Gay Marriage; Separation of Church and State

@sozobe,

Apologies - the concept of "selective" churches is indeed fairly central to the argument, and it was my mistake for not being so clear. Is there anything else I can expand upon/include to make the discussion more clear/productive?

As for the Iowa issue, it looks as though most would want it handled as a secular government job - though the IFPC and ADF don't. The first comment on the blog certainly raises a point, however snarky.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

Mind sharing a bit of detail/stories? It sounds interesting - I only lived in Canada for two years, so not quite long to become overly acquainted with the healthcare system there.

1 Reply

Well, from the way I see it, marriage should not be an issue to be decided by the churches, as it is now. Technically, if the U.S. if founded on the principals of a separation between church and state, then it shouldn't matter. If the federal government votes to allow it, the churches don't have to condone it. However, I doubt the federal government will ever have the opportunity to pass it with the amount of Christians that have influence within the Senate and HoR. There's not much way around this snarl, because the majority of the U.S. is of the Christian religion even though it shouldn't control this much of the federal power.

1 Reply

@imjustsaying,

Do you think the issue will ever be solved separately from the religious institutions within the States? I know, I know - separation of church and state, they're separate issues.
BUT: as "easy" as that would make this, will it ever happen?

1 Reply

@TheArtfulDodger,

No. I don't believe we will ever achieve a separation of church and state per se. I feel like if religions other than Christianity began to have greater influence within the populations, that some laws and restrictions may alter to a certain extent. However, this country was founded for religious freedom, and therefore, even with a so-called "separation of church and state" many things within the country are still influenced by religion. Even though people are said to have the right to practice whatever religion they desire, religion still looms over laws because of the people practicing it who are members of the government.

0 Replies

Marriage has always been a means by which property is conveyed to the next generation and has nothing to do with anything other than property rights.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Do you mind substantiating that claim for us?

1 Reply

@TheArtfulDodger,

Consider that during the Middle Ages only the first son was allowed to marry so that the family lands could be handed down intact to the next generation.

You might consult THe Knight, The Lady and The Priest by Georges Duby.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zjSxzaqMGr0/Tai8NzJL6eI/AAAAAAAAB94/-RnGw29NNFs/s1600/z111pol548.bmp

So they dont have gay sex ?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Dare I beg the relevance to the thread?

1 Reply

@TheArtfulDodger,

Isn't it obvious? The goal of marriage was never about protection of the children or about one man with one woman. The goal of marriage was to protect property right and to assure that the property could be passed down. Essentially, the quest for gay marriage is a quest for the same property rights. That is not the sole impetus but it is a large part of the reason why gays want to have legally recognized marriages.

BTW, the CHurch initially disapproved of marriage per se as a lifestyle choice. However, since marriage was necessary and since there was no civil authority over marriage, the early Church allowed couples to be married at the church door, never inside the sanctuary.

The CHurch was only stepping into the void: people demanded marriage and there was no civil authority to grant it.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

I know that's supposed to be a zinger of some sort but actually it fits right in. Correct, they have sex. It doesn't need the "gay" modifier.

1 Reply

@TheArtfulDodger,

it's been awhile since i read the stories, i'll see if i can find links

1 Reply

@djjd62,

http://www.consciencelaws.org/repression/repression-017.html
the above link details a series of articles about an Ontario Doctor and his faith based issues with birth control

Barrie physician won't offer the pill, could lose his licence
The Barrie Examiner, February 21, 2002
Reproduced with permission
Cheryl Canning

A Barrie doctor could lose his licence to practise medicine because of his religious beliefs.

Dr. Stephen Dawson faces a discipline committee at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in April because he refused to prescribe birth control pills to unmarried women.

"If a Christian physician must forsake his religious beliefs to maintain his medical licence, we cannot delude ourselves to believe we live in a free country," said Dawson.

Last summer, four female patients made formal complaints to the college, citing Dawson's refusal to prescribe birth control to the "unmarried" women as the reason, he said.

Dawson believes that when a doctor prescribes birth control pills to an unmarried woman, he unwittingly promotes sex outside of marriage, because he removes the fear of pregnancy.

In a letter addressed to his patients, Dawson quotes warnings from Ezekiel 3:18-21: "When you do not warn nor dissuade an unrighteous man from his evil ways, he will lose his soul for his iniquity, and his blood will be on your hands. Yet if you do warn him and he does not change from his evil ways, he will lose his soul, but you will at least save your own soul."

Dawson said he was advised he should have referred the patients to another doctor to prescribe the pill, but he feels that because the pill doesn't require a referral to a specialist, the patients were free to find another doctor on their own.

Kathryn Clarke, the spokesperson for the college of physicians, said after a review of the previous 10 years' discipline reports, she doesn't believe the college has had to address a similar situation.

"I don't know of any other case like this," said Clarke.

Although it is not specifically detailed in the college's regulations that doctors' must prescribe certain medications (that may interfere with their religious beliefs), Clarke doesn't describe the action as falling into a grey area.

"There is no precedent, I know it's not written down, the standards are more general in nature - they're not that specific."

Clarke says the committee determines what the standards are once evidence has been presented during the hearing.

So until the committee actually meets, Dawson has only been loosely charged with 'professional misconduct in that he failed to meet the overall moral and professional standard of care.'

The disciplinary committee is comprised of three doctors and two members of the public. They have several options when it comes to disciplining doctors.

The doctor can be reprimanded, his licence could be suspended for a period of time, or they could impose certain terms and conditions on his licence, or revoke his licence.

"Based upon the allegations, we will present evidence to prove those allegations and his lawyer will defend those accusations," Clarke said.

The Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics reads 'When a physician's religious or moral conscience alone prevents him from recommending some form of therapy, he will so acquaint the patient.'

Dr. James Robert Brown, a professor of science and religion at the University of Toronto, said he agrees with prosecuting a doctor with that sort of conflict. "Suppose someone (doctor) said, 'I'm uncomfortable with (treating) a minority,' I'd say, 'So long scum'," said Brown.

Brown believes performing abortions and offering other forms of contraception are necessary and if Dawson won't perform them, then, Brown added, 'Fine - just resign from medicine and find another job."

"Religious beliefs are highly emotional - as is any belief that is effecting your behaviour in society. You have no right letting your private beliefs effect your public behaviour."

At this point, Dawson may back down a little on his stand for religious freedom.

After speaking with his lawyer earlier this week, the college has suggested he write letters to the four women, apologizing for what might have been perceived as an "overzealous" approach to their request for oral contraceptives. If he does, he feels they might reconsider their professional misconduct charges.

However, he is still tossing around the prospect of how he could inform prospective clientele of his desire not to prescribe the pill, provide abortions, offer the-morning-after pill to unmarried women, or prescribe Viagra (a sex enhancement drug) to unmarried men.

"I'm willing to compromise," said Dawson.

But Father Tom Lynch, a professor of St. Augustine Seminary at the University of Toronto, said that might not be necessary. Lynch said conscience clauses are pretty typical.

"He has a right in terms of not doing anything that goes against his conscience," he said.

more articles on the resolution of this in the link at top, i hadn't heard this last story but it's just seems so typical

Dawson's licence revoked for sexual misconduct
Sean Murphy *
Administrator, Protection of Conscience Project
On 9 May, 2005, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoked Dr. Dawson's registration as a physician for having engaged in the sexual abuse of a married female patient. He was ordered to appear before a panel to be reprimanded and to pay costs to the College in the amount of $2,500.00. A summary of the judgement is available on the College website.

The Globe and Mail reported that Dawson did not dispute the allegations that he had engaged in sexual activity with the patient, including oral sex and masturbation, in November and December, 1999. Dawson was, at that time, separated from his wife, and the patient was having severe marital problems. A statement by Dawson, quoted in the report, indicates that he ended the affair because his faith had become increasingly important to him, " that he felt compelled to reconcile with his spouse, and . . .encouraged Patient A to do the same." He continued to see patient until 2002. A victim impact statement from the patient indicated that Dawson used bible study as an excuse to establish the relationship with her, and that the incident had such an effect on her that she considered suicide a year after the affair ended.

0 Replies

Wow . . . amazing . . . this entire thread so far contains no mention of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Federal government defined marriage in 1996.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Just feeling the depth here...they dont have gay sex....do they have gay rights ? Do they have gay pride ? Do they have a gay marde gras ? Do they call themselves gay ? Do others call them gay ?

Quote:

Correct, they have sex.

So sticking a cock in an arse is sex.....what about if the person is dead ? What about if it is an animal ? What about masturbation ? Is that sex ? Where do you draw the line as to what is sex and what has missed the boat ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

If the cock is stuck in a female arse is that gay sex? Why or why not?

Really doesn't have to be very complicated.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Yes it is gay sex.....how could you describe it as sex ?

Quote:

sex
–noun
1. either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.

2. the sum of the structural and functional differences by which the male and female are distinguished, or the phenomena or behavior dependent on these differences.

3. the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another, or its manifestation in life and conduct.

4. coitus.

5. genitalia.

–verb (used with object)
6. to ascertain the sex of, especially of newly-hatched chicks.

—Verb phrase
7. sex up, Informal.
a. to arouse sexually: The only intent of that show was to sex up the audience.
b. to increase the appeal of; to make more interesting, attractive, or exciting: We've decided to sex up the movie with some battle scenes.

—Idiom
8. to have sex, to engage in sexual intercourse.

Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English < Latin sexus, perhaps akin to secāre to divide (see section)

Nothing about gay sex is sex.....perhaps thats because they take it in turns.....daisy chains excepted....

1 Reply

@Ionus,

If a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman engage in anal intercourse it's gay sex?

Then the phrase has no meaning.

3 Replies

@sozobe,

Quote:

If a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman engage in anal intercourse it's gay sex?

What do you see it as ?

Quote:

Then the phrase has no meaning.

Sex has no meaning ? Perhaps you are doing it wrong .

1 Reply

Gay Marriage; Separation of Church and State

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know