|
Author
|
Topic: Gay marraige and the end of the world
|
DrJones*
Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: 08-19-2004 Member Rating: 7.6
|
|
Message 16 of 195 (277692)
01-10-2006 4:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by riVeRraT
01-09-2006 11:04 PM
|
|
Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
Do you realize that the Canadian government is trying to pass a law, that will take away churches tax free status if they do not agree to marry gays in the church? False. From Address by Prime Minister Paul Martin on Bill C-38 (The Civil Marriage Act)..
In this, we are guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, which makes clear that in no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple - in no religious house will those who disagree with same-sex unions be compelled to perform them. Period. That is why this legislation is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. Moreover -- and this is crucially important - the Supreme Court has declared unanimously, and I quote: “The guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.” The facts are plain: Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe. If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right. The Supreme Court says so. And the Charter says so. This message has been edited by DrJones*, 01-10-2006 02:44 AM
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by riVeRraT, posted 01-09-2006 11:04 PM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
|
DrJones*
Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: 08-19-2004 Member Rating: 7.6
|
|
|
Message 29 of 195 (277895)
01-10-2006 8:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by riVeRraT
01-10-2006 7:22 AM
|
|
Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
quoting Goodintentions but replying to you.
After it was pointed out to you that you were in fact trying to change the not so distant past, we didn't even get a simple "my bad" from you. I would like some acknowledgement that you passed on a falsehood as truth, though I don't think you did it deliberately.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by riVeRraT, posted 01-10-2006 7:22 AM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 30 by berberry, posted 01-10-2006 9:00 PM | | DrJones* has replied |
|
DrJones*
Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: 08-19-2004 Member Rating: 7.6
|
|
|
Message 31 of 195 (277905)
01-10-2006 9:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by berberry
01-10-2006 9:00 PM
|
|
Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
I hear what you're saying, still some form of "my bad" would be nice.
I remember a few months ago some priest was arrested somewhere in Scandinavia for making inflammatory statements about gays
It was in Sweden. I came across it when Faith and randman seperately claimed that it had happened here.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by berberry, posted 01-10-2006 9:00 PM | | berberry has not replied |
|
DrJones*
Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: 08-19-2004 Member Rating: 7.6
|
|
|
Message 49 of 195 (278194)
01-11-2006 3:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by riVeRraT
01-11-2006 6:43 AM
|
|
Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
The thing in Cananda did happen, and they tried to make it a law, did you read tha article? I do not have to say my bad What article? Please provide some proof that the Canadian Government tried/is trying to take away tax-exempt status from mosques/synagoges/churches/etc. that refuse to perform gay marriages. I don't think you can. What I posted was an excerpt of a speech from the Prime Minister of Canada saying that it would be against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (unconstitutional in America-speak) to force religious instituions to perform gay marriages.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by riVeRraT, posted 01-11-2006 6:43 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by riVeRraT, posted 01-13-2006 8:44 AM | | DrJones* has replied |
|
DrJones*
Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: 08-19-2004 Member Rating: 7.6
|
|
|
Message 55 of 195 (278694)
01-13-2006 2:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by riVeRraT
01-13-2006 8:44 AM
|
|
Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
I didn't go back and read my own posts, but I don't think I ever said that the Canadian governament as a whole was responsibile for this idea. Here's what you said:
Do you realize that the Canadian government is trying to pass a law, that will take away churches tax free status if they do not agree to marry gays in the church? Care to show me in there where you said it was a portion of the government? Can you name the political party/politician that was responsible for this alleged attempt? Can you name any Canadian political party? Do you have the slightest clue how the Canadian goverenmnt works?
My point was that it was being tried, and as you can see from the article, it didn't make it. You haven't shown that it was being tried, you have offered no support for this assertion. At first I thought you had merely swallowed the party line now I think you're lying.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by riVeRraT, posted 01-13-2006 8:44 AM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by riVeRraT, posted 01-14-2006 12:39 PM | | DrJones* has replied |
|
DrJones*
Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: 08-19-2004 Member Rating: 7.6
|
|
|
Message 61 of 195 (278980)
01-14-2006 4:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by riVeRraT
01-14-2006 12:39 PM
|
|
Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
Why then was this even mentioned in that link you provided?
quote:
First, some have claimed that, once this bill becomes law, religious freedoms will be less than fully protected. This is demonstrably untrue. As it pertains to marriage, the government’s legislation affirms the Charter guarantee: that religious officials are free to perform such ceremonies in accordance with the beliefs of their faith.
Where does it say in there that the government had tried/ was trying to take away the tax exempt status of religious institutions that refused to perfrom gay marriages? This quote from the Prime Minister's address is refuting the people/religous fanatics who claimed that the government would overrule religious freedoms and force them to perform gay marriages. Nowhere is the removal of tax exempt status mentioned in the prime minister's statement. You have yet to provide any proof that the government of Canada (or a portion thereof) had tried/is trying to remove the tax exempt status of religious bodies that refused to perfrom gay marriages. Again, can you provide any support for this assertion? Can you name the politician/political party that tried to have this done? Do you have any knowledge of how the Canadian government works? Do you have any clue as to the history of the passing of the same-sex marriage law? What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Can we stop this silly sidebar?
This "silly sidebar" was started by you promoting a falsehood about Canada. It will continue until you retract your claim or provide some support for it.
Everyone will always try to protect their rights to belief, including the church
Protecting their right to beleif is not the issue. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that churches are free to marry whoever they choose and refuse marriage to whoever they choose, the church's rights have never been in doubt.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by riVeRraT, posted 01-14-2006 12:39 PM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by riVeRraT, posted 01-14-2006 5:49 PM | | DrJones* has replied |
|
DrJones*
Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: 08-19-2004 Member Rating: 7.6
|
|
|
Message 65 of 195 (279006)
01-14-2006 5:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by riVeRraT
01-14-2006 5:49 PM
|
|
Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
I do not remember who started it, but I believe it was someone in the governement. So you have no support for your assertion.
You are nit-picking to try and make all my statements look false Your statement was false. Since when is correcting a lie "nit-picking"?
the truth of the matter is that it remains an issue. You have yet to show that it was an issue to begin with, nevermind show that it is currently an issue.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by riVeRraT, posted 01-14-2006 5:49 PM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 67 by riVeRraT, posted 01-14-2006 6:22 PM | | DrJones* has replied |
|
DrJones*
Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: 08-19-2004 Member Rating: 7.6
|
|
|
Message 68 of 195 (279021)
01-14-2006 6:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by riVeRraT
01-14-2006 6:22 PM
|
|
Re: Don't play gang up on riverrat now.
Yes, I gave it to you.
Nowhere have you provided any evidence that the Canadain government was trying to remove the tax-exempt status from religious institutions that refused to perform gay marriages. I'll remind you of your original unsubstantiated claim from way back in Message 12:
Do you realize that the Canadian government is trying to pass a law, that will take away churches tax free status if they do not agree to marry gays in the church? Which member of parliment in which political party proposed this law?
If it was a non-issue, then the Prime minister would not have to defend it, end of story.
1. I never said it was a non-issue. I said that the government is not trying nor has it tried to take away churches tax free status if they refuse to marry gays. That doesn't mean that there aren't citizens or individual members of parliment who share this view. 2. The Prime Minister's statement is quoting the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. Before the same-sex marriage legislation was put forth in the House of Commons a draft of the bill was taken to the Supreme Court for their opinion, this was done in order to head off any legal challenges to the legislation after it was passed. The Supreme Court had already ruled that the laws confining marriage to heterosexuals couples was against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that they must be changed to allow same-sex marriages. The court reviewed the proposed changes to the legislation that would enable marriages to be granted to homosexual couples and found that it was suitable and did not violate the charter. They also made it clear that religious freedoms were not to be violated and that any religious body would be free to deny marriage to same sex couples. The opinion of the court regarding religious freedoms was a prememptive protection of churches, not brought about because of any immediate threat to their freedom. Of course if you had actually attempted to research the matter instead of blindly swallowing the bigoted propaganda of the enemies of human rights you'd know this already.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by riVeRraT, posted 01-14-2006 6:22 PM | | riVeRraT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by riVeRraT, posted 01-14-2006 9:03 PM | | DrJones* has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2