Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Earlier discussion

Panel tackles same-sex marriage in Canada

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 5:15 PM EDT 07/03/08

Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. The Prytanis from Ottawa, Canada writes: For the faithful: Same sex marriage doesn't violate the 'sanctity' of marriage. Civil marriage does. When governments stepped into the marriage game, that was the faithful's chance to draw the proverbial line in the sand. Civil marriages took all of the 'sanctity' out of the institution of marriage long before homosexuals got in the game. Civil unions between protestants and catholics, satanists and swingers, atheists and agnostics, have been going on for a long time. The state said that it was OK for cross-faith couples, no-faith couples, and even purple bible reading satanists to tie the knot a looooong time ago. All you have to do is live together long enough and 'BAM' your married. So let me get the faithful's argument straight (pun intended). It's OK for two pagans to marry each other, but not two men or two women? Something tells me that a Satanic wedding band is more of an affront to god and to the faithful than Adam and Steve. Kids, the 'sanctity' of your institution was gone a long time ago. It disappeared when it changed from a religious blessing to a civil contract. And guess what. That change was for the better. 99% or better of the world's population live in pair bonds. Including homosexuals. Catholic, Protestant, Satanic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Atheist, etc weddings SHOULD be legal contracts. They are also a beautiful expression of a commitment between two people.
  2. F H from Ottawa, Canada writes: Jesus Christ was a man who accepted and respected people from all walks of life, regardless of their sex, their station in life or even their religion. His Word was Love. Why do some Anglicans think it's acceptable to show hate to a group that would have been perfectly acceptable to the Son of God? Do they truly think they're superior in judgement to Him?

    The only good thing to come out of this, IMO, is that it's now clear which group follows the actions and words of the Son of God and which group considers themselves morally superior to Him.
  3. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: Wondering why the Anglicans get picked on for this one, again? The Anglican church has never disputed the right of the state to allow civil union of homosexual couples; nor does it doubt that these are valid unions. It is tearing itself up on the issue of whether it will allow homosexuals to wed INSIDE the church.

    This being the case, why is only one of the panelists an Anglican? The story can only be of internal interest -- i.e. an observation from a member of another communion, speaking from a different faith perspective (quite apart from another religion, as some of these are!) has very little relevance.
  4. FREEDOM 2 BLASPHEME. from writes:

    If the hard-line religilous lobby keeps on carping on what has been decided by the supreme court as a right to all Canadians, after hard-fought battles, does it not mean that religious organisations have allowed themselves to become political organisations?

    Also, it is still unclear to me when or where did Jesus object or condemn same-sex marriage. Seems to me that all this nonsense about christianity being against same-sex marriage is unfounded.

    In Leviticus, for instance, there is language about 'men sleeping together' or 'like with a woman', is nice flowery language that can impress the infeebled (faith-based) mind, but is a biological impossibility nevertheless.

    Seems to me that most x-ian religions are designed to impress the weak-of mind, to weed them 'in' for enslavement.

    Finally, I enjoy my relative Canadian rights and freedoms, without any help from X-ians or Jesus. So why can't they just shut up, and stop prejudicing and villifying others, like me.
  5. Mike L. from Canada writes: It's a pity you couldn't find a Catholic to participate on your panel, after all we are the largest single Church in Canada. The Catholic view on same-sex relationships is grounded in the Natural Law and I am sure that would have been a very worthwhile contribution to the debate, as the Natural Law is not, we believe, denominational, but written on the hearts of humans.
  6. Jim Sheppard from Executive Editor, globeandmail.com, Canada writes: Mike: Thanks for your comment about the lack of a Catholic representative in today's debate. Dr. Michael Higgins, president of St. Thomas University, is a regular member of this panel -- check out the 'earlier debate' links on the left side of the article. But he was travelling and unavailable this week. I was unable to line up a replacement on short notice. My apologies but rest assured there was no intent to eliminate Catholic input.
  7. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: I believe most people don't care about this issue. In the case of church assets, opposing groups should bid auction style on each of the assets and the winner should pay half the value to the loser in the form of a cash or a mortgage. Another problem settled. Christians will appreciate this ideas since it sounds so much like something Solomon would decide. It really is better to find a solution than to sit and curse the darkness. Ain't it?
    CYMRO
  8. Glengarry Redneck from Williamstown, Canada writes: Why are we still talking about this? I thought we had put this issue to bed. But as long as it is being discussed yet again, could someone tell me just what it is that heterosexual couples like my wife and I have to lose by extending the benefits and responsibilities of marriage to same gender couples? I realize I am slow on the uptake sometimes, but I just don't understand the objection and in spite of the endless vitriol I have seen on this topic, nobody seems to be able to answer that simple question.
  9. Ian McDonald from Toronto, Canada writes: Personally I could care less wether same sex couples can marry or not and if it was a matter of not being treated equally they could have outlawed marriage for everyone as far as I was concerned.

    But I never understood the inequality argument. A gay man or woman could have legally married a person of the opposite sex before just as easily as a stright person so how is that being treated differently? When does having the same rights as everyone else mean you are being treated differently?

    If it is a matter of being able to marry someone you love I have seen many marriages that were done even though the couple (of opposite sex) were not in love with each other.
  10. Paula Valentine from Oakville, Canada writes: The bible tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything outside of that is not a Christian marriage. As a sexual relationship outside of marriage (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is considered sin, then the church cannot bless what God has said is wrong. Since orthodox Christians believe that the bible is the revealed Word of God, we cannot, in good conscience, act in a way that is opposed to its teachings.
  11. David Jenkins from Oakville, Canada writes: The Anglican Church of Canada appears to be on the verge of promoting the blessing same-sex unions; some churches are already allowed to do this. Isn't it spiritual and cultural arrogance for the Anglican Church to declare that, for 2000 years, Christian thinkers have got it wrong?

    Clearly the current Canadian Anglican Church leadership regard themselves as more enlightened than their predecessors; considering that, the fact that hordes of people are abandoning the Anglican Church for less 'enlightened' churches is - strange.
  12. Ursa Minor from Canada writes: As a First Nation person, i can't seem to get married by an Elder whose authority comes from being a religious figure in my people's religion. I can get married by an Elder who is a priest/iman in a recognized religion, or I can get married by an Elder who is a justice of the peace... but I can't get married by an Elder who is just a leader in the Cree traditions/religion. I've been told this is because my religion has no legal 'presence' in Canadian law. I can't help but think it is discrimination through apathy on the part of lawmakers. Thank goodness my people's beliefs do not need the government's okay to exist. Unfortunately, that means traditional marriages are not legally recongnized, which often has legal implications for the couple.
  13. sam themacman from Waterloo, Canada writes: What has occurred with the Anglican communion was bound to happen in time. I am a Christian, and have been a pastor, who opposses the very use of the term 'marriage' for non-traditional monogamous relationships. It defies the very etymology of the word and its history. Had the then PM, Mr. Martin, created a new word, I would have been fine with it. I find marriage to be exclusively for heterosexual unions. History is on my side. I do not have to defend it. The gay community has battled for equal rights for decades. I applaud them for their efforts to find equality, but I do not find the issue of marriage to be an issue of 'equal rights'. If the gay community is seeking to be 'normal' by using the institution that is intended to be for straight people, they will never be normal. The key to marriage is that it is procreative by nature and design. Procreation is the intention of marriage, regardless of how much people like the sex! When it comes to the 'church', the church must defend its position and those who want to be part of a historic Christian church must accept that marriage is for straight people. No exceptions. The aberations to this are those who seek to be culturally sensitive and relevant, as if Christianity is somehow determined by the cultural winds of the day. The Anglican churches that have left the national church are the legitimate ones, and the national church is the one that had deviated and thereby forfeited all rights to the churches and their property. In fact, I would argue it would be up to the 15 orthodox churches to demand that the rest of the anglican denomination leave the denomination, for they have rejected the historic teaching of the church. I believe the government will have to protect these 15 churches and ensure they keep their property, for this sets a very bad precedent. Churches who remain orthodox should be protected by the law of the land, and that includes all their assets.
  14. Rob Ruttan from Barrie, Canada writes: Some argue that the further unfolding of the Human Genome will indicate that sexual orientation is a genetic matter. Further, many religious scholars have some pretty compelling arguments based on history, culture and language that neither the Old or New Testaments have anything to say about committed relations between consenting adults. Religious conservatives whose stuff I have seen never seem to grapple with either the science or the complex arguments that the Scriptures they claim to be infallible don't in fact say what they want them to say regarding this matter. Instead, we get the same old arguments from English translations, along with some pretty dubious claims about 'naturalness' and 'unnaturalness.' Their arguments pale in comparison with the more thoughtful and thorough arguments of the other side. If there's a question buried anywhere in this mini-tirade, I guess it's this: what is the real reason for which religious conservatives cling to homophobia?
  15. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Forty years ago, in 1968, Canada amended its family law to permit 'no-fault' divorces. It was a controversial change at the time, and there were not a few who decried the move as the end of Canadian society as we knew it. Despite that shocking experiment in social engineering, Canada persisted as a viable nation. Few give the issue a passing thought today.

    Thus, even were there not ample moral and social reasons for supporting same-sex marriage, we can confidently expect that in a short time Canadians will wonder what all the fuss was about.
  16. Two Creeks from wheatley, ontario, Canada writes: Not one of the gospels, the books at the core of Christianity, mentions homosexuality. Only one short passage in Romans touches on it, and some verses in Leviticus in the Old Testament alongside others calling on the authorities to stone dishonorable children and adulterers. Are those passionate about the issue of same sex marriage just cherry picking the Bible for verses that support their particular prejudices? I don't hear a similar commitment to Christ's message that we should love our enemies, or to Old Testament injunctions against the charging of interest.
  17. paul summerville from boston, United States writes: When two consenting adults of the same sex wish to proclaim their love for each other by getting married, what business is it of ours other than to first, respect that public demonstration of love, and second, ensure that that couple has the same rights under the law as any couple of regardless of sex, religion, ethnicity, or any other category?
  18. Edwin Longueville from Cavan Ontario, Canada writes: I have the absolute and total respect for anyones belief in their god and religion. However over quite a number of years I have lost total respect for any church, no exeptions so far. Churches as I see it are never about a belief but rather the power of one or some humans over others. In short it is always about POWER. It is irrelevant what God I may worship, I do not have the right to impose any of my views on anyone else. Slowly the western societies are extricating themselves from the yoke that churches have imposed over centuries. I am not surprised that these churches are easely persuaded to yield power. But the time has come to respect everyone. And keep religeous beliefs in your heart and your church and absolutely nowhere else. I will no longer be bullied .
  19. E B from Canada writes: I think most people are misunderstanding the issue. It is not a matter of gay bashing or homophobia. Most people I have talked to do not have an issue with the gay community advocating for equal rights under the laws. To be considered as equal for benefits etc that heterosexual relationships have had all along.
    The issue is whether the Church should be forced to bless a same sex union and call it a marriage when the Church believes that according to the Bible it is between a man and a woman. This is what the Church feels defines marriage. To be asked to bless or perform a Christian marriage ceremony when it goes against what they believe is a basic tenet of faith ( marriage is between a man and a woman) is I believe what is tearing apart so many churches today.
    I dont think most people have any objection to civil unions which give any couple equal rights under the laws. It is the term 'marriage' that is being tested by the law, the advocates of gay equality and the Churches.
    This is why we have a Justice of the Peace. It can be used by anyone to perform the legal union of two people without the religious overtones of a Church.
  20. Mark c From Toronto from Canada writes: Can we just dispense with the 'sanctity of marriage' rubbish? Please!? Evangelical Christians have just as high a divorce rate as anyone. So Ms. Dueck's point about 'a lifelong bond...' is complete garbage. If Christians were really truly worried about preserving marriage they would not be trying to exclude gays and lesbians from it, they'd be wondering why half of all marriages fail. If they put their money where their mouth is they would deny divorced people the right to marry again in their churches.

    It is exactly this kind of selective reading and interpretation of their own dogma that reveals what the real motivation and agenda is for them in this matter.

    It's easy to get a hate-on for gays. Most people, deep down, have a kind of 'ick factor' about it. You think of gays, and gay couples, your mind pauses quickly on what it is we might want to DO with each other, you're a bit 'icked out' by it, but you know that's a pretty immature argument against it, so you dress it up with religious finery. 'GOD said so!!!' um, yah, he also said no shellfish or pork either but most Christians will happily sit down to a surf'n'turf dinner or some nice bacon and eggs.

    I invite the religious - but especially the evangelicals who like to proclaim that the bible is the inerrant word of god and therefore a completely and utterly infallible guide to morality - to stop being hypocrites, and either start living a biblical life, or quit picking only the bits that suit.
  21. F H from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Prytanis writes: It's OK for two pagans to marry each other, but not two men or two women? Something tells me that a Satanic wedding band is more of an affront to god and to the faithful than Adam and Steve. '

    Just to clear up something, Satanists are not pagans as Satan is a Judeo-Christian construct.
  22. F H from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Sam writes: The key to marriage is that it is procreative by nature and design. '

    So then do you think any non-fertile marriage invalid, such as that of me to my husband or anyone past child bearing age? I take great exception to that. Marriage is a public commitment of love, not the ability to spawn. To lower it to that denominator is an insult to everyone who has married for love.
  23. The Wight from Canada writes: Ursa Minor

    And there you hit on a huge point of contention. Who has the legal right to define a belief as a tax-free religion? The State, who by its nature as collector of taxes, receives implicitly this right to forgive organizations of a tax burden.

    The only solution to your issue is to lobby for the elimination of tax-free status for ALL religions. As long as that status exists in any way, shape or form, it will always be applied discriminately. A definition for 'religion' will have to exist and by the very fact there IS a definition, some groups won't fit it.

    Good luck.
  24. Molly Fairhaven from Buffalo, United States writes: To those who cite Biblical reasons for opposing homosexuality, then you must oppose all the other capitol offenses as well. On the other hand, if you eat shrimp or lobster, wear polyester, enjoy cheeseburgers, or have ever worked on a Sunday, then you have to tolerate man lying with man as woman. The uninformed religious are quick to point out that Christ struck down the old laws that prohibit all those things, but then turn around and hold up the Leviticus condemnation of gays as an unalterable mandate from God. Jesus didn't say all the laws were obsolete except that one (in fact, much New Testament Scripture points to Jesus NOT amending ANY of the laws, and conversly, even to his toleration of homosexuals). The point is, Leviticus was written long before Jesus set sandal to sand, and if you uphold it's teachings as inviolable, then you must take the rest of the book as law as well. That means no gay love, no shrimp, no lobster, no mixed-fiber clothing, no mixing of meat and dairy, no working on Sunday, no eating bugs, and no sassing back to your elders--all upon pain of death. Are some of these laws good? Sure. I never eat bugs, and I treat my folks with respect. But I do these things out of common sense and for promotion of harmony within the family and community. But some of the others are impractical and downright silly. And homosexuality falls in that gray area. It makes straight people uncomfortable, so they like to point out its God-sent ban without considering the equally weighted bans in the same chapter. We only get one go-around on this planet, and we should concentrate on making our time here pleasant without denying happiness to others who may have different sexual pinings. Gay is not immoral or unethical. Please don’t waste the tiny sliver of life you have on Earth because you somehow think you’re going to get another one. You’re not. One per customer, please, and enjoy it to the fullest; morally, ethically and completely.
  25. Ryan Stephens from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Regarding Ian's comment that gays could have married someone of the opposite gender, thus they are being treated equally:

    That applies just as well to other restrictions on marriage, as well. You could ban interracial marriage - 'Everyone has the right to marry someone of his or her race' is, by that standard, just as equal as 'Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender'. Alternatively, think of three people - Susan, Cindy and Tom. Tom can marry Cindy. Susan can't because she's female. Doesn't that sound like gender-based discrimination?
  26. The Prytanis from Ottawa, Canada writes:
    F H:
    I was just throwing examples around willy-nilly. I wasn't trying to misconstrue paganism with any other form of worship. I understand from my sentence structure how you would think I was trying to equate them. My bad. When you've got a head of steam on and only 2000 characters to express yourself, you let good grammar go occassionally.

    E B:
    Has this actually happened? Has any priest/minister/rabbi/etc in a church anywhere in Canada been forced by the government to perform a same sex marriage? I think not. I can conceive of a religious judge in a remote community being faced with this problem, but to my knowledge, this has not yet happened either. I think you can correct me on this point, but not my first. I can conceive of a clergyman being forced by his or her church to perform a same sex marriage against his or her will, but that's theology for you. If he or she doesn't like it, they can leave the united church and convert. (Which is, of course, how the Anglican church got into this in the first place.)
  27. Paul Rocca from Niagara Falls, Canada writes: Regardless of denomination, you can't practice discriminatory measures on the basis of 'faith' and truly live in a democratic nation. It doesn't work that way. As it says in virtually every democratic constitution, citizens are equal and free, regardless of gender, race, faith or sexuality.

    Were you to argue that marriage is the responsibility of the church and is thus religious in nature, the government's recognition of it as a binding social contract violates the separation of church and state democracy is founded upon.

    Likewise, were you to argue the exact opposite, that marriage is in the hands of the government, it would thus also be unconstitutional for the government to impose discriminatory conditions upon it.

    It's a paradox, and one that is the church's responsibility to figure out. The federal government has already made up its mind on the issue.
  28. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Paula Valentine from Oakville, Canada writes: The bible tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman.
    ****************************************************
    That's the conventional wisdom but I don't think you can quote chapter and verse on this. Or can you? My research indicates that originally it was for royalty, nobility and the rich and was for financial or governance reasons or as a financial arrangement.
    Prove otherwise please. I think gays should have some way of legalising an arrangement for financial and affective reasons. There is no particular reason it should called marriage in my opinion.
    CYMRO
  29. F H from Ottawa, Canada writes: Prytanis, no problem. It's just a lot of people make that common mistake, so I wanted to clear it up.
  30. Dennis Petruk from Canada writes: The Liberals pushed the 'Same Sex' agenda through for one reason and only one reason............. to garner votes. The Liberal Party, had, up to that point, voted against same sex marriage. It was only after falling to minority status, did the urge to cave to the special interests, become a priority. As one of the panelists said, the Liberals pushed this through without any regard for democratic debate. When the Liberals realized the contentiousness of the issue, they did their usual ducking, and threw it at the Supreme Court, which by then had two Paul Martin appointed activists ready to vote for it.
    This whole thing was vested on the Canadian people by a very small percentage of the population, mostly gay groups, and the usual gaggle of left of center special interest groups, supported by a paranoid federal government and left of center activist Supreme Court.
    Pathetic!!!!!!!
  31. D G from Canada writes: Why is it that the religious always trace history back only to the point where it says something that suits them??

    Correct me if I am wrong and this is specifically referring to the person who said that marriage has always been about procreation - and claimed that 'history was on his side', but haven't people been having children long before marriage even existed? And if you trace history back to the origins of marriage, I am pretty sure marriage was designed as a way to control property and assets. In the beginning (isn't that clever?) it had nothing to do with procreation let alone love.
  32. Scott Lamont from Albuquerque, United States writes: As a Wiccan priest and someone raised in a humanist home, I do not see where the controversy lies outside of some specific belief structures. Regardless of whether those beliefs (individually or collectively) represent a majority of people in the country, they do not get to impose their beliefs on others - that was part of the constitutional argument that led to the change in law. Personally, I would have been fine with a civil contract being, for legal purposes, 'marriage', and if the faith community of the couple chose to solemnize the bond within their tradition, that was up to the couple and their community. As others have pointed out, we have continued forth with the historic arrangement of churches marrying people.

    I cannot comment on other faiths' theology, as I am not familiar with their texts or history. In the belief structure of Wicca and many of the other Neo-Pagan faiths, there is no issue with the couple being same-gendered. While there is veneration for the generative nature of the male-female pairing that is part of our human experience, it does not limit the recognition of other pairings and their potential to bring blessings to all involved. We recognize that many types of pairings 'conjoined, bring blessedness to life'. The Goddess teaches that 'all acts of Love and Pleasure are My rituals'. We do not require that you produce children to validate your choice of with whom you conjoin - all that is needed is to make a declared commitment. Yet this belief structure should not compel those of other beliefs to abandon their understanding within their community, nor should it compel the government as to what is sanctioned and what is not. The beliefs of a faith must change or not based on the internal process of that community. The government must look at what is just for members of the society based on the democratic and legal process - which is secular. The government has not compelled any faith to solemnize a same-sex marriage.
  33. Elspeth Dowell from Montreal, Canada writes: In the introduction to the panelists' comments, the writer seems to bend over backwards to be politically correct:

    'That's why globeandmail.com has invited our semi-regular panel from several major faith-based communities and a representative of the atheist/humanist/free thinker groups to debate these questions:

    What does your faith/creed/organization say about the issue of same-sex marriage?'

    You know, secular Humanism is a belief system. Polytheism, monotheism and atheism are belief systems, so the writer could simply say: 'We have invited representatives from major belief systems...'
  34. Doctor Welles from Toronto, Canada writes: What nobody TALKS about regarding religious objections to same sex marriage is that in the religions derived from the ancient water-seeking desert clans -- Judaism, Islam, Christianity -- the purpose of marriage is less family formation and care of children than forcing a subservient role on women and institutionalizing that inferior role.

    It is my understanding that in most eastern religions there is more equality between the sexes.

    Anyway, if both marriage partners are of the same gender, WHO gets to be the second-class citizen?

    Canada has the CHARTER, so marriage here is less onerous than in countries such as the U.S. -- where among the 50 states there are some where married women have fewer rights than the dogs and horses -- but old cultural patterns still rear their ugly heads from time to time.

    THAT is the dirty little secret behind religious objections to same sex marriage -- it might level the playing field!
  35. brokeback mountain from toronto, Canada writes: the bible tells us god created Adam and Eve(not sure if they were in love and married based on real love, but they got married anyway or did they).. they had sex, and gave birth to 2 sons... oh wait a minute.. 2 sons.. and how did they procreate? were the 2 sons gay? or maybe they had siblings.. sooo hmm... they had sex with each other and had kids.. was that not incest? so the bible tells us incest and gay are both ok and acceptable.. so end of debate... and stop opposing gay marriage... btw, does anyone know why the 12 apostles and disciples were all men and no women.. so bible tells us it is ok to discriminate against women, so should we follow that too?
  36. reality man from Canada writes: 1) Religious groups can set whatever policies they want for same-sex marriage. that's their business and right under freedom of worship. I support the right of same-sex couples to get married and that is accomodated under civil marriage provisions.

    2) Christians DO NOT believe in the sanctity of marriage whatever they may claim. The definition of ''sanctity', according to Merriam-Webster is 'the quality or state of being holy or sacred.' Christians, however, are vehemently opposed to any notion of Jesus having being married and are offended by this concept. Now, if the state of marriage were truly holy in their eyes then there would be no problem with the idea of a god being engaged in a holy institution. Similarly, the Catholic Church forbids its priests from participating in the allegedly holy institution of marriage - although this practise only began 950 CE. Eastern religions are more accomodating since Hindu gods and goddesses generally have consorts (e.g. Vishnu and Lakshmi) and the Buddha, himself, was married at one time and had a son.
  37. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Molly Fairhaven from Buffalo, United States writes: To those who cite Biblical reasons for opposing homosexuality, then you must oppose all the other capitol offenses as well.
    *****************************************************
    Molly the above and the rest of your post is I think the very last word that can be said on the subject. You'll not get any answers from the religious I warrant. You know I have a sneaking suspicion that this issue and the issue of abortion are used to get people excited enough to write a cheque. Much more dollar-provoking than most basic elements of Christianity.
    CYMRO
  38. Enlightened Ape from Canada writes: Granting rights to same-sex couples has absolutely nothing to do with deeper religious insight. I applaud those in the religious community that have accepted same-sex marriages, but their morality comes from a secular conscience. Sorry, but you didn't come to the conclusion that it is moral to grant equal rights to homosexuals by reading scripture more closely.

    The man representing the atheist/secular/freethinker community is the only clear-headed person on the panel.
  39. Enlightened Ape from Canada writes: Elspeth Dowell from Montreal, Canada writes:

    You know, secular Humanism is a belief system. Polytheism, monotheism and atheism are belief systems, so the writer could simply say: 'We have invited representatives from major belief systems...'
    _____________________________

    Yes, secular humanism is a belief system. Atheism is     not_ a belief system. By the same token, would you say that your non-belief in goblins is a belief system? Does your 'agoblinism' guide your life by a system of beliefs?
  40. Rob Ruttan from Barrie, Canada writes: Dennis Petruk: I don't care why the Liberals put the legislation through. It was the right thing to have done. And while you claim that, '(t)his whole thing was vested on the Canadian people by a very small percentage of the population, mostly gay groups, and the usual gaggle of left of center special interest groups...' it seems to me that it has the support anyone who who is fair minded. But I guess that qualifies someone as having a 'special interest'.
    And no, by the way, no one has ever been forced to perform a same-sex service, nor will they be; the legislation forbids that.
  41. Paula Valentine from Oakville, Canada writes: Better to light... Gen 2:24 refers to marriage (first reference - many more after that). Always a man and woman - see Lev. 18:22. As for Christians being opposed to the idea that Jesus was married - nothing in the bible says He was - that is conjecture - we are not opposed as much as doubtful of its authenticity. If He was married I am sure the bible would not have left that out.
  42. Alan Hall from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm somewhat surprised that the Globe would not have included in this panel a representative of The United Church of Canada. The United Church, Canada's largest Protestant church, not only marries Canadians who are gay or lesbian, it actively argued for full inclusion in marriage rights at the Supreme Court and with Members of Parliament. It also has no barriers to full inclusion as ministers and lay leaders. So it seems quite logical, and would add immensely to the faithful perspectives in this conversation, to have included a spokesperson.
  43. Peter The Not Quite Great from Edmonton, Canada writes: My regret is that Canada never got past debating rights. So we decided that all couples, regardless of gender, shall have access to the civil institution of marriage.

    But we never debated what the purpose of marriage is. Is it simply a societal recognition of a committed sexual relationship between two people? Or is it something more?
  44. D Dawger from Canada writes: I thought the independent gentleman on the panel had some of the most interesting and balanced points in his overview however where was he during the question period?

    My conclusion: if religious groups do not wish to uphold the constitutional decisions that Parliament and the majority of Canadians hold on this (ie no more descrimiation) maybe we need to rethink those same group's rights to tax breaks and other 'societal' benefits that they also received through similar due process.

    Seems fair to me...
  45. Rob roy from Pueblo, United States writes: 'Some 15 parishes (approximately 0.5% of 2,800 Anglican congregations in Canada) have now left the fold. More are likely to follow.'

    The 0.5% business is an attempt to minimize the problem. The ACoC is loosing 12,000 per year (that's 2% per year). At this rate, it will be gone by 2061 (and irelevant much before that). Also, one should count the one third of parishes in Ontario alone that are scheduled to be closed as having left the fold.
  46. Elspeth Dowell from Montreal, Canada writes: reality man, that sounds perfectly reasonable, people collect money and build a church, so it's their church. So they can define marriage however they like. Except, religious buildings get that special tax free status. That's not fair at all. Atheists and Humanists and everyone, we have to pay taxes on our homes, or part of our rent payment goes to property tax. I feel like I'm subsidizing the local mosque! That's not fair at all. Religious property should be taxed same as everything else. Now, why is it that marriage is between two people? Some countries have legal polygamy. I strongly dislike that. It seems that women have no career prospects, no job prospects, little education, so any marriage is better than starving on the streets. If only those women could get decent jobs, and marriage was optional. What if in the future, people have fewer hangups. What if three or four people want to enter into a marriage? They could be same gender or mixed genders. What do you all think of that? Maybe I watch too much TV and soap opera, but you know, Jack and Jill are married with two kids, they divorce and Jack marries Jane who has a kid and then they have a kid together. Than Jack and Jane have some huge disagreemant and Jack ends up living with Jill again??? No wait, Jack is 26 when he and Jane have the new baby. He decides now that he will come out of the gay closet and he goes and lives with Jim. So it's almost like a multiple marriage???
  47. Donnie Darko from Cambridge, Canada writes: It will be a great day in this country when the 'religious' among us offer opinion based on their faith...and nobody listens!!

    Now if only I could find some ancient text, written by humans to control other humans (i.e. the bible) that I could use to condemn belief in god and the tax exemptions handed out to archaic organizations populated by lemmings...

    I might just have to start a church!!!
  48. Charles Smith from United Kingdom writes: One can marry a nut and bolt together, but not two nuts.

    One can hold up a bridge with nuts and bolts married together, but a bridge made with only bolts will collapse.

    Canada might need a book explaining marriage to its politicians, it might be called; “Marriage for Dummies!&8221;
  49. Alex MacLean from Toronto, Canada writes: Trottier has pointed the way ahead. Government should get out of marriage and treat everyone the same via civil unions. Personally, I'm tired of religion being put on a public pedestal on all kinds of issues. We no longer need them to provide us with a moral compass, if ever we did. One poster above says that the Bible is the revealed word of God. Amazing. How do you deal with the fact that the Bible contradicts itself all over the place. And how can God, who has never been revealed to exist, reveal anything? The US has granted us the great favour of being a negative role model - of showing what happens to the public sphere and political life when religion comes to dominate debate, a direct contradiction of the intent of the founders of that country - a good many of whom were atheists and/or secular humanists.
  50. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: As an Anglican, I have been quite disturbed over this conflict within the church. IMO the Bible does not sanction marriage between same sex couples. The idea of religion/faith is that it remains constant regardless of social change because it is based on the word of God and the teachings of Jesus. Having known people who enjoy same sex partnerships, I have no particular problem with them having a civil ceremony. However, I do have a problem with changing the church in order to bless such unions. It appears that Christians are losing our rights because of the rights of others. We have had to give up many of our traditions - such as Christmas - no nativity scences, no 'Christmas' concerts at school, etc., because of the rights of others to their beliefs. The conflict over blessing same sex marriage has made it necessary to leave the church that has been a central part of my life for decades, where my children and grandchildren were baptized. This is a non-issue for those who do not believe in the first place but is a major issue for those of us who believe in God and the Bible.
  51. K A from Toronto, Canada writes: Some of the positions expressed in this discussion are untenable.

    If the 'highest law is love', why doesn't faith permit Lorna Dueck to accept gay marriage in her church, even to approve of it? Ms. Dueck respects the 'inherent dignity of all persons', yet doesn't understand that the greatest indignity is to be told you are not equal.

    If your particular god tells you something is wrong and you believe it, why preach love, respect and tolerance?

    There really isn't any grey area on this issue. Either fully accept same-sex marriage and move on, thereby acknowledging that gays are people with rights equal to your own, or tell gays to get to the back of the bus.

    Have the courage to take a side. Anything else is deception.
  52. Jamie Wilson from Englishtown, Canada writes: I am agnostic and so have no moral objection to same sex unions, and certainly no ethical objections. I do worry however that 'freedom of conscience' has been compromised in this debate. I wish that gays and lesbians could have accepted the term civil union, though I understand their misgivings, as it would have avoided much of this controversy. I fear that this is not the end of the debate and I suspect it will only get uglier.
  53. Elspeth Dowell from Montreal, Canada writes: Catherine M., I don't agree that Christians are losing their rights.
    Christians can have a nativity scene at home and at church. The Christmas concert can take place at church.
    You can't have these things in municipal buildings, or shopping malls, because the buildings belong to polytheists, monotheists and atheists, and all those people who refuse to live under 'belief label.'
    To have a nativity scene at a municipal court for instance, is an outrageous idea. It implies that the court is going to judge cases according to Christian rules. It implies the existence of a state religion.
    I recently watched an episode of Law & Order, and right behind where the judge sits, the letters on the wall read 'In God We Trust.' I am really surprised that no one in the US is yelling and screaming over this. (I imagine it's filmed in a real court room?)
    Also, in Italy, Judge Tosti has been sentenced to one year in prison for refusing to work in the courtroom where a cross is mounted on the wall. How utterly ridiculous. Italy has a secular constitution.
  54. K A from Toronto, Canada writes: Alex MacLean is absolutely dead-on.

    It is amusing to have a discussion about morality, equality and legality without hitting on the central point - that religion is afforded much more respect than it deserves.

    We should prove the existence of a god before we allow legislation based upon his/her instructions.

    Although rather recent, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has managed to treat all Canadians equally, a feat not yet achieved by any religion.
  55. Paul Chapman from Laputa, Canada writes: I normally don't get involved in these conversations because as an atheist I don't really care what religions have to say about gay marriage, and their internal battles don't make for exciting reading.

    However, I would like to thank the rabbi in particular for the thoughtful and interesting analysis he presented.
  56. Barrie Collins from Long Sault, Canada writes: The Prytanis...You seem to have got the picture entirely the wrong way round. Civil authorities are not interfering in the church's 'right to sanctify marriages'. The church has, in fact, horned in on the civil authority's rights. Let us hypothetically go back to neolithic days, before organised religion came into effect. If caveman Og and cavewoman Ooga became an 'item', they made their wishes known to the rest of the tribe, who respected their rights to be a permanent couple. This was, to all intents and purposes, a marriage. There were, in all probability, some tribal sanctions against any other cavepeople who would try to 'put them asunder'. Tribal law was the equivalent of modern civil authority. Organised religion came along later, and IMPOSED its values on an already existing civil arrangement; NOT the other way around! The arrogance of the church, in feeling that only their idea of marriage is the correct one, beggars belief. All they have done is added a little rigmarole to a perfectly valid civil function. The only reason that a church marriage is legal is that the state has given them that authority. Without the state's sanction, a church marriage would be a lot of meaningless mumbo jumbo. If the state wishes to sanction same-sex marriages, then it is their right to do so. It is equally the right of the church not to participate, but in doing so they are violating the rights of the same sex couples to the very sanctity the church is so vigorously espousing. The state makes the laws on marriage. It is up to the church to uphold those laws and quit this nonsensical holier-than thou whining.
  57. Better to light a small candle than to sit and curse the darkness from Canada writes: Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: As an Anglican, I have been quite disturbed over this conflict within the church. IMO the Bible does not sanction marriage between same sex couples.
    **************************************************
    Childish argument. The bible does not sanction millions of things; a list too long to type. The bible also supports the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old and that the world is flat and square.
    If you can't come up with a better argument it would be well for you to do as St. Paul suggested and stay silent (both in and out of church), Catherine.
  58. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: sam themacman from Waterloo, Canada writes: What has occurred with the Anglican communion was bound to happen in time. I am a Christian, and have been a pastor, who opposses the very use of the term 'marriage' for non-traditional monogamous relationships. It defies the very etymology of the word and its history. Had the then PM, Mr. Martin, created a new word, I would have been fine with it...

    Sam, excellent post. Methinks too many people are stuck on a word. Marriage is a word that interest groups went after(just like they are after Religion now). Get together, promise your solidarity - but in a Church you can not insist that they tow to your way of thinking. Reminds me of Monty Python's life of Brian ' Stan why are you always on about women? (stan); I want to become one, I want to have a baby! What's the point Stan where's the fetus going to gestate in a box???' Saying you want marraige as a same sex couple in a Church does not make it so. You can still be together - it does not make that word the same in the eyes of a Parish, sorry but that's Religion - you free to chose another...
  59. Building an Ark from Eastern Slopes, Canada writes: K A from Toronto, Canada writes: '...It is amusing to have a discussion about morality, equality and legality without hitting on the central point - that religion is afforded much more respect than it deserves.
    We should prove the existence of a god before we allow legislation based upon his/her instructions.'

    KA that's is the best part about the Charter, people would love to tear down the walls of Faith (one's beliefs) including charter protected Catholic Schools. Unfortunately the Charter is stronger than your leanings, and so is perhaps a peoples Faith...
  60. John Deriso from Edmonton, Canada writes: Gay men and women being married doesn't affect my life AT ALL. Nor does it affect yours. So where's the problem?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top