My opinion is irrelevant and I donnot want to argue what eactly Catholic means. All I want to say is this issue is very sensitive and very risky. No politicians want to risk their career talking about it, at least not in public, clearly and loudly.

dundas888(登达寺)

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Your post claims it is wrong and old-fashioned to be against the same-sex-bill. I have to disagree.

As I said before, this is not a Done-deal yet and the outcome still remains to be seen. This is not about wrong or right. Being against one bill does not mean wrong, and pro does not mean right. We have different choices and the right to speak out. If you want your voice heard, please contact your local MP, not me. :D

Here are some facts related to this hot issue that everybody should know:

1) The Catholic Church has claimed Chrétien acted against his religion. Chrétien said it is OK to support same sex marriage and be a Catholic same time.

2) In 1999, an overwhelming majority of MPs have voted FOR a bill that says the definition of Marriage should remain as a relationship between a man and a woman. Please contact your MP to find our what he/she has voted then and has he/she changed his mind now? and Why?

3) The Ontario court has ruled that not allowing same-sex marriage has violated the equity that is guaranteed in “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. The question is: would the law still have been formed and worded the same way as it is if the law makers had thought of this kind of controversy? Is it possible to change the law? Should we change the law or change the definition of Marriage based on the law?

4) After the court ruling, The government of Canada has asked the supreme court three questions including “does the parliament have the exclusive right to define Marriage?”. I remember the answer is YES. It has been reported that a forth question has been circulated among members that states “If the same sex couple is registered under a term other than Marriage, but with all the same legal and social rights, would that still violate the “Charter of Rights”?

5) The premier of Ontario Eve said last year he supports the same sex marriage. But now his tone is different ....

…

The list goes on and on.

Hopefully the point is clear: my personal position is totally irrelevant and people in Canada still have a choice to make.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

(#1335166@0)
Last Updated: 2003-8-17
This post has been archived. It cannot be replied.

rolia的名人里面如果有同性恋的话，有谁敢公开自己吗？ -chgmo(chgmo); 2003-8-15 (#1332805@0)

即使公开，也不过是一个虚幻的ID,没必要这样吧。 -benii(不知道); 2003-8-15 (#1332867@0)

所以我特别指明是“名人”呀。rolia的不少名人都是见过光的:)你搬运工也算是一个名人哟 -chgmo(chgmo); 2003-8-15 (#1332872@0)

桌子MM请勿误导. -dundas888(登达寺); 2003-8-15 {405} (#1332836@0)

您如果支持同性恋结婚,请尽管大声地喊. 但请您理解别人也有反对的自由.

现在这个所谓的新法律到底能否出台最后如何措辞还都是未知数. 作为都声称自己是天主教徒的克里田和下一个总理候选人MARTIN,居然不听从教皇的指示,让人怀疑他们对自己信仰的忠诚度比不上对权力的向往度.

说不定会引发一场信仰危机,也未可知.

如果有人希望能对这个事件施加影响(不管支持还是反对),要尽快给自己MP写信或发EMAIL. 自由党马上就要开会讨论了.

天主教徒就一定要听从教皇的指示？ -chgmo(chgmo); 2003-8-15 (#1332843@0)

Yes. :D // 基督教徒当然另当别论. 还听说伊斯兰教的组织也反对. -dundas888(登达寺); 2003-8-15 (#1332847@0)

有句西谚怎么说来着？上帝的归上帝，恺撒的归恺撒，政治和宗教的分离，才有了老美的立国之本，才有了世俗的意大利和宗教的梵地冈，妈妈米啊，你是在说克里田和MARTIN,居然“不听”从教皇的“指示”？ -table(桌子来了); 2003-8-15 (#1332845@0)

桌子，"妈妈米啊"是什么意思？前天你说的"Mamma mia"也是它吧？ -chgmo(chgmo); 2003-8-15 (#1332854@0)

可能因为不想用"My God"，或“我的天呀”，只好用来"Mamma Mia"代替，口可口可。 -table(桌子来了); 2003-8-15 (#1332875@0)

又来误导. 政教分离只是不让教庭直接参政或掌权,并不代表政客可以口是心非,或允许做政客的教徒违背自己的信仰. // Btw, 想给你MP写信要抓紧时间了. :D -dundas888(登达寺); 2003-8-15 (#1332856@0)

登达寺你是否会参加这个游行示威啊？反同性婚姻华人基督徒下周五赴渥太华游行 -table(桌子来了); 2003-8-15 (#1332878@0)

我不是教徒,也不会去. -dundas888(登达寺); 2003-8-15 (#1332910@0)

所有的信徒还要说相信地球是宇宙的中心呢，相信太阳是绕着地球转呢。教堂里都这么说，有几个是真的信呢？宗教是个人的信仰，政策是对所有人的规范。如果领导人的宗教信仰让他做出不公正的判断，那么他也不适合作为领导人。 -magicmirror(mirror); 2003-8-15 {22} (#1332935@0)
这和对权力的向往无关。

你听哪个教堂这么说的？布鲁诺都平反了，地球是中心的理论是是亚里士多德建立的，那时还没基督呢。 -vega_lee(非日本天津人); 2003-8-28 (#1348044@0)

作为教徒，总理可以“私下的”反对。但不能以此作为政策的制定。毕竟政策影响到的很多人不是教徒。这好像不矛盾啊。 -magicmirror(mirror); 2003-8-15 (#1332936@0)

到底还是明白人多啊！ -table(桌子来了); 2003-8-15 (#1332944@0)

你的原话：政教分离只是不让教庭直接参政或掌权，干涉一个政府的婚姻立法，是否已混淆世俗的和宗教的？间接参政就可以吗？今天天主教徒的首相听教皇的指示，明天喇嘛教的首相，岂不要听达赖喇嘛的？置更多的非教徒公民的权益于何处？ -table(桌子来了); 2003-8-17 (#1334899@0)

My opinion is irrelevant and I donnot want to argue what eactly Catholic means. All I want to say is this issue is very sensitive and very risky. No politicians want to risk their career talking about it, at least not in public, clearly and loudly. -dundas888(登达寺); 2003-8-17 {2096} (#1335166@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Your post claims it is wrong and old-fashioned to be against the same-sex-bill. I have to disagree.

As I said before, this is not a Done-deal yet and the outcome still remains to be seen. This is not about wrong or right. Being against one bill does not mean wrong, and pro does not mean right. We have different choices and the right to speak out. If you want your voice heard, please contact your local MP, not me. :D

Here are some facts related to this hot issue that everybody should know:

1) The Catholic Church has claimed Chrétien acted against his religion. Chrétien said it is OK to support same sex marriage and be a Catholic same time.

2) In 1999, an overwhelming majority of MPs have voted FOR a bill that says the definition of Marriage should remain as a relationship between a man and a woman. Please contact your MP to find our what he/she has voted then and has he/she changed his mind now? and Why?

3) The Ontario court has ruled that not allowing same-sex marriage has violated the equity that is guaranteed in “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. The question is: would the law still have been formed and worded the same way as it is if the law makers had thought of this kind of controversy? Is it possible to change the law? Should we change the law or change the definition of Marriage based on the law?

4) After the court ruling, The government of Canada has asked the supreme court three questions including “does the parliament have the exclusive right to define Marriage?”. I remember the answer is YES. It has been reported that a forth question has been circulated among members that states “If the same sex couple is registered under a term other than Marriage, but with all the same legal and social rights, would that still violate the “Charter of Rights”?

5) The premier of Ontario Eve said last year he supports the same sex marriage. But now his tone is different ....

…

The list goes on and on.

Hopefully the point is clear: my personal position is totally irrelevant and people in Canada still have a choice to make.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

这个, MM你忒前卫 -win(秋天的菠菜); 2003-8-15 (#1332846@0)

桌子是MM? -chgmo(chgmo); 2003-8-15 (#1332848@0)

一直以为桌子是个劲头十足的小子，却才知道是个MM，真令人跌破眼镜，幸好今天去WAL-MART又买了一副。 -ddmzd(满意得直哼哼); 2003-8-15 (#1332981@0)

桌子不但是MM,还是一个美艳非常的MM呢 -win(秋天的菠菜); 2003-8-28 (#1348016@0)

谢谢ＤＤ，不是太前卫了，是对所有被歧视被剥夺了正当权益的弱势族群的反思，可惜不少身为少数民族的海外华人体会不到！ -table(桌子来了); 2003-8-15 (#1332849@0)

俺怎么觉得这篇文章跟同性恋立法根本就联系不到一起呢. -lazycat(落花人独立); 2003-8-15 (#1332853@0)

嘿嘿，这篇有关，请见连接， -table(桌子来了); 2003-8-15 (#1332859@0)

感觉跟FLG有点想. -lazycat(落花人独立); 2003-8-15 (#1332869@0)

not agree，他们应该用新词 -linshell(shell); 2003-8-16 {275} (#1334662@0)

婚姻从来就是异性的。如果同性的人想生活在一起，no problem, their freedom, 但是请不要用“婚姻”这个词，而应该创造一个新词来表示这种关系，另外创建新的法规，仪式，誓词什么的。明明不是一类而硬要归为一类，很是别扭，同性的恋人，为什么誓要模仿一对异性人呢。大家的反感，应当是来源此。

原先我也同意给她们/他们的关系另取个名的主意，干吗非要复制异性婚姻的言正名顺呢？后来看看了些同性婚姻支持者的说法，却原来是她们/他们不想做二等公民，恩，看样子，想另类都不是那么容易另类的啊。嘿嘿 -table(桌子来了); 2003-8-17 (#1334872@0)

所有的女人都穿超短裙, 世界依然是这个世界. 所有的女人都是同性恋, 就没有这个世界了. 所以...... -99999(老猫); 2003-8-16 (#1334754@0)

@San Francisco

My opinion is irrelevant and I donnot want to argue what eactly Catholic means. All I want to say is this issue is very sensitive and very risky. No politicians want to risk their career talking about it, at least not in public, clearly and loudly.

Replies, comments and Discussions:

More Topics