Brent,
Words have a meaning; a hate crime does not consist of publishing an article. There’s no murderer and victim here.
It’s pretty interesting that you consider someone “with urges to molest children” has someone who “has demons to work on”, but when it comes to your urge to be married and that you recognize as a sin, you want the world to adapt to your view. Why do you refuse to apply the same morals in both cases? You demonstrated you have them, citing coveting your neighbor’s wife, and not killing.

Justin,
You want to live with your companion and have taxes, property rights, and the rest of social benefits that heterosexuals have, that’s fine. Call it what it is: a “civil union”.
You want to use “creative solutions” to procreate, that’s fine too, just recognize that you are going against nature’s way. Procreation was designed between a man and a woman. Notice I didn’t talk about religion. It’s just the nature of things.
Thirdly, normalizing gay union might seem to you like its strengthening marriage because you feel your relationship is a strong bond that can spawn the nucleus of a family, much better than the average American couple, but you’re also forgetting that what you’re really doing is normalizing a situation that’s immoral. Again, this is not on a religious base, but from a natural perspective.
Fourth, you believe in the separation of church and state, that’s perfect, so let’s keep it that way. Let churches deal with marriages, and the state deal with “civil union”. By the way, when I get married, I still need to go get my civil union recognized…
Lastly, as for whether or not the church should change its stance on same sex marriage, I’ll tell you one thing. He made his views known a long time ago, whether you decide to recognize and live that is up to you, but a church that changes its moral based on the will of the people, not on the will of god is lacking he very base of its faith: god. Is that the church you seek?

Michael,
I agree with you on the fact that the bible is not the moral compass everyone use and therefore can’t have the same weight for everyone. However, there are several things you need to keep in mind. When you (and I mean you, Michael) use the term gay and marriage together, you encroach on my freedom of religion, that defines marriage as the recognition of the union of a men and a woman by God. By the way, this definition is pretty universal. Notice, I didn’t use any literature. I’m very willing to give you what you seek, the civil rights and the right to a different sexuality, but you have to recognize my rights too. So what don’t you use the term “civil union” which is much more appropriate to your situation.

Kiera O’ Brian,
Thank you for becoming a citizen. As for the laws of humans, they should be based on morals, not on what Hollywood thinks, or what’s politically convenient. Whether you want to recognize that a lot of our American values are derived from our Judeo-Christian faith is your choice. But if you lack the morals, you will never agree with good laws or understand them. I’m not here to judge, but I do want you to give the right value to law based on values.

Our dear friend Mr Crowe seems unaware that in the Constitution there lies not only
a FREEDOM OF RELIGION but also a definitive statement ordering the separation of CHURCH AND STATE.

So please, let us all remind the homophobic (and as suggested, possibly self -loathing closet case) SOB that his god has no place in a discussion about the laws of humans.

Because Christians support equal rights for all Canadians (indeed, all humans). The “special rights” argument is patently false – this is obviously a clear case of all citizens being treated exactly equally with respect to all of the societal approbations that are associated with marriage: inheritance, taxation, hospital visitation rights etc. What is special about gays and lesbians being granted the same rights as heterosexual couples already have?
Because Christians have long benefited from the freedom of religion in this country, and would want to continue to respect that in the future. Even if you personally don’t approve of same-sex marriage, you might at least recognize that there are several other denominations who are in favour of same-sex marriage: the Society of Friends, Metropolitan Community Church, Lambda Christian Church, and the United Church of Canada are only four Edmonton examples. To deny any religious groups’ belief to practice same-sex marriage in Canada violates a belief in the freedom of religion for all.
Because modern Christians realize that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Often a primary objection to same-sex marriages is that they cannot bear children. Not only is this narrow-minded and untrue (many creative solutions are available to the same-sex couple that desires to raise children), it’s a double-standard. No one tests heterosexuals for their fertility or desire to raise children before determining their suitability for marriage – on the contrary, churches today regularly marry couples known to be infertile (post-menopausal women being only one example) Inasmuch as any heterosexual couple that has remained childless has been recognized as married by the church, it is hypocritical to resort to this fallacious logic in the same-sex marriage debate.
Because Christians should support marriage in all of its forms. Some claim that same-sex marriage is an attack on family values, but this is incorrect. On the contrary, it is an attempt by GLBT people to be legally recognized as having families in the first place. It is a non sequitur to claim that only the “traditional” nuclear family model is legitimate when less than half of Canadian families conform to this model currently anyways. Same-sex marriage can be seen as enhancing and strengthening marriage instead of the opposite.
Because Christians realize that the Church has been discriminatory in the past and would seek amends for that. Formerly the Church denigrated “homosexual promiscuity” without making available any other option (a recognized covenanted relationship). The Christian support of same-sex marriage thus can end a hypocritical position of the Church and give the Church more relevance to contemporary society. Many agree that Christians should be opposed to discrimination in any form. The “have-your-relationships-but-don’t-call-it-marriage” argument is specious as it promotes a South African-type apartheid: the “same water coming from different fountains” is not equal. As the American Supreme Court has decided “separate but equal” is not.
Because Christians realize that marriage has never been a static institution, and therefore there is no reason that it should be now. From its early origin as a property exchange, to a method of ensuring peace between nations, to being recognized as a church function only in the thirteenth century, to the recent questioning of the “God-given” roles for men and women, the institution of marriage has always been in a state of flux. Things once illegal, such as miscegenation and the marriage of the mentally handicapped, are now permitted. To arbitrarily decide that now marriage has evolved as far as it should according to an 1960’s definition is to deny any possible subsequent influence of the Holy Spirit in our world
Because Christians support the separation of Church and State. Hardly anyone believes these days that the Church should define the law in this country – this position is ignorant of the centuries of problems that that historical situation created. In accordance with the freedom of religion in Canada, modern Christians realize that the insertion of the Christian God into government only spells trouble for those who (everyone agrees) have the right NOT to believe in that God. Christians do not want their denomination to dictate law for the rest of the country.
Because Christians have long known that the Church should not determine legal policy. Further to the above, Christians universally believe in following one’s own conscience, even when that entails opposing the official policy of one’s church. Catholics believe that each person has a solemn moral obligation to adhere to the dictates of his or her conscience (even if that conscience is erroneous), over and above the dictates of the Church. As Cardinal Ratzinger has written: “Only the absoluteness of conscience is the antithesis to tyranny.” Thus for Catholics convicted that all Canadians should be treated equally and that the Canadian freedom of religion should be respected as above, not to promote the legalisation of same-sex marriages is sinful. Within Protestantism the case is even easier, as the entire tradition is ultimately based upon an individual acting according to the dictates of his conscience by nailing up 95 thesis to the wall of a Wittenberg church, an act commemorated in most Protestant churches this week To stand up and challenge the dominant authority is a practice firmly rooted and celebrated in Protestant tradition. Even those opposed to homosexuality in general can logically support same-sex marriage as a decidedly “lesser evil” than the alternative.
Because Christians realize that to hold up marriage as for heterosexuals only is not only discriminatory, it also borders on idolatry. Just as the Pharisees in Jesus’ day were maligned for counting their dill seeds while neglecting justice and mercy (Mathew 23:23), Christians today realize that marriage was created for humankind, not the opposite. Jesus’ words in Mark 2:27 are an interesting parallel to the contemporary situation. Marriage is a tool for developing honest, voluntary, long-lasting and mutually accountable relationships between two people, and Christians realize that that is a laudable goal for two people of any gender and seek to promote that.
Because Christians believe in the supremacy of God, not the supremacy of government. Even those who consider homosexual behaviour to be sinful can believe in the equality of all people under the government. Christians realize that many sins are not covered by the Criminal Code, nor should they be, as they are more matters of individual conscience. Ultimately, Christians can take solace in the fact that all will be judged fairly before God, and leave it to God to do the judging. In the meantime, one can work toward the most equitable society possible on this earth: this is what Jesus would have us do.
In yet another reason, educated Christians are also aware of the inherent difficulties in defining marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman: Olympic Committees and lawmakers alike realize the surprising impossibility of legally defining the terms “man” and “woman.” True, for the majority of the population these things are self-evident, but a universal law applying to all Canadians must also take into account the 1 in 1,000 babies that are born intersexed (with anatomical, hormonal, or chromosomal differences that render them unable to conclusively determine a child’s gender, let alone subsequent questions of orientation). The modern world is painfully beginning to realize that nature does not boil down into binary categories nearly as simply as we might like it to. The artificial dichotomy on sex and gender will be one of the final barriers to post-modern thinking to be lifted. If Christians are to seek justice in the world for all people this needs to include transgender individuals and intersexed people as well.

Instead of appearing reluctant or divided, the Christian church should be among the leaders in taking a progressive and prophetic stance in this matter. By doing this not only would the Church be thus opening itself up to the moving of the Holy Spirit in the world, but this would also enable it to regain a sense of relevancy to contemporary society. It is only through supporting same-sex marriage that the Christian Church will be able to live up to its own standard of communicating the unconditional love of God and the radical inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire world.

This is not a bashing of religion, but rather a celebration of the diversity that is “America”.

And I’m not saying that in vain. I really mean it. “O my god please come and strike down this demonic blasphemer charly!”

It’s amazing to me how you think that big words and the pseudo-ability to morph the true word of the bible give you the answers you are claiming to have. Marriage is not some man made scheme to control other men. It is the way in which god has made us. We bond, then we share and speak our bond before god and all and then an ordained member of god’s community bonds us before god. I don’t know why I am even bothering with your pompus ass but for your information Marriage PREDATES recorded history! Maybe the word “marriage” only goes back as far as the middle ages but our sun and moon used to be called something else too.

They say it is wrong for Men to marry men because it is a sin to lay with another man. But that is like saying it is wrong to Worship god before all others just because you are coveting your neighbors wife. May god have mercy on those who wish to distort his word to their purposes

People (gay and straight alike) need to start being honest. If your a sinner, admit it! and then work on it! God has made all kinds of people with different challenges to overcome, some people are born with urges to molest children and some people are born with urges to kill and everyone has to overcome thier demons, the whole leigon of them we are born with. To say that marrige isn’t important is just a rationalization you’ve made up to try and sidestep your demons but it won’t work they will still be there. I love men and I admit it I would just like the freedom to be married to my lover so that I can stop sinning in that way at least. Plus it’s not even about that for some people, some people have lovers from other countries that they want to become citizens. They should have the same right as the rest of the sinners