Legalized Gay Marriage in Canada

[CanadianGuy]

Many churches marry gay people. If your church doesn't want to let gay people get married, they don't have to marry them. But stay out of other churches business.

Umm ok so these churches are not christian, if that's true I'm fine with that but stop trying to force churches that do not wish to marry gays to.

 

[Kelzie]

Umm ok so these churches are not christian, if that's true I'm fine with that but stop trying to force churches that do not wish to marry gays to.

Who is forcing who? You think no church should marry gay people, while I think that the churches who want to marry them should be allowed to. Where did you get this idea that I was forcing your church to marry gay people?

 

[CanadianGuy]

I was talking about gays trying to, not you in particular. What is happening is gays are trying to force all churches to except marrying off gays and really if they do not even listen to the pope they should excommunicate and create their own religion like Enland did.

 

[Kelzie]

I was talking about gays trying to not you inparticular. What is happening is gays are trying to force all churches to except marrying off gays.

No they're not. Seriously, think about it. Why would anyone want to get married in a church that thinks what they are doing is a sin? Gay people want to legalize gay marriage. The government would stay out of individual church policy like they have always done, even if gay marriage is legalized. If a church today refused to marry same sex couples, do you think the government would step in and force them to do it?

 

[cnredd]

Like I said ENCARTA. Read the post. Here's the website.

And your "dictionary" attempts to define marriage with verses from a book I don't believe in.

There are some serious problems with Encarta.

My own analysis shows four areas that are quite deficient: conceptual, linguistic, factual, and political.

The conceptual problem, I believe, stems from the fact that neither of the editors, Gates nor Appiah, is a historian. Gates is a rather accomplished literary critic and Appiah is a professor of philosophy. Now I am the first to say that one can overcome these deficiencies but one must have worked at the craft of historical writing in order to achieve some perspective. I do not see any historical imagination in this work and the evidence of literary and philosophical interests override what should be a strong historical underpinning. This project suffers because the editors have little appreciation for either point-of-view or historiography and have even less appreciation for proper periodization. Take the piece on Costa Rica. There is a paragraph that describes the country in the same way you would find in any encyclopedia. You would not even know African people lived in Costa Rica if you read the account. You would not even know the population of the country, not to mention how many Africans lived in Costa Rica. Where is the discussion of the Limonenses? Fortunately there is a good essay on Quince Duncan written by Dellita Martin-Ogunsola that explains much about Costa Rica, but you cannot get to Quince Duncan from the entry on Costa Rica

http://www.asante.net/articles/review-encarta.html

Not the best link in the world, but it gets the point accross....

All it takes is ONE person in Encarta's heirarchy to change marriage from "a man and a woman" to "two people"...and people will treat it as gospel...

 

[CanadianGuy]

No they're not. Seriously, think about it. Why would anyone want to get married in a church that thinks what they are doing is a sin? Gay people want to legalize gay marriage. The government would stay out of individual church policy like they have always done, even if gay marriage is legalized. If a church today refused to marry same sex couples, do you think the government would step in and force them to do it?

If it is legalized and someone complains I wouldn't doubt it. What is the point in leagalizing gay marriage then from your point? There is none they might as well just say it is up to the church and that is it.

 

[Kelzie]

There are some serious problems with Encarta.

My own analysis shows four areas that are quite deficient: conceptual, linguistic, factual, and political.

The conceptual problem, I believe, stems from the fact that neither of the editors, Gates nor Appiah, is a historian. Gates is a rather accomplished literary critic and Appiah is a professor of philosophy. Now I am the first to say that one can overcome these deficiencies but one must have worked at the craft of historical writing in order to achieve some perspective. I do not see any historical imagination in this work and the evidence of literary and philosophical interests override what should be a strong historical underpinning. This project suffers because the editors have little appreciation for either point-of-view or historiography and have even less appreciation for proper periodization. Take the piece on Costa Rica. There is a paragraph that describes the country in the same way you would find in any encyclopedia. You would not even know African people lived in Costa Rica if you read the account. You would not even know the population of the country, not to mention how many Africans lived in Costa Rica. Where is the discussion of the Limonenses? Fortunately there is a good essay on Quince Duncan written by Dellita Martin-Ogunsola that explains much about Costa Rica, but you cannot get to Quince Duncan from the entry on Costa Rica

http://www.asante.net/articles/review-encarta.html

Not the best link in the world, but it gets the point accross....

All it takes is ONE person in Encarta's heirarchy to change marriage from "a man and a woman" to "two people"...and people will treat it as gospel...

Dude, I was talking about their dictionary. I want a definition not a history of marriage. And since this guy was talking about the Encarta encyclopedia, you have no case.

 

[CanadianGuy]

Dude, I was talking about their dictionary. I want a definition not a history of marriage. And since this guy was talking about the Encarta encyclopedia, you have no case.

Why not a history of marriage? That is what a definition is.

 

[Kelzie]

If it is legalized and someone complains I wouldn't doubt it. What is the point in leagalizing gay marriage then from your point? There is none they might as well just say it is up to the church and that is it.

So it will be legal? What else would the point in legalizing gay marriage be? Right now, even if a church says they're married, they're still not in the eyes of the law. If that gay marriage was legal, that would change. The government can not change a church's policy. That is the great thing about the seperation of church and state. Think about it. Abortion is legal. We're not forcing the Catholic church to accept it as right or to practice it.

 

[Kelzie]

Why not a history of marriage? That is what a definition is.

No. A definition is what a word means. For instance, the defintion of the word bank is a "business offering financial services". The history of banks is very, very different. Defintions change, for instance in 1700's the banks might have done something else. But the history of banks will still be the same.

 

[CanadianGuy]

So it will be legal? What else would the point in legalizing gay marriage be? Right now, even if a church says they're married, they're still not in the eyes of the law. If that gay marriage was legal, that would change. The government can not change a church's policy. That is the great thing about the seperation of church and state. Think about it. Abortion is legal. We're not forcing the Catholic church to accept it as right or to practice it.

Yes but they are againest it.

 

[CanadianGuy]

No. A definition is what a word means. For instance, the defintion of the word bank is a "business offering financial services". The history of banks is very, very different. Defintions change, for instance in 1700's the banks might have done something else. But the history of banks will still be the same.

What are you talking about you are crazy. A definition is what a word means in the past and so we do not forget it is written down it is the history of the word.

 

[Kelzie]

Yes but they are againest it.

Exactly my point. The Christian church can still be against gay marriage, even if it is legalized.

 

[Kelzie]

What are you talking about you are crazy. A definition is what a word means in the past and so we do not forget it is written down it is the history of the word.

For the love of god.

define:

transitive and intransitive verb give meaning of word: to give the precise meaning of a word or expression

There are tons of words that mean something different from what they have meant in the past. History and definition are two different things. I can't believe you are even trying to debate this. :think:

 

[CanadianGuy]

Exactly my point. The Christian church can still be against gay marriage, even if it is legalized.

I do not want it legalized I do not want them forcing it on me or the christian church.

 

[Kelzie]

I do not want it legalized I do not want them forcing it on me or the christian church.

Abortion is legal. The government is not forcing it on any church. Churchs are still free to say it is a sin all they want.

 

[CanadianGuy]

For the love of god.

define:

transitive and intransitive verb give meaning of word: to give the precise meaning of a word or expression

There are tons of words that mean something different from what they have meant in the past. History and definition are two different things. I can't believe you are even trying to debate this. :think:

What! A definition can change but it changes and becomes a new history of the word you just can't think outside the box. YOu must be a very interesting person :roll:

 

[CanadianGuy]

Abortion is legal. The government is not forcing it on any church. Churchs are still free to say it is a sin all they want.

Not forcing it on churches? It doesn't have anything to do with churches. Othe rthen them saying it is a sin and you should not do it.

 

[Kelzie]

What! A definition can change but it changes and becomes a new history of the word you just can't think outside the box. YOu must be a very interesting person :roll:

I am thanks. In fact, not only am I interesting, but I can tell the difference between the definition of a word and the history of it.

 

[Kelzie]

Not forcing it on churches? It doesn't have anything to do with churches. Othe rthen them saying it is a sin and you should not do it.

I...what? You were the one saying they were forcing it on churches, that marriage is a religious "thing" between a man and a woman, and now all of a sudden it has nothing to do with churches? What are you talking about?

 

[CanadianGuy]

I am thanks. In fact, not only am I interesting, but I can tell the difference between the definition of a word and the history of it.

That makes you very interseting doesn't it :roll:

 

[CanadianGuy]

I...what? You were the one saying they were forcing it on churches, that marriage is a religious "thing" between a man and a woman, and now all of a sudden it has nothing to do with churches? What are you talking about?

We were talking about abortion in that context :roll:

 

[Kelzie]

We were talking about abortion in that context :roll:

Abortion has just as much to do with churches as gay marriage does.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

I only trust what the teachers of my god tell me

And you don't stop to consider what their agenda might be?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

I do not want it legalized I do not want them forcing it on me or the christian church.

Legalizing gay marriage would in no way force you to be gay or to marry a homosexual. In what way would it be forced on you? It wouldn't - you're simply displaying bigotry, and that's not a good advert for the Christian Church.

I'm a comitted atheist, but there are certain Christains I heartily respect (they usually express views like Kelzie, who obviously practises love as well as just preaching it), but I get totally turned off by Christians like yourself who spout hate.