Changing the definition of marriage.

[ChristianMuse]

My God, I'm disappointed with most of you!


Do you really think God granted us our souls, and made them somehow different from one another? Male souls and Female souls? Please... Souls are souls! Some born into this life as males, some as females.


Any love between souls, regardless of gender, has to be approved of by God. How could it not be? God is, after all, responsible for all there is within creation. And I cannot see how He would consider love to be wrong or evil.

Lev 18.22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

Lev 20.13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Same sex marriage aside, even the act God calls an abomination. Funny how the enlightened justify doing what God abhors. All in the name of forbidden love.

Need I include NT sources as well?

 

[robot23]

so do you follow all of leviticus literally?
no of course you don't
bigotry is what you've all been tricked into believing
go ahead
tolerance and acceptance and love was Jesus' message but you all ignore that and quote leviticus when you pick and choose what to take literally from it
you all give peaceful loving caring compassionate christians a bad name

 

[Fac3less]

I'm peaceful, I'm loving, I'm caring, I'm compassionate.

I am told to keep my religion out of schools - I expect everyone else to keep theirs out as well.

I'm told to keep my sexual preferences, sexual 'advances' and anything else of that nature out of the workplace - and I expect everyone else to as well.

I'm just trying to be fair here robot

 

[robot23]

I'm peaceful, I'm loving, I'm caring, I'm compassionate.

I am told to keep my religion out of schools - I expect everyone else to keep theirs out as well.

I'm told to keep my sexual preferences, sexual 'advances' and anything else of that nature out of the workplace - and I expect everyone else to as well.

i agree with you

 

[jbarcher]

<mod hat on>

Aww, we didn't have to go there...

THREAD CLOSED due to flaming.

</mod hat off>

 

[Jonathan David]

the Supreme Court will release its decision on the same sex marriage reference on on December 9th.... got my fingers crossed.

*********************************************************************

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA -- JUDGMENT TO BE RENDERED IN REFERENCE


OTTAWA, 2004/11/30. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT IN THE FOLLOWING REFERENCE WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45 A.M. ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2004.


FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995-4330


**********************


COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA -- PROCHAIN JUGEMENT -- RENVOI


OTTAWA, 2004/11/30. LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA A ANNONCÉ AUJOURD'HUI QUE JUGEMENT SERA RENDU DANS LE RENVOI SUIVANT LE JEUDI 9 DÉCEMBRE 2004, À 9*H*45.


SOURCE: COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA (613) 995-4330


**********************


In the Matter of a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning the Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 2003-1055, dated July 16, 2003 (29866)




29866 In the Matter of a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning the Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of Legal Capacity for Marriage for Civil Purposes, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 2003-1055, dated the 16th of July 2003


By Order in Council P.C. 2003-1055, dated the 16th of July 2003, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, pursuant to section 53 of the Supreme Court Act, refers to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration the following questions:


1. Is the annexed Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada? If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent?


2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is section 1 of the proposal, which extends capacity to marry to persons of the same sex, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent?


3. Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs?


On January 28, 2004, the Governor in Council filed a Notice of Amended Reference amending this Reference by asking a fourth question.


4. Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Québec in s. 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?




Origin of the case: Canada


File No.: 29866


Counsel: Peter W. Hogg Q.C./Michael H. Morris for the Appellant




29866 Dans l’affaire d’un renvoi par le Gouverneur en conseil au sujet de la Proposition de loi concernant certaines conditions de fond du mariage civil formulée dans le décret C.P. 2003-1055 en date du 16 juillet 2003


Par le décret C.P. 2003-1055 en date du 16 juillet 2003, sur recommandation du ministre de la Justice et en vertu de l’article 53 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, Son Excellence la Gouverneure générale en conseil soumet au jugement de la Cour suprême du Canada les questions suivantes*:


1. La Proposition de loi concernant certaines conditions de fond du marriage civil, ci-jointe, relève-t-elle de la compétence exclusive du Parlement du Canada? Dans la négative, à quel égard et dans quelle mesure?


2. Si la réponse à la question 1 est affirmative, l’article 1 de la proposition, qui accorde aux personnes du même sexe la capacité de se marier, est-il conforme à la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés? Dans la négative, à quel égard et dans quelle mesure?


3. La liberté de religion, que garantit l’alinéa 2a) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, protège-t-elle les autorités religieuses de la contrainte d’avoir à marier deux personnes du même sexe contrairement à leurs croyances religieuses?


Par l’Avis de renvoi modifié déposé le 28 janvier 2004, le Gouverneur en conseil a modifié ce renvoi par l’ajout d’une quatrième question.


4. L’exigence, sur le plan civil, selon laquelle seules deux personnes de sexe opposé peuvent se marier, prévue par la common law et, pour le Québec, à l’article 5 de la Loi d’harmonisaion no 1 du droit fédéral avec le droit civil, est-elle conforme à la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés? Dans la négative, à quel égard et dans quelle mesure?


Origine*: Canada


Numéro du greffe* 29866


Avocats*: Peter W. Hogg c.r. et Michael H. Morris pour l’appellante

 

[Jonathan David]

Lev 18.22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

Lev 20.13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Same sex marriage aside, even the act God calls an abomination. Funny how the enlightened justify doing what God abhors. All in the name of forbidden love.

Need I include NT sources as well?

Hey Draper..... it's Leviticus.... wow

sorry everyone... just an inside joke between me and Draper... sorry for imposing it on you

 

[Jonathan David]

I do not care what homosexuals do in their own home - just as long as they keep it out of schools, politics and work - just as I will keep my own faith out of schools, politics and well - not work. But thats because I work for a Christian company.

Woah... faith and sexuality are different. There are many gay christians afterall.

I can agree with you if we use the correct analogy. I say keep same-sex everything out of work, politics, school, etc...... as long as we heteros keep our heterosexuality out of those same things... which means no more books that mention straight couples in public school, no more flirting with Janice in the coffee room and no more..... how do we keep sexuality out of politics... that seems impossible?

Anyway, I am sure that we can all tell that I am saying that sexuality (hetero, homo, bi, whatever) has every right to be in the public sphere. I mean, we can talk about the tastefullness of any two people making out at the bus stop... but that has nothing to do with hetero/homo conversations and certainly should not be regulated by the state.

Disclaimer: Janice is a fictional character. Any likeness to any real person living or deceased is purely coincidental.

 

[Illuminatus]

Frankly, I'm in favour of removing marriage as a legal institution. Marriage is a religious tradition, therefore churches should completely control it.
It's kind of a shocking thought when you first look at it, but it would definately solve the problem.

 

[jbarcher]

<mod hat on>

I thought I closed this.

4.2 You will restrict any posts relating to the following controversial topics to the Philosophy & Morality, Liberal Theology or General Theology forums (this site uses the legal definition of marriage which is a union between a man and a woman):
f. homosexuality.

</mod hat off>