justin_lun

加拿大是太注重于人的自由了。将人权看得比道德、伦理更重要。只知道“我们有自由去做这、我们有自由去做那。”却忘记了人的自由必须要有约束，才会搞出了像同性恋合法化和仇恨法这些法案。

mememe

真係好似成個版都係反同性戀0架噃。喺度問問:唔知無宗教信仰既人既意見發唔發表得呢?

justin_lun

麻烦版主回答网友mememe的问题，我不敢说。

bengrace50

Originally posted by mememe at 2005-7-20 23:40:
真係好似成個版都係反同性戀0架噃。喺度問問:唔知無宗教信仰既人既意見發唔發表得呢?

言論自由嗎！  只要合理又唔係教壞人的道理點解唔講得喔！ 不過唔可以誹謗宗教。

olaf

Quote:
Originally posted by mememe at 2005-7-20 23:40:
真係好似成個版都係反同性戀0架噃。喺度問問:唔知無宗教信仰既人既意見發唔發表得呢?  

言論自由，並不是成個版都係反同性戀0架噃...........

反對不是錯，贊成亦無防...........
bengrace50 兄所言：唔好誹謗他人宗教就 ok............
我估版主亦不會阻撓大家討論

mememe

人對自己冇接觸過既事情或事物(如同性戀)產生偏見同恐懼係人之常情。

之不過﹐單單因為自己價值觀或信仰跟同性戀有衝突就要求政府用法律禁止其他人行使佢哋既權利就顯得有0的霸道。

婚姻制度本身就係一個法律上既關係﹐神聖與否則見人見智。

Gretzky

Originally posted by mememe at 2005-10-23 11:47 PM:
婚姻制度本身就係一個法律上既關係﹐神聖與否則見人見智

But marriage/union of man and woman exist in tribal groups (many in North Africa, South America and PNG) that have no civil laws wor.

The 'holiness' of a marriage is not about organized religions. it is about how one people group/culture perceives and defines marriage/union of man and woman.

Take away the organize religious factor, I think we can still say marriage/union btw. a man an woman 'holy'. I think the sociologists here would back it up.



I looked at the issue (legalization of homosexual marriage) much more than a moral and ethnical struggle. It has a lot to do with the rise of religious humanism and relativism in our post-modern world, and the politicans are 'forced' to play with the trend here....this is very similiar to the cloning issue back in the late 90s...and of course, cloning is much more sensitive and one-sided since it affects the essence and very existence of mankind.

justin_lun

剛剛相反﹐不是宗教信仰者要求政府用法律禁止同性戀﹐而是同性戀要求政府用法律
強迫宗教信仰者改變信仰中婚姻的定義。

Gretzky

Originally posted by mememe at 2005-10-23 11:47 PM:
單單因為自己價值觀或信仰跟同性戀有衝突就要求政府用法律禁止其他人行使佢哋既權利就顯得有0的霸道。

Agree with you.


The society we live in is not a monotheistic society. Religions have their ABSOLUTE right to protest the legalization of gay marriage, but I don't think we can stop the gov't. In a sense, the gov't has to look after everyone's rights (including homosexuals). How can temples/synagogues expect a non-religious rulership to establish laws that protects their views?

Having said that...religious groups have the rights to be concerned about this...what if one gay couple shows up at a temple/synagogue and demand the monk/rabbi to officiate their marriage (remember common law gives monks/pastors/rabbis rights and responsibilities to officiate marriages)? If the officiator says no, he/she would do so againist the law, if he/she says yes, he/she would violate the very doctrines in the respective group.

And that is the fine line in this issue...can the legistlative body of the countries (Canada/US/HK/Netherlands/Spain) draws up a law that protects the automony of the religious sects yet gives the homosexuals their rights in marriage?

I don't know if we can really do that....

mememe

Gretzky兄,

But marriage/union of man and woman exist in tribal groups (many in North Africa, South America and PNG) that have no civil laws wor.

Actually, polygamy was widely accepted in many parts of the world (most certainly in ancient Asia and Africa) prior to Western and Christian influence, and it was common practice among royalties in most if not all societies. As a matter of fact, it is STILL accepted in many parts of the world (think Islamism).

The 'holiness' of a marriage is not about organized religions. it is about how one people group/culture perceives and defines marriage/union of man and woman.

1) I don't recall mentioning organised religion.
2) From your definition "The 'holiness' of a marriage is not about organized religions. it is about how one people group/culture perceives and defines marriage/union of man and woman.". It would be fair to say that homosexuals as a group perceives and defines marriage/union of same-sexed partners, therefore it may be defined thus.

Please note that "holiness", if that has any bearing on this matter we are considering (and I strongly suspect it doesn't), is not monopolised by heteroexuals.

Take away the organize religious factor, I think we can still say marriage/union btw. a man an woman 'holy'. I think the sociologists here would back it up.

May I ask - where does "holiness" come into play in the issue of sexual preference?

Holiness is a religious term - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness
Sexual preference is a social and possibly a biological issue.
Marriage between same-sexed partners is a legal and possibly a political issue.

Note: Perhaps your subjective assumption that religion guiding the world is not shared by everyone.

Note: If you must bring religion into this arena, perhaps you should read this first (especially in relations to how polygamy is regarded by different religions): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Note: In case you are still wondering, there is no "norm" set in place for human society in relations to polygamy. I think sociologists will back this up.

I looked at the issue (legalization of homosexual marriage) much more than a moral and ethnical struggle. It has a lot to do with the rise of religious humanism and relativism in our post-modern world, and the politicans are 'forced' to play with the trend here....this is very similiar to the cloning issue back in the late 90s...and of course, cloning is much more sensitive and one-sided since it affects the essence and very existence of mankind.

Question - What is wrong with religious humanism? I find "the rise of Fundamentalist Christianity in our post-modern world" a MUCH more worrying issue.
Question - When have politicians not been "forced" to "play with the trend" anywhere? (Think Bush)

You seem to see a problem where I see a phenomenon.

Religions have their ABSOLUTE right to protest the legalization of gay marriage, but I don't think we can stop the gov't.

I don't think you understand the purpose of laws. Laws are not made to merely reflect the opinions of the majority, but a much more important function of laws is to protect the rights of minorities. Laws are there protect, so that the numerous and the powerful cannot discriminate and oppress the few and the weak.

Human has the intrinsic freedom to do whatever they want to themselves as long as it does not involve affecting or harming of others. This is the basis on which laws are made - to protect this very freedom to speak and act, and this of course also includes the rights to enter into a legal union like heterosexual couples.

Now I just KNOW that some fool will skip everything I just wrote and bring up a stupid example like "Oh, but then we will slide down the slippery slope into legalising beastiality and pedophilia!".

Well, no, that won't happen.

It won't happen because the law protects those in the society whom we consider to be unable (without the ability) to discern right from wrong, as well as those who could be easily taken advantage of (i.e. animals and children). Thus the age of consent. Thus we won't legalise beastiality because ANIMALS CAN'T GIVE CONSENT TO SEX. (I know someone will miss this even thought I wrote it in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS)

what if one gay couple shows up at a temple/synagogue and demand the monk/rabbi to officiate their marriage (remember common law gives monks/pastors/rabbis rights and responsibilities to officiate marriages)?

WHICH common law?

Marriage is a LEGAL issue. Religious ceremonies are, in most societies, non-legal issues. Note that when I refer to most societies, I am referring to Islamism, where religion and law are intertwined. Not so in a Western, secular society.

From my understanding, a government department called (or equivalent to) Department of Birth, Death, and Marriage is responsible for issuing the marriage certificate and therefore "officiate" the marriage. Religion has nothing to do with it.

To answer you questions, if a gay couple goes into a religious setting and asks the religious leader to carry out the marriage rituals, but the religious doctrines does not allow, or has no rituals or ceremony applicable to a same-sex union, then the ritual/ceremony simply cannot be done! End of story! The couple in question would be analogous to going into a shop that stocks no cheese, and be told that it has no cheese to sell.

I don't know where you get your legal information, but it is simply inaccurate. Not to say that I don't make mistakes (do correct me if I'm wrong), but half of your claims are false and the other half are biased subjective opinions.

Please research before reply.