[bizzt]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

Oh bravo Tim!

Excellent post!

Well done sir, and thank you.

NP I thought it would be easier with more Translations to work from

[BrianHed]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

I am wondering? Are you saying that you believe there is some kind of "latent" homosexual community which will "come out" if it is stigmatized less somehow? Or that more heterosexual people will "convert" if they feel less "social pressure" about it?

Would you say we have "mass apathy" over inter-racial marriages now? (yet?) Would you say that it would be bad if we did?

I don't think people become "gay" or choose to BE "gay", just for kicks! Or as a fashion statement? Or any other such casual reason? Whom would want to choose such a difficult life, and to be deliberately ostracized, disenfranchised, marginalized, and DEMONIZED!? Where is the "self-interest" of such an action?

Just because society currently makes it more uncomfortable to be "openly gay", makes more people less open about it, but it does not make "LESS gay people".

Do you think that maybe if in fact there was MORE apathy about homosexuality, perhaps that poor boy up north wouldn't have been savagely BEATEN TO DEATH!?...

I guess I don't understand your comments? Or specifically what you are driving at?

Thanks,
J

Your brain is in overdrive....slow down. I simply mean -Normalize an issue and it will no longer be an issue. (applies to all issues)

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by deh

Hi buddy.


Oh I really wasn't referring to the present church either just when i was reading your post i was thinking of the Catholic church in the 1500s.
I wonder if the Catholics cannonized Martin Luther?

I myself don't really have a qualified opinion in modern day either and as far as the members and perhaps many higher authority i would like to think we kind of are on the same team. although i am in no position to judge.
Although fundamentally i don't agree with the idol worship.

Tru DAT!

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by bizzt

Well J it might be possible but it was not God's Intention for this. As you can see the Old Testament does not make reference to a lot of Women but the New Testament shows Women in Ministry. Something totally different from the Jewish way of life. Although I don't think that means Women were totally disregarded and Dominated in the Bible. (I am not saying it did not happen) In Proverbs 31 it shows Women were Heavily in the Market place and sold many goods for provision of their Family. A Woman had many faucets of life she could enter into. Today there are many Faucets of life Women are into some I don't know if they should be like Construction/Hard Labour, Firemen, etc... and the only reason why I say that is I wouldn't trust a 130-150 pound Woman pulling me out of a Burning Building. Considering also I am a fairly Large Guy!!! Just like I don't trust myself with my Kid as much as I would trust my wife. That could be a total MisHAP .

Anyways you are correct in a way that Women were dominated but we judge that by the standards we live in now right?

Right, and that was the point, standards, and values, change!

And also that despite "divine intentions" man has been known to take matters into his own hands, like taking that first "forbidden fruit" out a woman's hands, and eating it anyway,...

Thanks Tim.

J

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by bizzt

sorry should have looked back... Just jumped in but did not notice where it was leading to... I do not have a problem with the pursuit of Happiness but if it makes a person happy to Murder People then ? Marriage has always been between a Man and a Woman and has been labeled that way for Centuries on end. Two People coming together for all I care can have a civil Union! I don't care about that it is using Marriage as the term for their Union! Marriage was defined as between Man and Woman and was before except NOW Marriage is all of a sudden a huge topic where people who are Homosexual want to abolish that fact and challenge to say WHY NOT? It is not wrong to challenge but it is wrong for people in the majority to say well this is the way it is and always will be because Marriage was made for Man and Woman. Common Law partners get the same benefits has Married Partners then give the same thing to Homosexual Partners. Why does one need the Married Title to be legally together?

"Separate but EQUAL"...

Did the courts in fact discover that it was NOT "Equal"? Could that be the crux of the issue? And it's not about "Equality under the Church" it's about "Equality under the Law". And I simply do not equate those things.

And I thought someone here demonstrated that "marriage" has NOT "always" been just between a man and a woman?

Anyway, as I said above, times change. Faith may not (but Dogma certainly does), but that doesn't require it to be applied to those without that same "faith".

Besides, a reduction of the freedoms and equality of others, singling out one group or another, is in fact a reduction in the freedom and equality of us all. And that too, had NOTHING to do with faith. Faith isn't made weaker by these things, in fact, it is made STRONGER by tolerance! MUCH stronger.

Night guy,

J

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by BrianHed

Your brain is in overdrive....slow down. I simply mean -Normalize an issue and it will no longer be an issue. (applies to all issues)

I was only asking for some clarity; and yeah, due to other perspectives offered here from time to time, the brain DOES hit over drive sometimes!

I didn't understand what you meant, which is why I was asking, and I honestly thought you were describing some pretty weird stuff? So sorry for being a little "wack"!

"Understanding", the first part, and the best part of "communicating", glad I got you "clear" now; much appreciated.

My thanks,
J

[lizard]

Efford coy on gay union after church leaders' talk

ST. JOHN'S, NFLD. -- Newfoundland's representative in the federal cabinet remained coy yesterday about how he will vote when the Liberal government's same-sex marriage legislation is tabled in the House of Commons. Natural Resources Minister John Efford, who has said he is opposed to gay and lesbian marriages, emerged from a meeting with Newfoundland church leaders saying he's made up his mind about what to do, but won't reveal his decision until the new year.

"I have to talk to the prime minister," Effords said. "I think I need to convey a message to the prime minister of the views of the churches and things that could be done."

He declined to elaborate.

The meeting was held the same day the Newfoundland Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriages are legal in the province.

Judge Derek Green's ruling makes Newfoundland and Labrador the seventh province to sanction gay and lesbian marriages.

Provincial Justice Minister Tom Marshall said this month the provincial government would not oppose the ruling.

The ruling puts additional pressure on Efford, who faces a severe penalty if he votes against a proposed government bill that would change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has said he expects cabinet ministers to vote in favour of the legislation, which will be introduced in the Commons next month. That means Efford could be expelled from cabinet if he defies the prime minister.

Efford's decision yesterday to duck the issue follows reports last week that suggested his religious convictions could prompt him to resign over the matter.

Saying his credibility was at stake, he said last week he opposed making same-sex marriage legal.

Since then, Efford has come under pressure from within his party to support the prime minister's position.

A day after Efford objected to the proposed bill, the MP was strangely silent.

A senior government source then came forward to confirm the minister would be voting with the government.

That's Democracy in action on this issue in Canada.
Basically, our honourable elected officials have to vote in the Prime Minister's favour, or they lose their job.

Is that representation? Is that free choice? Isn't that Dictatorship?

This issue is getting rammed down the throats of the general population of Canada and nobody is getting to vote on it except our elected officials who think they know exactly what all their constituents think.

The system works here as long as you don't ruffle the Prime Minister's feathers. If not, you get canned and serve the rest of your electoral term as an 'independant representative'.

Btw-Thanks for the opportunity to vote on it.

_

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by lizard

That's Democracy in action on this issue in Canada.
Basically, our honourable elected officials have to vote in the Prime Minister's favour, or they lose their job.

Is that representation? Is that free choice? Isn't that Dictatorship?

This issue is getting rammed down the throats of the general population of Canada and nobody is getting to vote on it except our elected officials who think they know exactly what all their constituents think.

The system works here as long as you don't ruffle the Prime Minister's feathers. If not, you get canned and serve the rest of your electoral term as an 'independant representative'.

Btw-Thanks for the opportunity to vote on it.

_

Part of being in the party, is supporting the party's stance...if you aren't going to support the party, why are you a member?

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

"Separate but EQUAL"...

Did the courts in fact discover that it was NOT "Equal"? Could that be the crux of the issue? And it's not about "Equality under the Church" it's about "Equality under the Law". And I simply do not equate those things.

And I thought someone here demonstrated that "marriage" has NOT "always" been just between a man and a woman?

Anyway, as I said above, times change. Faith may not (but Dogma certainly does), but that doesn't require it to be applied to those without that same "faith".

Besides, a reduction of the freedoms and equality of others, singling out one group or another, is in fact a reduction in the freedom and equality of us all. And that too, had NOTHING to do with faith. Faith isn't made weaker by these things, in fact, it is made STRONGER by tolerance! MUCH stronger.

Night guy,

J

Legalized Marriage has always been between Man and Woman! Anything outside of that was not legalized... Let me ask you something. Where did Marriage Come From? Who created the Instiitution of Marriage? Did the Government not incorporate Marriage from Religion? If it did then should it not be Religion that tells us what Marriage should be? It is just like a Men's Club having to yield to allow a Woman to have access to it! Where does it end?

[lizard]

Posted by Gibble:
Part of being in the party, is supporting the party's stance...if you aren't going to support the party, why are you a member?

Bottom line, their real job is to represent their constituents, not the Prime Minister.

It isn't the Prime Minister or the party that got them their jobs, it's the people who elected them.

If the interests of their constituents is at odds with the Prime Minister, then the honourable thing to do would be resign from the party.

Not 'F/U constituents...party on'!

_

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by bizzt

Legalized Marriage has always been between Man and Woman! Anything outside of that was not legalized... Let me ask you something. Where did Marriage Come From? Who created the Instiitution of Marriage? Did the Government not incorporate Marriage from Religion? If it did then should it not be Religion that tells us what Marriage should be? It is just like a Men's Club having to yield to allow a Woman to have access to it! Where does it end?

First, marriage didn't start with religion. It was a only later incorporated into religion.

Second, if you want to call marriage religious...Which religion determines what Marriage should be?

Each religion can determine what marriages it will allow...but legally, the government should allow all marriages.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by lizard

Bottom line, their real job is to represent their constituents, not the Prime Minister.

It isn't the Prime Minister or the party that got them their jobs, it's the people who elected them.

If the interests of their constituents is at odds with the Prime Minister, then the honourable thing to do would be resign from the party.

Not 'F/U constituents...party on'!

_

I don't know what it's like where you are, but the only way I know what my rep's policies/stances are, is by looking at the party they are a member of.

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

Right, and that was the point, standards, and values, change!

And also that despite "divine intentions" man has been known to take matters into his own hands, like taking that first "forbidden fruit" out a woman's hands, and eating it anyway,...

Thanks Tim.

J

Very True J standards do change and what we thought that women went through horrible times before Women's lib was not the case when you were living back then. It was probably a good life for them.

Thanks J

Tim

[bizzt]

Originally Posted by Gibble

First, marriage didn't start with religion. It was a only later incorporated into religion.

Second, if you want to call marriage religious...Which religion determines what Marriage should be?

Each religion can determine what marriages it will allow...but legally, the government should allow all marriages.

Then Where did Marriage start?

The Majority of Course . Not too sure Gibble!

So why CAN'T marriage be described between Man and Woman to the exclusion of all others? What is wrong with that? It is like saying there is no seclusion in anything. A Men's Golf League. That is Discrimination!! Seriously Gibble where will the Government draw the line? Scouts used to be for only Boys now it has to accept Girls. WHY? Girls have Girl Guides . I know these people are not affecting your life if they get married and they are not affecting mine either! Sure times change and we must change with the Times but does heritage matter? I guess I am more concerned about my rights and my religious Heritage etc... I know they MIGHT not be infringed on but they probably will sooner or later.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by bizzt

Then Where did Marriage start?

The Majority of Course . Not too sure Gibble!

So why CAN'T marriage be described between Man and Woman to the exclusion of all others? What is wrong with that? It is like saying there is no seclusion in anything. A Men's Golf League. That is Discrimination!! Seriously Gibble where will the Government draw the line? Scouts used to be for only Boys now it has to accept Girls. WHY? Girls have Girl Guides . I know these people are not affecting your life if they get married and they are not affecting mine either! Sure times change and we must change with the Times but does heritage matter? I guess I am more concerned about my rights and my religious Heritage etc... I know they MIGHT not be infringed on but they probably will sooner or later.

Your religion can still only permit marraige between a man and a woman, but why can't those that don't prescribe to your beliefs also have the freedom to be married in the eyes of the law.