets me.

I think for myself.

[Lynx]

We're going through similar silliness here in the States as well :rolleyes:

[Libertarian Rant]Same sex marriage, different sex marriage ... WTF does either of these have to do with National Defense, International Relations and Regulation of Interstate Commerce?

Federal Government shouldn't even have the word marriage on any of its books ... its none of the fed.govs business, nor is it part of their realm of power as defined by the constitution (those three things in italics above are ALL the constitution gives the federal government power over).

Furthermore, why should the state have anything to do with marriage (other then the simple enforcement of contract law).

I'm straight, and married ... about 8 years ago I had to go down to the courthouse, pay a fee and beg permission from the state to "legally" marry my wife. What a crock ... as a freeman I shouldn't have to come groveling to the state and pay their extortion in order to be "allowed" the basic human right of marriage.


No sir, As a Christian I don't believe homosexuality is moral, but by God it's none of the governments (or my) business if two men or two women want to make a lifelong commitment to each other.[/libertarian rant]

I am also Libertarian (registered in fact). What you said is how I stand on the issue. The state has crossed it's boundrys in their involvement in marraige and in fact, in most areas of peoples private lives.

[TravisNewman]

I think that anyone who wants to form a civil union should be able to, and anyone who wants to get married should be able to. Not that I would do this, but I think I should be able to marry a woman, or man if I were gay/bi, but live with my best friend since we were 2 in a civil union. Seriously.

Basically, I think any minister should be able to marry any two (or three or four... ) people they religiously believe they can, and that the government should be required to give civil unions to whoever wants them, but that the two should stay separate. I don't think I should have to "file for divorce" because what the hell do lawyers and courts have to do with a religious institution? I've never understood that, and probably never will.

But azz, man, you rock, you always say what needs to be said in the most concise and effective way possible ;)

[machiner]

This can only lead to more:

"not in my back yard"

I'd like to see some beaureaucrat try to regulate me with my hand squeezing his neck.

Naah - I'm hetero, married...and I disagree fundamentally with the title to this thread...not because I take a side in this same-sex issue or not...

"Same-sex debate no place for religion" The stigma surrounding homosexuality (thereby same-sex marriage - I'll argue a previous posters symantics) is exactly related to religion.

If there weren't so many zealots out there nobody would care.

Do I need to remind anybody of the scourges leveled against humanity on global scales in the name of religion?

No - this whole rediculous "issue" is by, because of, and promolgated by religion.

Makes me sick.

[Zundfolge]

I don't think I should have to "file for divorce" because what the hell do lawyers and courts have to do with a religious institution? I've never understood that, and probably never will.
"divorce" is (or at least should be) nothing more then two parties seeking to revoke the terms of a contract.

All a "marriage" is (in the secular sense) is a contract ... person A agrees with person B to "Love, Honor, Cherish, Obey in sickness and in health for better or for worse, forsaking all others, yadda yadda". So when two people enter into this contract and one party doesn't fulfill their end of the contract, or wishes to get out of the contract then thats what the courts are for.

The proper role for the government in this whole Marriage issue is to allow the citizens to use its courts to sort out their differences...this is the essence of contract law.


Now there is also a religious element to Marriage ... and that is the church wedding part, or the belief that "what God has brought together let no man tear asunder" or the bride's family owes the grooms family 30 goats or whatever ... that is NOT the realm of the government (and as such the government should not sanction or prosecute any church or clergyman who refuses to join people into Marriages because they are the same sex or they aren't members of that church or there are 3 of them or whatever, and believe me one of the major things driving Evangelical Christians in this whole "anti gay marriage" thing is that they fear that one day their pastor will be sued or charged with a "hate crime" for not agreeing to marry gays).


Regardless of the issue, 99 times out of 100 things would be better if nosey bureaucrats would just go away and leave us alone.

[Dylanby]

Regardless of the issue, 99 times out of 100 things would be better if nosey bureaucrats would just go away and leave us alone.

Then they might be out of a job.

Passing laws that pander to public opinion (the vocal minority) or lobby groups is a lot easier than working to make laws & government function in a way that actually objectively improves the lives of those they represent.


The ultimate goal of most people who hold public office is to keep their jobs & improve their own lot in life & not 'make the world a better place'.

All of the various religions & their value systems have no place in government. What's right & wrong in the legal sense should be as objective as possible & not swayed by the personal ethics (or lack thereof) of those passing laws.

People always like to talk about 'rights', but if you follow the actions of various elected lawmakers you might start to wonder if they actually know what the word means. Or come to realize that it's not something they care about.

[Lovechild]

Please don't turn this place into another forums.gentoo.org - there are places to debate relgion and politics, please don't make this one of them.

[TravisNewman]

This is an off-topic section of the forums, so anything goes as long as it doesn't violate any laws or forum rules.

I personally love getting to know people on different forums through topics like these.

[Lynx]

Encouraging intelligent discussion on contraversial subjects is healthy for everybody. We have such a diverse group of people here that we probably get just about every viewpoint that exists and as far as I can tell, everybody here is pretty darn intelligent, which makes for interesting conversations. We talk about computers and Ubuntu everywhere else on the forum and these conversations are mostly just relaxing side discussions. Everybody here is mature in how they discuss the topics as well and like thumb said, it allows us to get to know each other a bit better.

[carlc]

I would like to comment on the concept of "separation of church and state" in the United States (sorry, it just dawned on me that the topic originated as a Canadian issue). First, I would like to make it clear that I have no desire to offend anyone or participate in a heated debate of an already exhausted topic. :D

It is my opinion that the meaning of the concept "separation of church and state" has been removed from its source which is the first amendment and also from American History. The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I believe the intent here is to prohibit the government from restricting the exercise of religion. How can we forget this when it played such an important role in the founding of our country?

Also, I believe that if American citizens can not express their values in government, then the government is not truly a Democratic one. Democracy does not imply a neutral government. Democracy implies a government that is representative of its citizens.

"Democracy is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law."

[Lynx]

We, however, do not live in a Democracy. We live in a representative republic, big difference. The representative republic model was constructed because of the glaring fact that the American public is not informed enough on complicated issues to make reasonable and good decisions. Thus, our public elects representatives who are charged with the task of deciding our nations course. The average American (lets not fool ourselves) is not capable of discerning the complicated, underlying civil liberties implications that plague this issue and many others. However, the government steps over the line when they begin to interfere with peoples private lives. Thus, the government should be as limited as possible in this respect, and people should be allowed to choose how they live on an individual basis, so long as they abide by the basic laws and cause no harm to others. What goes on between consensual adults is not my, or yours or the governments business.

[az]

"I believe the intent here is to prohibit the government from restricting the exercise of religion"

A civil marriage has nothing to do with religion.

[carlc]

A civil marriage has nothing to do with religion.

I was off topic. I did not desire to get into a discussion on marriage. I was just commenting on the idea of seperation of church and state.

[carlc]

If this is true:


The average American (lets not fool ourselves) is not capable of discerning the complicated, underlying civil liberties implications that plague this issue and many others.

Then you believe this to be true also?


What goes on between consensual adults is not my, or yours or the governments business.

********************
Good Point!


We, however, do not live in a Democracy. We live in a representative republic, big difference.

[zenwhen]

Gay couples should have right that straight couples do. They should be able to unite and file their taxes together, get tax breaks, adopt, receive tax breaks for that... all of the things straight couples can do.

Their unions should be legal. Their unions should be equally respected by all laws.

Their unions should not officially be called "marriages", as they by definition are not marriages.

That is my opinion, and will remain my opinion. I'll back it with my voting and nothing else.

[CowPie]

"would rather have a few thousand years of tradition behind me informing my thoughts "


That one still gets me.

I think for myself.
Oh, I mean compared to new methods. "tried tested and true" is all I mean...

[CowPie]

Please don't turn this place into another forums.gentoo.org - there are places to debate relgion and politics, please don't make this one of them.
LOL I hate gentoo forums anyway. I never got any useful help there.

[CowPie]

" would rather have a few thousand years of tradition behind me informing my thoughts rather than the view of Mr. Pettigrew.

Religion can be catholic, protestant, whatever; but it can be star trek too..."


Two thousand years of tradition of fear, ignorance, oppression, bloodshed, shame...


In referece to Star Trek, didn't Captain Picard make a speech about this sort of thing when the people of a developing planet regarded him as a god?
That's my favourite episode, "Who watches the
watchers?"

But, star trek & that episode is told from the side of the technologically advanced!

[az]

" Oh, I mean compared to new methods. "tried tested and true" is all I mean..."

Right. I'd still pick Pettigrew, then. Or Trudeau.


"But, star trek & that episode is told from the side of the technologically advanced!"

It references the harm that religious doctrine can do to a healthy cultural development. There was a time that books were banned unless you were a priest or a monk. The message is do not give away your right to think for yourself and beleive what you want for fear of buning in hell. How is that not the point here?

[CowPie]

It references the harm that religious doctrine can do to a healthy cultural development. There was a time that books were banned unless you were a priest or a monk. The message is do not give away your right to think for yourself

That is important!! WHy should a Trudeau or Pettigrew say "my opinions don't matter" (p.ph.) because of religion?

[az]

You feel you are being persecuted because of your religion.

You are being persecuted because of your opinion, which in your case may be based on your religion. This is an important destinction. Pettigrew or Trudeau never said that your opinion never mattered because of your religion. It is because they are not the opinion of the majority.

The fact is they should not be given more weight just because they are based on religion. You feel that they should and that may also be why you are feeling persecuted.

[Zundfolge]

The representative republic model was constructed because of the glaring fact that the American public is not informed enough on complicated issues to make reasonable and good decisions.

Wrong. Our government was created as a Republic because it was created with the idea that we are to be ruled by laws, not by men.

The law (the constitution) is what should determine the direction of our country, and the laws enacted by our government. NOT the whims of men. The constitution is built on the idea that government should have strictly limited powers and that ultimately real power lies in the hands of the individual ... the only purpose of government is to safeguard life, liberty and property.


If we were indeed still the Republic we were created to be, the gay marrige thing would be a non issue as there is no constitutional cause for government to be involved (same goes for straight marriage as well).

Our shift from a Republic to a Democracy has been going on since the Civil War, and all its done is push us toward what Tocqueville called the Tyranny of the Majority.

[KiwiNZ]

My recent first hand experiences in the tsunami area which I have just returned from has shown me one thing . Life is too short to fragile and too precious to waste and to make miserable. We as a society must learn that we are here on this planet as the guest of nature and our stay is limited . Why then should we impose misery on persons for reason of their love.If two people love each other and wish to live their lives together , with a public expression that love by means of a union be it civil be it religious , we should embrace that expression and encourage it . Love is not here to hurt . It is here to bring pleasure.

Be it homosexual, be it heterosexual , a love relationship is a beautiful and natural thing

[poofyhairguy]

My recent first hand experiences in the tsunami area which I have just returned from has shown me one thing . Life is too short to fragile and too precious to waste and to make miserable. We as a society must learn that we are here on this planet as the guest of nature and our stay is limited . Why then should we impose misery on persons for reason of their love.If two people love each other and wish to live their lives together , with a public expression that love by means of a union be it civil be it religious , we should embrace that expression and encourage it . Love is not here to hurt . It is here to bring pleasure.

Be it homosexual, be it heterosexual , a love relationship is a beautiful and natural thing


Couldn't have been said better.

[CowPie]

You feel you are being persecuted because of your religion.

You are being persecuted because of your opinion, which in your case may be based on your religion. This is an important destinction. Pettigrew or Trudeau never said that your opinion never mattered because of your religion. It is because they are not the opinion of the majority.

The fact is they should not be given more weight just because they are based on religion. You feel that they should and that may also be why you are feeling persecuted.
OH, but I saw a poll that only 40% support...of course our PM doesn't want a referendum now ;)

There are many Muslim/immigrant communities in Canada against same-sax marriage too..

[Lynx]

Crap, Browser hiccuped and caused me to double post. Could a mod remove this one?

[Lynx]

Wrong. Our government was created as a Republic because it was created with the idea that we are to be ruled by laws, not by men.

The law (the constitution) is what should determine the direction of our country, and the laws enacted by our government. NOT the whims of men. The constitution is built on the idea that government should have strictly limited powers and that ultimately real power lies in the hands of the individual ... the only purpose of government is to safeguard life, liberty and property.


If we were indeed still the Republic we were created to be, the gay marrige thing would be a non issue as there is no constitutional cause for government to be involved (same goes for straight marriage as well).

Our shift from a Republic to a Democracy has been going on since the Civil War, and all its done is push us toward what Tocqueville called the Tyranny of the Majority.


And the reason the fore-fathers wished us to be ruled by laws and not men is because being ruled by men meant being ruled by a public not capable of making informed or reasonable judgments on complex issues.

If anything we are most certainly not a pure democracy but a representative democracy.

Beyond that, it should have taken a constitutional amendment to get the government involved with marraige in the first place. That and welfare, social security, medicare, gun control and on and on and on. Todays <American> government is so out of control and invasive that it will soon be better to live elsewhere if we, as informed Americans make no attempt to educate the masses. Educated Americans need to take a stand and start speaking out against massive government involvment in our every day lives. We don't need the government to tell us who we can have sex with or what we can or can't say.

[az]

"OH, but I saw a poll that only 40% support...of course our PM doesn't want a referendum now

There are many Muslim/immigrant communities in Canada against same-sax marriage too.."


Did you miss the election? Polls have nothing to do with democracy. Dont talk about polls. 87 per cent of statistics are wrong.

[Lynx]

I can poll and get any answer I want. All you have to do is poll a specific area known for supporting a certain viewpoint... If I poll mostly southern states my answers will be much different than mostly northern states, same goes for east coast and west coast and most polls are taken in numbers less than 10000

[CowPie]

"OH, but I saw a poll that only 40% support...of course our PM doesn't want a referendum now

There are many Muslim/immigrant communities in Canada against same-sax marriage too.."


Did you miss the election? Polls have nothing to do with democracy. Dont talk about polls. 87 per cent of statistics are wrong.

What? Why do you assume a majority support same-sex marriage then? Where is your evidence?

[CowPie]

I can poll and get any answer I want. All you have to do is poll a specific area known for supporting a certain viewpoint... If I poll mostly southern states my answers will be much different than mostly northern states, same goes for east coast and west coast and most polls are taken in numbers less than 10000
Polls must be conducted through random samples: what you're talking about would never end up in my school weekly, nevermind national newspapers! THat's like saying Nielsen ratings are bought by producers ;)

[az]

"What? Why do you assume a majority support same-sex marriage then? Where is your evidence?"

He got elected.

[CowPie]

"What? Why do you assume a majority support same-sex marriage then? Where is your evidence?"

He got elected.
Well, he however has only minority government status, otherwise ;) Also Paul Martin has done many other things including cutting African aid, that doesn't mean Canadians' election support transfers to today...

[adbak]

Well, he however has only minority government status, otherwise ;) Also Paul Martin has done many other things including cutting African aid, that doesn't mean Canadians' election support transfers to today...
Belgium, Netherlands, and the state of Massachusetts have all legalized gay marriage. The sky isn't raining fire and brimstone. There is no plague. First borns are not being systematically murdered. The end has not come.

What I'm saying is that same-sex marriage has changed nothing -- there has been no massive shift in paradigm. If anything, it has allowed numerous same-sex couples the ability to have their mutual love acknowledged and affirmed by the government, the same as opposite-sex couples.

[az]

Wan't there a plan, a few years back, by some idiot right-winged politician to automatically have a referendum on any issue on which more than two percent of the Canadian population said they dissagreed?

I remember! It was Stickwell Day. And a comedian ran a website, getting a few hundred thousand (2 percent) people to sign a petition asking him to change his first name to Doris.

If you do not think our system of democracy is fair, move to a country where godless pinko faggots keep it underground.