|
|
Post by misterkaygee on Feb 4, 2005 12:07:38 GMT -6
Welcome to Wittenberg, and thanks for your perspective! A couple of questions: Who are you, and why are you here?  I am misterkaygee, and I am a prospective Talossan. Sent in my request for immigration before I registered for Wittenberg. |
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Feb 5, 2005 6:59:05 GMT -6
I must not have received your e-mail. If you could try again that would be great!
Immigration Minister
|
|
|
|
Post by kri on Feb 5, 2005 12:01:37 GMT -6
> I am misterkaygee, and I am a prospective Talossan. Sent in my request for immigration before I registered for Wittenberg.
Excellent -- welcome to Talossa! If you're not wild about using your 'real' name online (many Talossans choose not to), e-mail me at talossa "at" execpc "dot" com and we can work out a Talossan-language name for you.
Cheers,
Ben
|
|
|
|
Post by inksplash on Feb 6, 2005 2:18:41 GMT -6
I take offence to that remark, I AM NOT against gays and lesbian by any means, yet I do not support current proposed legislation. I am all FOR equality and my own opinion would be for the state to get out of the marriage bussiness all together. Let marriage be a strickly religious institution, where each church can decide whether to marry straights only, gays only or whatever. Why does the state have to regulate marriage anyway? As pointed out elsewhere, recognizing gay marriage does not and will not obligate unwilling churches to perform such ceremonies. As things stand now, gay couples can be "married" in a church of their choosing (my landlords are such a couple), but it has no LEGAL standing. Aside from certain financial circumstances, like the inability to file joint taxes, this lack means that if one partner or the other is injured in an accident or other misfortune and hospitalized, the other is NOT considered "immediate family", and can be DENIED ACCESS TO or even INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONDITION of their loved one on that basis. This is the sort of status "marraige" confers. This is what the battle is really about. Then, we get into issues like children, adopted or pre-existing. A hypothetical homophobic blood relative has MORE RIGHTS AND ENTITLEMENT towards custody of a hypothetical child in case of a hypothetical death (or even a vengeful suit brought by said homophobe) than the loving, committed partner who had a hand in raising that child. Churches, as private institutions, cannot be subjected to such lawsuits. I think any such couple would know better than to even ask a congregation leader that is dead set against gay marriage to perform the ceremony, and should know better than to attend a church that couldn't deal with them openly and fairly anyway. A legallly recognized marraige could be performed by any authorized person -- judge, ship's captain, whatever. Amenable pastors abound, no need to force the issue on a specific, unwilling one. The point is not to force The Church to recognize their status, but to have The Law recognize their status. Marriage is, at it's heart, a set of contracts, first between two people, and second with the community they live in. It is a proclamation, before the witnesses (if not the entire community, as was the case in rural villages -- and the Diety, if one is religious, which is NOT a requirement) that: 1. a household is being formed. 2. rescources (financial and otherwise) are being merged. 3. both parties will be faithful to each other, and that the community is expected to respect that, and to a certain extent help enforce that. 4. a promise that any children will be properly raised and provided for, that they will inherit the resources of this merger when the proclamants pass away. The legal aspects of this contract involve the household finances, and health and welfare of the members of the household, and of course, inheritance. Marriage existed long before the Church got involved. The early Roman Catholic church horned in on marriage, making it a "Holy Sacrament" as a way of controlling people's lives -- and more importantly, their finances. Pardon my Protestant cynicism, please. |
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Feb 6, 2005 5:58:14 GMT -6
Well said Gary!
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Feb 6, 2005 9:50:26 GMT -6
I make your words mine, Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Feb 6, 2005 16:21:19 GMT -6
I completely agree with the motives of for same-sex marriages and I support any and all initiatives to ensure that same-sex couple have at their chosing all the same rights of other heterosexual couples whether married or not. But there is other things to consider... Churches, as private institutions, cannot be subjected to such lawsuits. Actually, churches can't, but Ministers have been charged and convicted for discrimination for refusing to perform marriage. This is because when performing marriage, they act as agent of the state and are not permitted to discriminate in their decision whether or not to marry a couple. I would really hope so, but tell me how long before someone decide to stir things up and claim that their minister of that church that they have been attending for years refuse to marry them solely because they are gays. It will take a while, but it will happen. It will go through the courts and it will be decided that the legislation discriminate... etc... Exactly, and with the proposed legislation, those persons as well as Wedding Chapels operator, will not be able to refuse to marry same-sex couples contrary to their own beliefs, that would be discrimination. I agree which is why, I support that the state get out of the marriage bussiness altogether. We could institute something similar to some other countries where couples (same-sex and heterosexual) have to have a civil union (filling paperworks and oath) before any marriage (religious or otherwise). This way marriage is no longer an institution of the state having been replaced by the civil union. It would still be illegal for a clerk to refused to process the civil union based on discrimination but religious organisation, Ministers, Vessel Masters and Wedding Chapels would be only performing a ceremony as a bussiness deal, having the right to accept or refuse anyone at whim. If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I don't object against same-sex couples getting married. I am oppose to the proposed legislation to simply change the definition. If some of you believe that I am wrong and homophobic for beleiveing that or that I am not a real liberal, so be it. I beleive in protecting the rights of minorities, which is why I oppose the bill. |
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Feb 6, 2005 20:17:00 GMT -6
I do not buy the argument that churches will one day be forced to marry same sex couples against their will. This will NEVER happen, at least not in Canada.
Do I believe that churches should be willing to perform gay marriages? Yes. Do I believe that churches should be forced to perform gay marriages? No. This is a matter that should be left up to individual churches, I can think of several denominations who would most likely begin to marry same sex couples. Other churches, like the Anglican Church (my church) are discussing the issue of blessing same sex relationships, with some Dioceses already doing so.
Like I mentioned in an earlier post, this issue is not really any different than divorce. The Roman Catholic Church will not marry divorced persons, but yet the state has not forced the Church to do so, despite the fact that divorce is legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Feb 6, 2005 22:10:22 GMT -6
Like I mentioned in an earlier post, this issue is not really any different than divorce. The Roman Catholic Church will not marry divorced persons, but yet the state has not forced the Church to do so, despite the fact that divorce is legal. Sorry, Márcüs, but it is not quite the same. There is no discrimination in how the Catholic church deals with previously married individuals. Everyone has to go through the annulement rule if they wish to remarry. What I was talking about was saying YES to some and NO to others in the same situation simply because one couple is gay, that's discrimination. I am not questioning your own view Márcüs, I just think the government is finding the wrong solution to the wrong problem. I think it is time for the government to be out of the marriage bussiness. |
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Feb 7, 2005 4:39:54 GMT -6
Actually, there is discrimination in how the Roman Catholic Church (and other churches) deal with divorced persons. One of the prohibited grounds of discrimination is marital status. Marital status refers to the condition of being: single, legally married, common law spouse, widowed or divored.
Some churches also discriminate on the basis of religion. If one person does not belong to the church they must either convert or receive a special dispensation. Even in this day and age there are some churches that still discriminate on the basis of race.
In none of these cases, which normally would be considered discrimation, have churches been forced to go against their beliefs. Religious freedom will remain intact with the passage of this legislation. When and if someone can offer me clear proof that churches will be forced to marry same sex couples then I will gladly reconsider my support for the current bill in Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by misterkaygee on Feb 8, 2005 5:16:09 GMT -6
I must not have received your e-mail. If you could try again that would be great! Immigration Minister Sorry to be posting OT in the middle of this fascinating exchange, but I e-mailed you twice at <immigration@talossa-rt.com> . |
|
|
|
Post by markymark on Feb 8, 2005 6:03:37 GMT -6
I still have not received anything from you. I will be checking to see if something is wrong with the immigration e-mail address.
|
|
