Christian "Independent": Let's see how long it takes

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Let's see how long it takes

Robert "McLeftie" just put up a post pointing out that July 20, five days from now, will be the one year memorial of the legalization of SSM.

I posted the following in the comments... "July 20... a black day for Canada".

Let's see if my views on the reactions of the far left were correct... we'll see how long it takes, and what sort of replies, that comment gets.

(it's been six minutes so far... nothing yet...)

UPDATE: CLICK! It took exactly nine minutes...

Derrell Says:
July 15th, 2006 at 3:15 pm | |
Shreeeikkk... Homophobe alert!!!!!!!

D*** Christian fundies and your family values!

So I asked him in reply, "Are you saying that Christians in Canada aren't entitled to relogious freedom?" Awaiting the reply...

UPDATE II: CLICK! 39 minutes in, and Ti-Guy arrives, accusing me of lying. I don't have a CLUE what I said that could possibly be considered that!

UPDATE III: One hour in, actually having a somewhat reasonable debate over there. Will keep you posted!

UPDATE IV: CONCLUSION I actually had not to bad of a conversation with various people there, including Ti-Guy and Robert himself. I tried very hard to be gracious, and they responded, for the most part, in kind. (I only had one angry response, from a gay man in Montreal... obviously, I can understand why he'd react to the topic at hand)

Though I disagree with their view on the matter, maybe there's hope for honest debate after all.

34 Comments:

At Sat Jul 15, 05:25:00 p.m. EDT, Blake Kennedy said…

"Religious freedom"? You are perfectly free in this country to have your own beliefs, homophobic though they may (or may not) be. You are also free to post your beliefs on somebody else's blog. They are also free to challenge your beliefs, and if you have the slightest bit of ability to defend your position you should be able to do so without throwing out a persecution card. (And if you don't, you should have enough integrity or common sense not to post it to begin with). Screaming about religious freedoms for being challenged on a point you raised is pretty damn weak. The Italian World Cup soccer team showed more fortitude than that.
At Sat Jul 15, 06:11:00 p.m. EDT, Christian Conservative said…

Thanks Blake.
At Sat Jul 15, 06:38:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

hehehe.... not only do you have to worry about comments from the left but what about comments from the right.

Two thumbs up for SSM!
At Sat Jul 15, 06:43:00 p.m. EDT, Christian Conservative said…

Blake, for the record, I've been accused over and over again of basing my opinions without having any kind of interaction with the left. I saw his celebration of SSM, decided to toss in my view, and see what happened. (you know, broaden my horizons?)

But you're right. I guess I'll just stick to my little group and pontificate on the things I do know. Or, know nothing about, but decided I want to say something about.
At Sat Jul 15, 07:53:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

On the point of religious freedom, what if my religion says that gays should be allowed to get married (I'm pretty sure that at least one conservative writer (if you can call her that), who's name I won't speak in polite company, claims liberalism is a religion), so wouldn't it be against my religious freedom to not be allowed to get married if I were gay?

This whole debate is silly though. We're not living in a theocracy, so if it isn't obviously hurting anyone then there's no reason why it shouldn't be done by those who don't subscribe to your religious views.
At Sat Jul 15, 08:24:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

My other thought is (based on your support of civil unions over on the other blog), marriage is already a civil union as long as the government stays involved in the marriage business. This means that we're arguing over semantics as long as marriage is a government regulated institution. And if the government gets out of the marriage business (which I don't see ever happening), well then those of us in the evil liberal religion can still marry people anyway as it really is just a word. You don't have to believe that God approves of gay marriage, or even accept that they are actually married in God's eyes based on your religious definition of marriage, if you don't want to, but it doesn't hurt anyone to recognize them as married by government definitions. Words can have different meanings, you know, and it never helps to get so hung up on one definition. :)

And all that aside, as my favorite contemporary theologian (Robert Farrar Capon) might put it, sometimes it's better to show grace than to be right. In fact, here are a couple great quotes from him that both sides of the debate should probably keep in mind:

"there is one effect that cannot be the result of a direct application of force, and that is the maintenance of a relationship between free persons. If my child chooses not to cooperate with me, if my wife chooses not to live with me, there is no right-handed power on earth that can make them toe the line of relationship I have chosen to draw in the sand. I can dock my son’s allowance, for example, or chain him to a radiator; or in anger at my wife, I can punch holes in the Sheetrock or beat her senseless with a shovel. In short, I can use any force that comes to hand or mind, and yet I cannot cause either of them, at the core of their being, to stop their wrongs and conform to my right. The only power I have by which to do that is left-handed power – which for all practical purposes will be indistinguishable from weakness on my part. It is the power of my patience with them, of my letting their wrong be – even if that costs me my rightness or my life – so that they, for whose reconciliation I long, may live for a better day of their own choosing.
My point here is twofold. The power of God that saves the world was revealed in Jesus as left-handed power; and therefore any power that the church may use in its God-given role as the sacrament of Jesus must also be left-handed. Despite the fact that God’s Old Testament forays into the thicket of fallen human nature were decided right-handed (plagues, might acts, stretched-out-arm exercises, and thunderous threats) – and despite Jesus’ occasional use of similar tactics in the Gospels – the final act by which God reconciles the world to himself consists of his simply dropping dead on the cross and shutting up on the subject of sin. He declares the whole power game won by losing, and he invites the world just to believe that absurd proposition." - The Astonished Heart: Reclaiming the Good News from the Lost-And-Found of Church History pp. 62-63

"Left-handed power, in other words, is precisely paradoxical power; power that looks for all the world like weakness, intervention that seems indistinguishable from nonintervention. More than that, it is guaranteed to stop no determined evildoers whatsoever. It might, of course, touch and soften their hearts. But then again, it might not. It certainly didn't for Jesus; and if you decide to use it, you should be quite clear that it probably won't for you either. The only thing it does insure is that you will not--even after your chin has been bashed in--have made the mistake of closing any interpersonal doors from your side.
Which may not, at first glance, seem like much of a thing to insure, let alone like an exercise worthy of the name of power. But when you come to think of it, it is power -- so much power, in fact, that it is the only thing in the world that evil can't touch. God in Christ died forgiving. With the dead body of Jesus, he wedged open the door between himself and the world and said, "There! Just try and get me to take that back!" - Kingdom, Grace, Judgement: Paradox, Outrage, and Vindication in the Parables of Jesus, p. 19

Only partly on topic, but I do believe that we all need to start thinking about grace being more important than being right.
At Sat Jul 15, 08:31:00 p.m. EDT, Blake Kennedy said…

Andrew, I'm actually thrilled that you got out there and allowed your views to stand in a different-minded forum. The thing is, if you do that - and I think you should - don't cry that your freedoms are being infringed upon when you get challenged. Listen to what others are saying, respond firmly but respectfully. Take your lumps, and learn from them. While I've never been thoroughly pwned in any exchange in public (I got smoked once in an email discussion, badly), I have had some battles from which I've learned some things. I think you're on the right path, but I think your approach is very off-putting (so is mine, frankly). Especially with morons like that Montreal Simon tool over there, you have to watch yourself or you'll be chasing those fools down Red Herring Blvd all night long. Be specific, detailed, and specific in your posts and don't allow those witless wonders to take you off-topic.

My $.02. Free lesson from the BorisD School of Pwnage.
At Sat Jul 15, 09:37:00 p.m. EDT, Christian Conservative said…

Thanks for the lesson... the only school I can go to where I get PAID ($0.02) rather than having to pay.

As for this whole debate... it wasn't so much the issue of SSM that I was really interested in, I guess I was more interested in seeing if reasoned debate could be had with some of the far left, or if it would turn into a hate-filled melee.

It was an interesting experiment, to say the least.
At Sun Jul 16, 12:00:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

Blah blah,blah blah, blah blah blah blah....

The left hijacked this issue and made it a Human-Rights challenge , Marriage was a Social value and a quasi-contract with the State as a benefit to the family unit.

I don't every remember hearing one Judge or Politician claiming the Bill a "Gay-Marriage" Bill , it is a fact that the equal Rights
debate was argued on a "Same-Gender" marriage issue based on two "People" caring for each other but being denied the Status of Married.

You can fire-up the keyboards and throw out the usual insults at me but the truth stands on its own , Canada re-defined who qualified for Married status under our Social values.
This means that if "Caring" about someone or Feeling an agupe Love for another Person can be the grounds for Marriage, then what stops 3 or 4 Person from wanting the Status of Spouse for the sake of a generous Benefits package from one of the partners.
Please don't try to tell me that if your best friend was ill and near death but needed special drugs only covered by a Spousal benefit package ,you wouldn't "Pretend" to be a couple to get a Married Status at your workplace.

Remember , Chretien re-designed
the Political donation rules to clean-up Democracy and assumed he didn't need to spell it out for Joe Volpe that children can't be exploited as a Donater to by-pass the $5000.00 per citizen rule.
Trudeau never imagined his Charter being used by Whahabi Islamists in Canada to demand "Sharia-law" for female Muslims in Ontario as a Religous Right that overrides Canadian Human Rights.

Again, think this through, we are dealing with a Same-gender
challenge and nobody can be forced to prove their sexual preference to get Married, and we all know that somewhere in canada there is a Judge willing to read into the law a newly defined version of what "married" means.
At Sun Jul 16, 12:12:00 a.m. EDT, wilson said…

That is a very 'dark' blaug CC, they only want their 'own kind' there, and no debate. Just bait.

I wonder how Jack Layton feels about his 'representatives'.
At Sun Jul 16, 02:25:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

I haven't read the blog that you are referring to. But in reality SSM has been legal in Ontario for a couple years and I have not seen any negative effects from it.

I don't see it as an assault against your religion as I know that there are christian churches that support SSM. So in that case you would have to say that only certain Christian churches count. Which I am sure would be an infringment on their religious freedom which is protected by the Charter. No church is forced to conduct SSM's therefore no religious freedom's are being infringed on.

I went to a wedding about a month after SSM was legalized in Ontario. It was a an amazing experience to watch two women who had loved each other for over a decade finally being allowed to have the same rights as straight couples. In my opinion their union is a tribute to the institution of marriage.
At Sun Jul 16, 02:27:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

--they only want their 'own kind' there, and no debate.--

Kind of sounds like the anti-SSM position. They only want their 'own kind' there.
At Sun Jul 16, 09:29:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

"This means that if "Caring" about someone or Feeling an agupe Love for another Person can be the grounds for Marriage, then what stops 3 or 4 Person from wanting the Status of Spouse for the sake of a generous Benefits package from one of the partners.
Please don't try to tell me that if your best friend was ill and near death but needed special drugs only covered by a Spousal benefit package ,you wouldn't "Pretend" to be a couple to get a Married Status at your workplace."

This can already be done among straight people anyway, so gay or polygamous marriage doesn't really make a difference.
At Sun Jul 16, 01:53:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

"No obvious harm". This is the most dangerous phrase that a liberal uses. All the semantics aside, what happened when SSM was passed was that promoting the family was replaced as the goal of marriage by "feeling good". The purpose of the government's involvement in marriage was to reward/promote the creation and raising of children because that is essential to the continuing wellbeing of any country or culture. Now that marriage has been reduced to a "landlord-tenant act" which is strictly a financial arrangement, it can only further harm the family.
Marriage has been repeatedly attacked by liberals in the west and what we see is that few western nations have even a replacement birthrate. Thus we currently walk a path toward the slow death of our great culture.
To be more truthfull perhaps the liberals' catchphrase should be changed to "no immediate harm".
At Sun Jul 16, 02:42:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

So if I understand you correctly Jeff you are saying that SSM is contributing to the decrease in birthrate in western nations? That seems like a bit of stretch. Afterall, gays and lesbians were having the same amount of children before they were allowed to marry as they are after they are allowed to marry.

On the other point, the population of the world is 6.5 billion and climbing. It seems to be the only command from God that people have followed. I suspect that if God was to speak to us today he would say - congrats on being fruitful and multiplying. You have more than accomplished that, now how about following some of my other commands.
At Sun Jul 16, 03:58:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

Trevor, there is a saying "death from 1000 cuts" that describes how civilizations die. SSM is not solely responsible for declining western birthrates; its introduction was just another in a series of events that won't help the situation and seem to me to follow a consitent trend of abandoning morals and responsibility. I'm hoping the second part of your first paragraph was a joke because if it wasn't then you missed the point completely.
As to your second point, how many of those great multipliers that you refered to are part of a western society? I think you inadvertently reinforced the potential risk to our civilization that this disparity in birthrates creates. My contention is that a society that has a clear and strong sense of morals and responsibility will foster a desire for couples to raise children and that the introduction of SSM was simply another step away from that scenario. Certainly the "everything is relative, so just to what feels good" mentality of the far left is not conducive to fixing the problem.
Perhaps rather than mocking the religion upon which all of western society is based, you might look at where we are today and seriously ask yourself whether the much needed balance between conservatism and liberalism has swung too far to one direction.
You might change you mind and you might not. Either way I hope our discussion has given you a chance to see another perspective.

(I'm appologize if this post comes up twice, there seemed to be a problem in publishing)
At Sun Jul 16, 04:03:00 p.m. EDT, Blake Kennedy said…

"This is the most dangerous phrase that a liberal uses."

Yeah, that's a real "dangerous phrase", using harm to others as a standard for public policy. Are you saying government regulations should be crafted with other ends in mind, and if it's not too much bother, can you inform us as to what those might be?

"The purpose of the government's involvement in marriage was to reward/promote the creation and raising of children because that is essential to the continuing wellbeing of any country or culture."

Fine. What does the genders of people getting married have necessarily to do with preventing that lofty goal of raising children? Do you think these individuals would rush out and have a ton of kids if for some reason SSM legislation didn't exist - which would necessarily imply that these people are only gay because the government allows SSMs?

"Now that marriage has been reduced to a "landlord-tenant act" which is strictly a financial arrangement, it can only further harm the family."

Marriages are what they are; the government's legislation doesn't change any of that. You think there aren't heterosexual marriages that are solely financial arrangements? Give your head a shake.

And what do you want the government to do, regulate and enforce intangible factors in marriages like "quality time spent", "love", or "satisfaction"? How do you propose enforcing all this?

"Marriage has been repeatedly attacked by liberals in the west and what we see is that few western nations have even a replacement birthrate."

Marriage has been attacked - by whom? And how? I don't recall a lot of people standing up and saying marriage as an institution is an undesirable social phenomenon. Unless you're stating that anything short of demanding regulations which only allow for monogamous lifetime marriage between a man and a woman without possibility of divorce, and all cohabiting partners be forced to marry under those criteria, necessarily constitute an "attack upon marriage". If you are, you're abusing common sense badly.

"Thus we currently walk a path toward the slow death of our great culture."

Yeah. Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, Larry the Cable Guy, and the WNBA: hell of a culture.
At Sun Jul 16, 05:21:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

--Trevor, there is a saying "death from 1000 cuts" that describes how civilizations die.--

I don't think any of us really know how civilizations die. Jared Diamond, Clive Ponting and many others have brought forward solid arguments that local environmental destruction was responsible for the "deaths" of civilizations such as the Greeks, Mayans, Easter Islanders etc. Does that mean that environmental destruction was the cause, or part of the cause? Beats me, we can't say for sure. The same goes for the belief that the cause of the fall of Rome was caused by moral decay. That seems unlikely to me.

--SSM is not solely responsible for declining western birthrates; its introduction was just another in a series of events that won't help the situation and seem to me to follow a consitent trend of abandoning morals and responsibility. I'm hoping the second part of your first paragraph was a joke because if it wasn't then you missed the point completely.--

There are lots of reasons for a declining birth rate. Almost all of those reasons are positive. SSM has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is a lousy scape goat as far as I am concerned.

--As to your second point, how many of those great multipliers that you refered to are part of a western society? I think you inadvertently reinforced the potential risk to our civilization that this disparity in birthrates creates.--

Birth rates are declining in the third world as well. Many people have pointed out that due to living standards and health care advances the first world had its population boom first, the third world afterwards. When the world's population stabilizes in 40 or 50 years the percentage of people living on continents will be very similiar to the percentages before the population booms. I do not think that this is something to fear.

--My contention is that a society that has a clear and strong sense of morals and responsibility will foster a desire for couples to raise children and that the introduction of SSM was simply another step away from that scenario.--

My contention is that the belief that in the past society was more moral and responsible and as such fostered an environment better suited for child rearing is incorrect. This moral past, "good ole days" world never existed, it is a figment of people's imagination brought on by nostalgia and fantasy shows such as "Leave it to Beaver" and "The Waltons." Things have changed over the years - some positive some negative - but modern day families are not in crisis, at least no more than they were in the past. Take an honest look at families in the 50s, 30s, 1880s whenever or read the book: The Way We Never Were.

--Certainly the "everything is relative, so just to what feels good" mentality of the far left is not conducive to fixing the problem.--

I don't think that things for families are any worse now then they were in the past. In most ways I think that things are better - better access to education and health care. Better access to post-secondary education. Abused wives have better access to help so that they can leave an unhealthy marriage/relationship. Abused children have better access to help. Teenaged pregnancy is not up, but it is more visible because pregnant teens are not shipped away when pregnant to hide the family "shame." Children are no longer forced to work because their families are too poor. Drug use and abuse was just as high at the turn of the last century as it was at the turn of this century. Oh and compared to 100 or 150 years ago. Children are no more likely to be raised by a single parent. A whole lot of children in the past had to deal with the death of one or more of their parents, along with dealing with the death of siblings. Also many children spent their childhoods raising their siblings either because their mother had to work or because their mother had died. Yes their was a short experiment after world war II of the nuclear family with the mother at home (a non working mother is a recent invention, except in the cases of the well off) raising the kids. But do you know what? A whole lot of mother's hated doing that. They wanted a life and a career. It had nothing to do with government policy - mothers work now because for the most part, they enjoy working and having a career. So this idea of the left not being conductive to fixing the problem means nothing to me. Many problems have been fixed.

--Perhaps rather than mocking the religion upon which all of western society is based, you might look at where we are today and seriously ask yourself whether the much needed balance between conservatism and liberalism has swung too far to one direction.--

OK, I have asked myself. My answer is no.
At Sun Jul 16, 07:01:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

"Yeah, that's a real "dangerous phrase", using harm to others as a standard for public policy. Are you saying government regulations should be crafted with other ends in mind, and if it's not too much bother, can you inform us as to what those might be?"

What Blake said. I'd like to know too.
At Sun Jul 16, 11:50:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

Clearly you guys are not listening to what I am saying so we will have to agree to disagree.

But to answer your question, I think "do no obvious harm" is a pretty low bar for policy decisions and is an easy phrase to hide a special interest agenda behind. The burden should be on those who desire change to prove why it would benefit society, not on everyone else to try to imagine what the harm might be. I would expect that policy be set to better our society not simply to "see what happens" because it doesn't seem to cause direct harm to anyone. I suspect that a lot of short-sighted "harmless" policy will turn out to be anything but (swingers clubs, "safe" shoot-up sites and even SSM are possible examples).
Unfortunately we won't know the true effects of policies like these for years (psst..that is why the phrase is dangerous) so I guess you can continue to feel good about preaching "no harm" at least until then.

Good night.
At Mon Jul 17, 12:35:00 a.m. EDT, Blake Kennedy said…

"Clearly you guys are not listening to what I am saying so we will have to agree to disagree."

Since you haven't answered my questions or said anything worth listening to, it's pretty hard to either agree or disagree.

"The burden should be on those who desire change to prove why it would benefit society, not on everyone else to try to imagine what the harm might be."

That's usually contrary to theory of law, isn't it? You don't set speed limits at what you think would benefit society, you set it at a limit beyond which it's unsafe to travel in such an area, yes? And even so, in the topic of SSM, you'd get smoked if this were the standard for the debate. No way you can demonstrate that it makes any sense to limit spousal benefits and recognition status away from homosexual partners, and that somehow benefits society - unless you think it makes sense to make life as difficult as possible on homosexuals for the mere fact that they are homosexuals, in which case you're pretty much an idiot.

"Unfortunately we won't know the true effects of policies like these for years (psst..that is why the phrase is dangerous) so I guess you can continue to feel good about preaching "no harm" at least until then."

Fine. You know what, I'm going to petition the government to confiscate your car and home, because I don't think it benefits society enough. It's now up to you to prove you are benefitting us enough to keep them, otherwise it's no home for you.
At Mon Jul 17, 10:12:00 a.m. EDT, Canadian Abroad said…

Just one thing I really want to add to this. Some points are not specifically related to this thread.
Time and time again I have to hear that my (SSM) marriage to my partner is something frivolous and meaningless (ie. just for financial gain). It's this "belittleing" that I find offensive.
Gay marriage is joke and so forth.
No, the ring on my finger means a lot to me and there is not a day that goes by when I look at it and am happy to have the right to marry the man I adore.
At Mon Jul 17, 10:20:00 a.m. EDT, Blake Kennedy said…

Shadesofgrey:

I'm sure you - like many people in your community - are very fashion-conscious. (Apologize for the stereotype, no matter how positive it may be.) Tell, me, are concentric red-and-white circles worn on the back in style this year? Because that's what you're now wearing on this blog.

Awesome, though. Thanks for challenging that foolish notion.
At Mon Jul 17, 10:41:00 a.m. EDT, Christian Conservative said…

Shades, dispite what Blake may say, I don't see any red and white circles on your back. (though Blake might argue that my rose coloured glasses are causing the colours to blend...)

That said, I do have an honest question for you that I'd like your opinion about.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding "marriage" and "civil unions", and I am one who has the view that marriage is a term that should be protected, but that civil unions should be created with all the same rights and privilages, as in Britian. If such a union were created, with no legal differences, would you have any objections, and if so, what are they?
At Mon Jul 17, 11:45:00 a.m. EDT, Peter Rempel said…

Gay. Montreal. Enough said.
At Mon Jul 17, 12:00:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

"I am one who has the view that marriage is a term that should be protected"

Out of curiousity, do you have any good, non-religious reasons why this word should be "protected" (though I'm not sure what it is we'd need to protect a word from other than erasers when the're written in pencil)?
At Mon Jul 17, 01:10:00 p.m. EDT, Blake Kennedy said…

"Out of curiousity, do you have any good, non-religious reasons why this word should be "protected" (though I'm not sure what it is we'd need to protect a word from other than erasers when the're written in pencil)?"

One of the small details I'll probably not approach this the same way Drew does.

I don't care if he religious or non-religious reasons for why he's saying what he does, but I'm interested in why he thinks it's the federal government's job to privilege one definition of marriage over and above others based on the whims of what are now religious minorities. If he wants to say, "God has ordained the covenant of marriage only between a man and woman," that's fine. If he wants the Government of Canada to act as God's emissary for Keeping Marriages Heterosexual, I think he'd have a lot more difficult time justifying that step, especially when so many other factors enter in to the discussion at that point.

Andrew: good line on the rose-coloured glasses.
At Mon Jul 17, 01:39:00 p.m. EDT, Christian Conservative said…

My main non-religous reason is that marriage has been defined for thousands of years (or tens of thousands, if you're one of those blasphemous evolution people) as being that of a union between a man and a woman. (some cultures allow for more than one of either gender, but that's another issue)

As our government had no hand in its original definition, I submit to you that it has no authority to re-define that which it did not define in the first place.

True, our government is in the business of granting marriage lisences, however, I don't think they have the authority to redefine such a basic human institution which has stood for eons.
At Mon Jul 17, 01:41:00 p.m. EDT, Christian Conservative said…

Figured you would Blake. ;-)
At Mon Jul 17, 02:40:00 p.m. EDT, Canadian Abroad said…

CC

Three years ago I would have been fine with a compromise solution like Civil Unions.
During those three years, GLBT folk have been called pedophiles, perverted, immoral, enemy of the family, unnatural, and lots of other even more insulting terms.
My love for my partner has been dragged through every imaginable mudpit that could be found. No comparison was vile enough that it could not be mentioned.

My appetite for compromise is gone. I am married under Canadian Law. I will accept nothing less.

In some jurisdictions (states) were gay marriage has been banned there are now referenda under way to take away spousal benefits for ss-couples.
Once I let what I believe to be my right to be eroded, the erosion will not stop it will continue.
At Mon Jul 17, 03:01:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

CC

Marriage has always been in a state of flux. Did the Christians have the right to redefine marriage as a solely monogamous union in the sixth century? They did and I think that it was a good thing. Prior to that polygamy was not outlawed among christians and played a major role in the bible.

The rate of divorce has increased dramatically. Some argue that this is a sign of moral decay, others a sign of increased women's rights and the ability of them to support themselves. Other's point out that the rate of people getting married a second time in the 19th century was similar to the rate today, but the high rate of second marriage was due to the death of a first spouse. In others words people rarely got divorced because you hardly had enough time to get sick of them.

At one point in time people could not marry someone of a different race. The age at which people could legally get married has changed. The laws regarding marrying relations has changed.
Marriage for love is a relatively new thing. Before that arranged marriages were very comon. And marrying outside of social standing was difficult.

I honestly don't think that SSM will contribute any more to the ruin of marriage than this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glynn_Wolfe

The baptist minister who married 29 times (never involved in polygamy).

Marriage has changed dramatically in the past. It will continue to change in the future. The institution will remain strong.
At Mon Jul 17, 03:04:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

SOG

Good to hear that you will continue to stand up for your rights. No one should be treated as a second class citizen in Canada.
At Mon Jul 17, 04:55:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous said…

"True, our government is in the business of granting marriage lisences, however, I don't think they have the authority to redefine such a basic human institution which has stood for eons."

Technically the government has the (legal) authority to do whatever it wants (within the laws of physics of course), does it not? If you're refering to moral authority, we're getting back to religious issues again.
At Sun Sep 10, 10:02:00 p.m. EDT, MissHailey said…

You are wrong about this in my opinion.

I have a very strong belief that marriages are for life, that marriages are covenants, and that marriages need to reflect biblical teachings. Great! Guess whose marriage that applies to? Mine!

And on a personal one to one level I would tell anyone who I cared about that I think there is a lot of richness in choosing that option.

But my faith is not the law...other people get to decide if they wish to get married once...or twice...or three times...
if they want to live together before they are married..or they don't....

people have lived Christian lives or chosen OTHER than that..for years...

why is it a crisis when gay people do it?
Churches are not forced to marry people if they don't agree that the foundation of their marriage is a covenant. That is not new.

So nobody is forced to marry a gay person....

no church is forced to oversee the ceremony....

and you are not forced to attend....

so what's the problem? How exactly does it effect you?

And, really,I find it hard to stomach watching Stephen Harper who says he is a Christian and is married to someone previously married (according to Christianity it's adultery) harp on about traditional marriage. Maybe he should have a traditional marriage himself before he comments!

And about ti-guy just find a mental ignore button. He's an angry person.

Christian "Independent"

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Let's see how long it takes

34 Comments:

About Me

Blog Awards

This Blog Supports

Previous Posts

The Waterloo Wellington Bloggers Association