Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Moonlight Graham

Anglicans vote to allow same-sex marriage in Canada

Recommended Posts

The traditional meaning of marriage came from Christianity!

The traditional marriage that is practiced in Canada came from Christianity. That's a fact!

Furthermore, it's in accordance with the teachings of Christ - which was derived from the Old Testament!

So, why shouldn't Christians lay claim to it?

We live in a secular state. For every marriage in Canada, it's a legal institution. It's not a religious one, unless some religious people choose to make it that way also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop caring about what you want to do, and just do what GOD wants from you.

Why? Where does God get off thinking He's entitled to this? If He wants my respect and admiration He can earn it like anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ancient cultures practiced marriage long before the bible.

Canada recognizes marriage whether you're atheist, or religious, or gay. It's secular marriage sanctioned by the state.

The traditional meaning of marriage was derived from the Bible - that's a fact!

That is what the furor is all about! TRADITIONAL meaning!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We live in a secular state. For every marriage in Canada, it's a legal institution. It's not a religious one, unless some religious people choose to make it that way also.

Irrelevant!

That doesn't negate the fact that Christianity played a major role in the shaping of Canada!

The traditional meaning of marriage - union between a man and a woman - came from the Bible!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant!

That doesn't negate the fact that Christianity played a major role in the shaping of Canada!

The traditional meaning of marriage - union between a man and a woman - came from the Bible!

You're right, Christianity has had a big impact on Canada.

Fortunately, Canada's morality isn't dogmatically tied to a thousands year old book of things that mostly didn't even happen. Fortunately, some Canadians prefer to use their own brains, logic, and heart to define their own morality instead of adhering to strict dogma.

Ultimately I don't care what Anglicans or Catholics etc. define as sin or not sin. Any Christian religion that takes the Bible as more than simply a book of moral philosophy as legitimate (or not) as Plato or Nietzsche is nonsense in my eyes. Lots of great moral philosophy in the Bible in my eyes, some not so much, and most Christians seem to agree. It's just a book. Gay rights aren't defined by it.

Edited by Moonlight Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of great moral philosophy in the Bible in my eyes, some not so much, and most Christians seem to agree. It's just a book. Gay rights aren't defined by it.

According to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV), "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners" shall have the right to inherit the kingdom of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant!

That doesn't negate the fact that Christianity played a major role in the shaping of Canada!

The traditional meaning of marriage - union between a man and a woman - came from the Bible!

So you believe a man should only marry a virgin then, since that's what biblical marriage was. A man certainly didn't marry a non-virgin; that's just gross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, Christianity has had a big impact on Canada.

Fortunately, Canada's morality isn't dogmatically tied to a thousands year old book of things that mostly didn't even happen. Fortunately, some Canadians prefer to use their own brains, logic, and heart to define their own morality instead of adhering to strict dogma.

Ultimately I don't care what Anglicans or Catholics etc. define as sin or not sin. Any Christian religion that takes the Bible as more than simply a book of moral philosophy as legitimate (or not) as Plato or Nietzsche is nonsense in my eyes. Lots of great moral philosophy in the Bible in my eyes, some not so much, and most Christians seem to agree. It's just a book. Gay rights aren't defined by it.

All your rant is irrelevant!

The fact remains the same: the traditional meaning of marriage in Canada was derived from Christianity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you believe a man should only marry a virgin then, since that's what biblical marriage was. A man certainly didn't marry a non-virgin; that's just gross.

Excuse me?

The traditional definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman! That's the definition given by God.

One of the prophets in the Old Testament (Hosea), married a promiscuous woman!

Hosea 1

2 When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord.” 3 So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

There are rules though that are meant for priests:

Leviticus 21

Rules for Priests

5 “‘Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies. 6 They must be holy to their God and must not profane the name of their God. Because they present the food offerings to the Lord, the food of their God, they are to be holy.

7 “‘They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God. 8 Regard them as holy, because they offer up the food of your God. Consider them holy, because I the Lord am holy—I who make you holy.

10 “‘The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt[b] or tear his clothes. 11 He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother, 12 nor leave the sanctuary of his God or desecrate it, because he has been dedicated by the anointing oil of his God. I am the Lord.

13 “‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. 14 He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people,

The high priest is required to marry a virgin.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

So you cite instances where schools are denied accreditation because their admission policies infringe on the individual rights of students?

What objectionable acts are the religious forced to endure? Make pizza, bake cakes or perform marriages for homosexuals? If your objection to these acts seem reasonable to you, try replacing gay with black an repeat the same statements.

"Christians should not be required to serve food to blacks."

"Christians working for the municipal government should not be forced to fill out marriage licenses for black couples, nor should they lose their jobs for not being willing to fulfill their duties."

Personally, I am morally opposed to people not vaccinating their children, the indoctrination of children and cooking steak beyond medium. Would it be acceptable for me to deny a marriage license to an antivax couple, those who plan to take their children to church or eat dry, leathery meat? Of course not.

By doing my job and issuing a license or baking a cake I am not being forced to deny my child a polio vaccine. I can choose not to do these things myself, but denying services to people who are completely legal and within their rights to live a certain way, is crossing the line. It would be far worse if I tried to legislate against indoctrination or the well done crowd. Get the difference?

Edit: spelling

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your objection to these acts seem reasonable to you, try replacing gay with black an repeat the same statements.

Homosexuality is not a race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Homosexuality is not a race.

Agreed, we are on the same page there. However, if you want to test if your positions are discriminatory try replacing gay with black and see how the feel. So test out the statements below. When asked how the religious are forced to do the bidding of the secular you stated "people who refuse to participate in an activity that they find objectionable are sued, their beliefs get labelled as 'hate speech'" So checkout the statements below. Do they seem reasonable to you or are the discriminatory?

What objectionable acts are the religious forced to endure? Make pizza, bake cakes or perform marriages for homosexuals? If your objection to these acts seem reasonable to you, try replacing gay with black an repeat the same statements.

"Christians should not be required to serve food to blacks."

"Christians working for the municipal government should not be forced to fill out marriage licenses for black couples, nor should they lose their jobs for not being willing to fulfill their duties."

Personally, I am morally opposed to people not vaccinating their children, the indoctrination of children and cooking steak beyond medium. Would it be acceptable for me to deny a marriage license to an antivax couple, those who plan to take their children to church or eat dry, leathery meat? Of course not.

By doing my job and issuing a license or baking a cake I am not being forced to deny my child a polio vaccine. I can choose not to do these things myself, but denying services to people who are completely legal and within their rights to live a certain way, is crossing the line. It would be far worse if I tried to legislate against indoctrination or the well done crowd. Get the difference?

Remember in my private life I am free to despise anti-vaxxers, I can refuse to hold the door for them when entering a building or make frowny faces in their general direction if I choose. However, I'm not free to deny them products or services from my business or refuse to do my job as a public sector employee because I disagree with their choices. I am free to be an asshole, just not discriminatory.

Now, it seems to me that the religious right is the side that goes beyond simple personal hatred or disagreement with others and actually tries to legislate their views. For example their opposition to equal marriage, birth control for the employees of a company, serving food to homosexuals are all current issues and battles in the US.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, we are on the same page there.

Clearly not. You're still asking the same questions that simply do not apply to the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Clearly not. You're still asking the same questions that simply do not apply to the situation.

Please explain the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm talking about verbs, you're talking about nouns.

So as expected you can't back up your statement about the religious being forced to do the bidding of the secular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What objectionable acts are the religious forced to endure?

Religious people are forced to pay for other people's abortions.

Indirectly funding abortions by paying taxes is an activity that some religious people find objectionable.

Edited by dpwozney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious people are forced to pay for other people's abortions.

Indirectly funding abortions by paying taxes is an activity that some religious people find objectionable.

That's really not an argument. No-one gets to pick and choose what their taxes go towards. Those same religious people are getting charitable status for their churches from my taxes. I find that objectionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really not an argument.

My statements were made to answer a question, not to make an argument. My statements are a valid observation.

Many of the people, getting taxpayer-funded abortions, can easily afford to pay for the abortions themselves.

No-one gets to pick and choose what their taxes go towards.

Governments pick and choose what taxes go towards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My statements were made to answer a question, not to make an argument. My statements are a valid observation.

Many of the people, getting taxpayer-funded abortions, can easily afford to pay for the abortions themselves.

Governments pick and choose what taxes go towards.

Yes they do, by George! I never thought of that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as expected you can't back up your statement about the religious being forced to do the bidding of the secular.

I already did back it up and gave you several examples. Nice try though.

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...