This is where the argument of the anti-gay marriage crowd has come down to? Equating it to marrying animals? My approach to this is the same for any other case where two adults want to set up some sort of contract or agreement: it's none of my ********ing business what people I don't know and never met should or shouldn't do. Really, exactly how would it effect the lives of heterosexuals if gay marriage was allowed? Worried some queen/dyke might drag you to the altar? Trust me, you're not his/her type.
But, But... Haven't you been forced to gay-marry? Hasn't the sky fallen down around you? Haven't all of these now suddenly-happy gay people tried to recruit your children to the Gay Agenda (tm)? Hasn't your world irrevocably gone down the road of sin and peril? Good god, man... where's your sense of alarmism? PS: ¡Bravo, España! Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
This is the one that makes the most sense to me. Well, kinda. Let couples get some kind of union license from city hall to make it official, let churches handle everything else.
This is a gutless response from a premier noted for his gutlessness. Civil marriages would still exist in Alberta it would just be the federal legislation governing it. In terms of the notions of "civil union" versus "marriage" most Canadians agree that "seperate but equal" does not mean equal. Churches are under no obligation to conduct gay marriages if their theology forbids it. The result will likley be the rise of gay churches. It will be interesting to see the reaction from organized religion when that occurs. Traditional Canadian churches (United, Catholic, Anglican) remained largely silent while the whacky right has created a number of theologies which seek to reduce the number of commandments and strike greed from the list of deadly sins. But perhaps the passages on homosexuality will carry more significance for them. Of course, maybe it will largely be the whacky right churches that protest, worried that God will allow only a finite amount of renegotiating his "word" before he ends debate with another flood.
some people forget that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and some hold that sacred....you can "unionize" yourselfs any way you want but you may not call it marriage if its all the same the reason why gays try to fit there unions under amrriage is because there trying to get acceptability from the goverment and thats not the goverments job its against the constitution and they have no rights to be unnioned or married and it is entirely against the description of such marriage...
Ok, some call it sacred. I'm in that class. I also think it goes against the sacredness of the act to restrict who may have access to it. Who says you may have things according to your religious traditions and I may not have them according to mine? Go back to nose-nuking. The thread isn't about the US, nor is it about Colombia.
no because it only depends what the majority of people think. And you have a misinterpreatation of sacredness because it can not go that way. It only works for keeping away the unclean and the unfit...
No. you have a misinterpretreation of sacredness because it only works when it includes all of creation.
um no it doesnt you obviosly misunderstandign here either way we live in a democracy not a theocracy if the majority of people dont want gays unionizing under a name they think is reserved for a man and a woman then they wont be allowed to..
there was no reforendum thats why I beleive spain is turning into a liberal theocracy of some sort...
Liberal Theocracy? Really? I just called my friend in Barcelona, the place where he grew up and where his family has lived for hundreds of years. He said you are stupid. I'm not kidding.
Actually, not one of those 3 churches has remained silent. The Catholic church, especially Calgary bishop Henry has railed on and on against it, the Anglicans are facing a very serious split after the Diocese of New Westminster decided to bless gay unions and the United church has actually been agitating in favour of gay marriage for a few years now.
True enough, it was just intro to my bashing of the whacky churches. Of which all three were silent as quasi-calvinst "religons" arose to redefine greed as an indication of god's favour. Quite popular in Alberta, hence the Calgary Bishop being unusally strident IMO, as the Cathlolic church needs to be hardassed to compete. There is also a split in the United Church as many congregations are unhappy with the national leadershp on this issue. Indeed, I think there is a move afoot to creat an "FC Methodist".
But marriage was a civil thing before being adopted by the Church, in the Roman era. Where is Nicephoras? I don't think anything gives the religious people the right to own the word.
I know Christian clergy that would agree with you there. My dad, in fact, used to say that the church should never have gotten into the marrying people business. Getting the church involved in legal stuff just put a whole burden on itself it didn't need. For me, the sacredness of a marriage is that part of a marriage that is seperate from the legal contract. And a wedding/handfasting/comittment ceremony/whatever is a way for the community to recognize and honor that something sacred has appeared in its midst. As a ceremony honoring a couple's committment to each other and the creation of a new family, I'll just bet sacred marriages were around even before the Romans. But I could be wrong.
His point, exactly. Some money is better left on the table, 'specially when it detracts from your mission.