The Town Hall Archives

alwaysHis324 · Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:25 pm Post subject:

I hate sin.

But I struggle with thinking that a homosexual is really just as much of a sinner as I was before Christ. For some reason homosexual sin seems "worse" to me. Even though in God's eyes all sin is sin.

However, I try to think of it like I do my cousin who is living with her boyfriend and has two children with him. Treating a homosexual the same way I treat my cousin, with love and compassion, and prayer for their salvation.

But I despise the homosexual agenda thats out there. Just this week a PBS show called "Postcards from Buster" featured a lesbian couple on the show. This "family" was not refered to as homosexual, they made no reference to it at all. But children are surprisingly sharp, wouldn't doubt they picked up on it. How sad.

Jonathan · Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:36 pm Post subject:

GusDeHaan · Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:39 am Post subject:

With the recent developments of same sex marrige legislation, in Canada , a perspective on the situation.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_050201.html

Church, state, and the same-sex debate

Feb. 1, 2005

Strippergate, the Gomery inquiry, the offshore equalization storm, and for today's feature, the same-sex marriage bill. When the Martin government is not walking through political mine fields, it's busy constructing them.

The compromise solution on same-sex is the extension of full benefits and status to same-sex couples, civil unions. And retaining the status and terminology of marriage to wherefore the majority of the globe and most of its history it's always been, to the union of male and female.

I think it's quite possible to take this position and be a reasonable person. The Martin government, however, has a very aggressive stance.

The Prime Minister, while on his Asian tour, for a moment suggested it could be an election issue, and his Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew has not too kindly told those churches who oppose it that they've no business in the debate. The lecture didn't extend to those churches who support the move. I suppose it's being a member of the high political class which exalts Mr. Pettigrew into the position of determining who and which institutions may or may not comment on what his government is doing.

But the separation of church and state is not quite the beautiful invention he thinks it is, if indeed he thinks it means that churches are forestalled from commenting on or attempting to influence the course of debate on a subject they perceive as affecting the moral life of their parishioners. In fact, and this will startle Mr. Pettigrew, they have no choice but to speak. It is their churchly duty. If the churches were to start asserting the right to issue passports or, for example, changing the equalization formula, then Mr. Pettigrew would be on perfectly logical ground. Passports and equalization are Caesar's territory and he's right to hold on to it. But the churches and religious people have a stake in this debate. They are rightly concerned that the passage of same-sex marriage legislation may evolve in to an insistence that they, the churches, will be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies once marriage has been redefined.

They take no comfort from the government's assurances that this will not be so, for it was the Liberal government's own Justice Minister in 1999, Anne McLellan, who during a debate on the very issue of marriage declared emphatically and unequivocally, I quote, "Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages."

Minister McLellan was on a roll that day, for she went on, and I quote again "I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

Five years later, this government today introduced legislation which revokes every syllable and even the spaces between the syllables of the Liberal Justice Minister's assurances. Today's legislation by the Martin government is not just an assertion of a new right. It is potentially the reduction of an older one. Religious liberties are as dear to Canadians as civil ones, and the minefield before the government now is the narrow path between them and as to where that path may lead. Well, as Ms. McLellan's words demonstrate so potently, government assurances on this topic just aren't enough. For The National, I'm Rex Murphy.

Jonathan · Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:00 pm Post subject:

Excellent article. Another example of how the church is on it's way to losing freedom of speech.

-Jonathan

Londoner · Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:17 am Post subject:

It's wrong because The Bible says so.

Screech · Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:07 pm Post subject:

Londoner · Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:30 pm Post subject:

Jonathan · Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject:

Londoner · Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:58 pm Post subject:

Gandalf · Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:29 am Post subject: