Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Moonlight Graham

Anglicans vote to allow same-sex marriage in Canada

Recommended Posts

That's you. Of course you'd think that. That's expected.

Being a non-Christian, I'd be surprised if you say anything sanctioned by God would matter at all.

Speaking of marriage, should a woman have to marry her rapist, like it says in the bible?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29. "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's you. Of course you'd think that. That's expected. To say otherwise would have me scratching my head!

Being a non-Christian, I'd be surprised if you say anything sanctioned by God, would matter at all.

I'm talking about it mattering to people in terms of societal recognition and the benefits that go with that. Like I said, if a Catholic couple can get the Pope on board, that's great, but if they want to combine their pensions, they just need to get JT on board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about it mattering to people in terms of societal recognition and the benefits that go with that. Like I said, if a Catholic couple can get the Pope on board, that's great, but if they want to combine their pensions, they just need to get JT on board.

Civil marriage is legally recognized - and I think that entitles them to benefits that heterosexuals have. They don't need religious service for that, correct me if I'm wrong.

That's were the problem lies - when they want to impose their lifestyle on religion(s) that don't recognize it. They're not going to miss out on benefits if they are not married in church. All they have to do is have a civil marriage.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil marriage is legally recognized - and I think that entitles them to benefits that heterosexuals have. They don't need religious service for that, correct me if I'm wrong.

No, you're absolutely right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil marriage is legally recognized - and I think that entitles them to benefits that heterosexuals have. They don't need religious service for that, correct me if I'm wrong.

That's were the problem lies - when they want to impose their lifestyle on religion(s) that don't recognize it. They're not going to miss out on benefits if they are not married in church. All they have to do is have a civil marriage.

I agree completely.

But folks like yourself have fought against the state recognizing same sex marriage. As long as the religion is kept in your own homes/churches and out of the law of the country, then all will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All forms of sexual impurity are sinful. Anything that is not between a married man and woman is not allowed. At all. Ever.

I'm atheist and don't fit in with any absolute sexual preference. Yet, I completely agree with you on this. If one is of some religion, instead of forcing those religions to evolve, they should only impose upon the laws of the country where the law itself discriminates, not the religions themselves. It seems weird to me to think that one who is 'religious' should think their historical god 'evolves' its own history by revision of it to suit modern people's purpose. Those demanding that some church marry them is more intolerant as they are imposing their secular non-religious ideals onto the religion and the interpretation, however 'wrong', of that belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil marriage is legally recognized - and I think that entitles them to benefits that heterosexuals have. They don't need religious service for that, correct me if I'm wrong.

That's were the problem lies - when they want to impose their lifestyle on religion(s) that don't recognize it. They're not going to miss out on benefits if they are not married in church. All they have to do is have a civil marriage.

The edit came after I had made my original reply. The church voted to allow same sex marriage. That was their choice. I can't see the Catholics doing that anytime soon but they will, eventually. It's the natural progression of religions that actually care about humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The edit came after I had made my original reply. The church voted to allow same sex marriage. That was their choice. I can't see the Catholics doing that anytime soon but they will, eventually. It's the natural progression of religions that actually care about humans.

The liberal religions have devolved into being contradictory unless they admit of no 'authority'. The Anglican church is a border "Catholic" one as with the Roman version. That is, they have a formal political authority that has a pyramidal hierarchy with either the Queen or the Pope as the 'Supreme' advocate and portal to their God. But if their historical God had been interpreted to be against homosexuality, it would defeat its status as a 'religion' if it can alter its past god's thought to suit modern interpretation.

They have a right to do what they want, though. But don't expect that it would be 'fair' to enforce conservative fundamental religions to require 'marrying' contrary to their internal beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would defeat its status as a 'religion' if it can alter its past god's thought to suit modern interpretation.

Haven't they been doing that for centuries though? I don't know about the specific religion in the OP, as I haven't been paying that close attention, but generally speaking haven't religions been adjusting their positions over the ages to suit the zeitgeist. They don't burn witches anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't burn witches anymore.

Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Note it explicitly applies only to a female sorceress, I am safe practicing my sorcery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I believe that everyone has the right to their own faith. I also believe that faith is not something one that one has to try to convince others or to defend - it is something that you believe for a number of reasons.

Believe what makes you feel good as long as it does not impact on my faith or begins to affect my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Note it explicitly applies only to a female sorceress, I am safe practicing my sorcery.

Exactly. Witches are safe, and gay people can marry. Religion moves on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Note it explicitly applies only to a female sorceress, I am safe practicing my sorcery.

Many embrace this now. "Witch" derived the word, "bitch", by mispronunciation. Now, it is more insulting for a male to be called this for its jailhouse connotations.

Although the language of the Bible appeared to be so discriminatory, this phrase actually had original 'good' intent. In today's terms, we might think of this as to how one might think of a "child predator" in the same way they were concerned about "witches" in those days. Since many still think that some people's beliefs as such are permanently FIXED such that there is no cure, the saying might be updated in this way as: "Why allow one to live who is doomed to suffer in life regardless of what they could do following such a stigma?" It is also similar to think of this in how we might feel it just to put a suffering animal out of its misery.

I don't happen buy into assuming anyone 'doomed' to BE anything based on even some genetic misfortune. It bothers me that even many in the gay community opt to argue a genetic link that "dooms" them to BE gay as though those who don't have this component should require choosing not to be gay otherwise. It proves that even the "genetic" argument being foisted on society regarding why someone is or is not gay is more about those within religious communities demanding unusual exception to a type of belief that is by default non-exceptional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Actually, I think the only marriages that matter are the ones sacnctioned by humans. It's always nice, I guess, if one can get one's religion to be on board, but as long as the government says it's ok, it's ok.

I do believe humans sanction equal marriage along with many governments. Seems the only people that don't are an ever shrinking percentage of the population. I suppose it must be sad for those so out of touch with reality but I wonder why the religious types can't just be content to live their own beliefs? Why do they have to attempt to assert them upon everyone else?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe humans sanction equal marriage along with many governments. Seems the only people that don't are an ever shrinking percentage of the population. I suppose it must be sad for those so out of touch with reality but I wonder why the religious types can't just be content to live their own beliefs? Why do they have to attempt to assert them upon everyone else?

I agree. I fully support the right of anyone to live by their beliefs, as long as they don't expect anyone else at all to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why the religious types can't just be content to live their own beliefs? Why do they have to attempt to assert them upon everyone else?

You have that exactly backwards. It's the non-believers that are trying to assert their beliefs on those who don't agree. They are the ones who try to criminalize dissenting opinion, they're the ones who try to literally force believers to do their bidding. They're the ones who go to places who think differently and sue them. Those on the intolerant ones.

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You have that exactly backwards. It's the non-believers that are trying to assert their beliefs on those who don't agree. They are the ones who try to criminalize dissenting opinion, they're the ones who try to literally force believers to do their bidding. They're the ones who go to places who think directly and sue them. Those on the intolerant ones.

Equal marriage comes to mind, where people can choose who they wed but aren't forced to pick a specific sex. Or abortion laws where women can choose to continue a pregnancy but aren't forced to make a specific decision.

How are the religious forced to do our bidding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are the religious forced to do our bidding?

People who graduate from Christian Universities have their accreditation declined, people who refuse to participate in an activity that they find objectionable are sued, their beliefs get labelled as "hate speech", etc. People with little to no interest in a particular group join for the express purpose of forcing them to change their rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not quoting Jesus though. He's not even paraphrasing Jesus from what I see.

Acts 9:15 quotes Jesus.

Acts 9

10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

16 For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

Edited by dpwozney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely.

But folks like yourself have fought against the state recognizing same sex marriage.

It's the usage of the term, "marriage," that was bitterly fought. And you bet the backlash we still see today is a

result of that.

I think, had the Gay Movement left the term "marriage" alone, and instead had made their own term that describes their union - more likely, the acceptance of their union would've come more easily.

I'm sure that there were other Christians like me who think that homosexuals living together as a couple should get the same benefits given to heterosexuals such as pensions, medical and tax-breaks - after all, they're tax-payers, too, and their union isn't hurting anyone.

But now, when they're imposing their lifestyles and trying to squash the right to religion and belief, we can't say they're not

hurting anyone, can we?

As long as the religion is kept in your own homes/churches and out of the law of the country, then all will be fine.

Wrong! Thanks to religion, slavery was abolished!

Without Christianity - all you can do is wonder what kind of society we would have now.

Whether you want to accept this fact or not, Christianity had helped shaped this country to the way it is!

Canada’s official motto “A Mari usque ad Mare” meaning “From sea to sea” is based on Psalms 72:8, “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.”

In 1533, Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence River to Montréal. To commemorate the founding of Montréal, Cartier wrote in his diary “…we all kneeled down in the company of the Indians and with our hands raised toward heaven yielded our thanks to God.”

David Thompson, explorer and statesman, developed maps from his surveys between 1784 and 1812. Many of his maps are still being used today. Thompson’s words give the reason he endured the physical hardship of exploration “so that these physically impenetrable barriers may be traversed and the Gospel be spread.”

Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley, Premier of New Brunswick and one of the Fathers of Confederation, rose each morning to start his day with prayer and Scripture reading. As the 33 fathers gathered in Charlottetown to discuss and draft the terms of the British North American Act, there are were many suggestions on what to call this new “United Canada.” That morning, as Tilley read from Psalm 72:8, he became so convinced that Canada should be a nation under God, that when he came down to the Conference session, he presented the inspired “Dominion of Canada.” The other Fathers readily agreed and accepted. Today, The following words hang in the corridor near the confederation Chamber in Province House: “In the hearts of the delegates who assembled in this room on September 1, 1864, was born the Dominion of Canada. Providence being their guide they builded better then they knew.”

The Education System

Bishop John Strachan, a leader who helped form our public education system, stated that “the church must continue to play a central role in education. You cannot divorce religion from education because schools will inevitably reflect the philosophical and religious or (irreligious) biases of those who direct them.”

Egerton Ryerson, father of public education in Canada, wanted a “common patriotic ground of comprehensiveness and avowed (or maintain) Christian principles.” He wrote the textbook First Lessons in Christian Morals which was published in 1871. Ryerson clearly said that the Ontario school system was to be a “Christian public school system.”

MORE.....

http://www.ccheritage.ca/facts/

As long as we respect the rights of others......we'll get along fine.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the usage of the term, "marriage," that was bitterly fought. And you bet the backlash we still see today is a

result of that.

I think, had the Gay Movement left the term "marriage" alone, and instead had made their own term that describes their union - more likely, the acceptance of their union would've come more easily.

Religions don't own words. Atheists can marry as well, with no religious connotations whatsoever.

But now, when they're imposing their lifestyles and trying to squash the right to religion and belief, we can't say they're not

hurting anyone, can we?

How are they imposing anything on anyone? Are you forced to get gay married?

Wrong! Thanks to religion, slavery was abolished!

Religious slave owners also used the bible to justify owning slaves.

Without Christianity - all you can do is wonder what kind of society we would have now. Whether you want to accept the

fact or not, Christianity had helped shaped this country to the way it is!

I don't deny it. But since we've become more secular, society has improved significantly. I can buy beer on Sunday's... Gays people aren't arrested for doing nothing but be gay... Etc, etc.

As long as we respect the rights of others......we'll get along fine.

That's true... Abortion rights... Gay rights.... My right to buy beer on a Sunday.... The religious have to respect those rights now where they didn't before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The edit came after I had made my original reply. The church voted to allow same sex marriage. That was their choice. I can't see the Catholics doing that anytime soon but they will, eventually. It's the natural progression of religions that actually care about humans.

Well, anyone can do whatever they want. That's what free will is all about.

God had given us critical thinking, that we may be able to discern right from wrong........and He gave us free will that we may freely make our choice.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...