What a subject of conversation.  But if you read in the title, you will find that the word ‘flesh’ is very conflicting into the matters of the heart.  Let us assume that the flesh was non-existent.  Wouldn’t we all be good friends?  Would we feel a need of bondage?  We leave you to answer this question to yourself and when you look at the power of the flesh versus the power of two hearts, no need to say the flesh would win. 

It matters not if it is between men, between women, between man and woman, or however.  The flesh is a dividing factor between friends; where the friendship must disappear into the physical activities.  The proof of this is that two good friends never even think of entering into marriages, much less in the flesh.  But their friendship will outlast any structure of marriage and the proof is in the percentage of successful marriages versus divorce. 

If we look at the so-called successful marriages, let us be honest.  To this day, I have not found after asking thousands of people: “Would you repeat your life again, in marriage?”   The answer, not once has come, “Definitely.” or in a swift “Yes”.  The closest to this that I’ve heard is:  “Well maybe I would.” Or “Never.”   Mostly, I hear never.  Not once have I heard: “I would do it today”. 

Just to make a point, how many people would re-pronounce their vows because of such an exciting love, a bond in a friendship without the encumbrance of the physical tortures?  Think about it for a second.  So now, as Governments and Churches, who is really qualified to define ‘marriage’?  The only person that would be so qualified would not be a religious person nor an extremely physical person.  It would have to be a pair of identical hearts in the shape of two people, undefined by sexuality, without the need of being bonded by a document; in order to guarantee that it is accomplished.  It would reflect into their joy, their mutual desire to merge in decisions, in actions and in success.  If we ask: “Are there such people?”  Who could come forward and tell us?

Do you remember at weddings where the Pastor or the Priest would say “If anyone knows any reason why these people should not be married, come forward now.”  Is there not someone at every marriage that isn’t questioning the longevity of this union because of knowing of differences between the two characters?

Why was marriage invented?  Well, if we were to ask Moses, he didn’t believe in it himself.  Because he argued with God to permit divorce or else marriage cannot hold.  Without being religious, (and please just read it without feeling that I come out with religion because I don’t) when Jesus said at his transfiguration: “Moses and Abraham, rejoice to see my day.”  They were also the ones (Moses & Abraham) who decided that man could give a certificate in divorce to the woman for any reason he wanted, just like it is today.  If this is not a statement of superiority, then nothing will be.  I know.  I got one of those certificates of divorce.  Two of them!  Imagine, should I frame it - a certification of my failure or should I say, our failure?  So since the Parliament of Canada under the Charter of Rights, wanting to protect the rights to marry to gay people, but without justifying it with a new recipe guaranteeing the success of these marriages, since they weren’t able to provide it for other marriages. 

If I ask you a question, would you want to see your daughter married just because she wants to be married, because she thinks she’s in love and it’s forever, do you not have a duty as parents to guarantee their happiness?  Just like a mother that leaves her child under 14 years old for more than two hours is labeled as an unfit mother and loses her child.  But the man could be gone for a year and nothing happens.  Was this explained to be right and just to the woman, before marriage?  If you are, as a woman, an obligation to the threat of becoming unfit for abandoning your children, but not the man, so who is more fit of the two to be in the marriage?  Since your laws say that she could be charged as unfit for leaving, so therefore, she bears more responsibility in the marriage than the man, because he could leave for no reasons at all.  Just like the certificate of divorce.

Perhaps we should ask the government, how come here are so few woman judges?  And I don’t mean woman that have become men in their thinking in order to fit the job, but those good women that you deem absolutely responsible for the well being of the children.  Should they not sit on the bench and have something to say to these men that are reaching out for their certificate as if they succeeded in their failure? 

Now imagine, two men together – their relationship.  But you will notice that in same-sex marriage there is one that tends to be the woman, perhaps replacing the mother of the other one who somehow wonders where she went wrong in the upbringing of her son or daughter.  To tell you honestly, and it is only to make a point, I truly believe that there would be much less violence in gay marriages then in what you call ‘straight’ and much less lusting IF the spirit is truly in the structure of camaraderie.  And if it is, they’d do better as roommates then trying the same structure that has failed in all marriages. 

We must, as a nation, not in the matter of a few sitting in the House of Commons trying to decide on the deliberation of the definition of marriage.  As we teach our children, marriage is something that one may never want to get out of because the friendship bondage between the two is the pillar that will make it stand.  Only once this is established, that by mutual agreement the sacredness of sharing bodies for the purpose of a child that would bear the essence of both parents, the little girl and the little boy.  And that together they may look at themselves grow.   Otherwise, the flesh will take over, as much in same-sex marriage; as what you call ‘straight’, that has all fallen apart.

If we as nation and as individuals, be it woman or man, have a dream of achieving true happiness; be it in marriage, friendship or family; we should open up throughout Canada conferences to establish the needs and desires of a structure of respect offered to every Canadian instead of looking for rushed decisions to put aside the issue in order to continue with other ventures (and remember that respect will never have immoralities within).  Let us give you a definition of immoralities, because we must begin by this before we can speak of a definition of marriage.

Immorality is when the physical of one overtakes the ability of the heart.  And if you have this in the form of desires, in lusting with your eyes or fantasizing perhaps by looking at the looks of one or their physical structures; that it moves your mind to physical desires; you have become immoral.  But in morality, one will restrain himself or herself in to preserving absolute control of the mind over matters, as we say; and then together, two people keeping apart the physical domination from the reverence of the heart and in such as friends, or as husband and wife you could foresee the qualities, the intelligence, the health, the security that you have within yourself that only when you have such, you could transmit them by physical communication, not loss of control. 

As we know, sexually transmitted diseases are nothing that anyone looks for.  But when you could really foresee physically transmitted intelligence, respect, health, security, wrapped up in the shell of love, you could immediately speak of the next generation with pride and not with shame; because the definition of pride in this instance is not being above someone, but that you have become one together.  Think about these.

We have an interest: the well being of this nation, as much to the gay people as any other one because my children, I wish for them to be recipient of the very things spoken about.  So by offering it to the nation, I am assuring a success of life of my children and yours, to be taking roots into a mind over matter.  In such, becoming truly children of God. 

We invite your comments and we open with this document, a gate where all should come in, if at all interested in achieving the ultimate of happiness in the structure of respect without physical domination over respect.

God bless you all and to the gays & lesbians, I’m not against you.  My heart is open to fathering the nation by enlisting everyone to the desires of happiness that this nation will receive.  And when you discover someone that loves you unconditionally, you could never beat this by conditional love.  So I love you my children and write back.  We want to heart from you!  We want to help you make sound decisions, without saying that you aren’t, but if together we discover that the mutual love that we share with each other’s heart is so overwhelming, perhaps then we’d both be in a better position to understand each other and to grow in each other’s heart.

To the Church:

Confrontations in the name of God are not warranted.  Jesus was the friend and remains the friend of the ones that you call ‘sinners’, and you must remember this.  So if you will be in the Army of Christ, you will look for those that you reject.  That is where your Ministry must be, rather than seeking those who don’t need help, not knowing that they do because they judge others.

Let us open wide the doors to love.  Let us open the Churches to the homosexuals and lesbians to come within, since the Churches are to be the fathers of the nation, and then by the power of love, of true fathers, all things will change.  Always in a better way, because you must remember that in a confrontation if anybody loses, nobody wins.  And when you make attempts to return to the subject, most of the time you’ll only remember the argument and not the subject; and in such you create permanent divisions.  The Missionaries who begun the work in this land so awkwardly, with the imperfections that we see today have still managed to give the knowledge of God to so many.  Isn’t it time that we turn that knowledge into a living thing, rather than spoken?

Canada will be the first united nation of all nations, where no one could acclaim leadership over the others.  The issues of same-sex marriage, if allowed to go to themselves: the Christians and the gay people would end up in a vicious physical confrontation.  This is the way that it is going and any Church that takes part in such and using the name of God as a basis for such statements are repeating the errors of the residential schools; where only by domination the others would be accepted.  It is unacceptable.  It is time that we re-learn what we think we know, because Christ would be sitting in the midst of homosexuals, drug addicts, alcoholics and whatever you point the finger to.  In a way, I agree that all people should be protected by the Charter of Rights against hatred, especially on the part of the people of God.  It is not a vote for gay marriages but it is a vote to protect all Canadians against hatred and all marriages should be re-considered, first by fixing the ones that are massively falling in the hand of Tribunals of divorce, rather than truly believing that God could fix anything.  If you don’t believe that, Churches should not be.  But I do believe it and many have come forward to the Mission to learn and re-strengthen their own love for themselves, since so many have partaken, like in the issue of gay marriages, to lessen the value of their own children because they weren’t identical twins in thoughts. 

Food for thoughts.

We welcome you and your comments and remember that the Church and Government need to start talking to each other in order to offer to the nation as a whole, a true structure of happiness, leaving aside the priorities of technology in the future, when the present is as the worst cancer in all of us dreaming of a tomorrow that we could begin today.  Lets leave aside the names of ‘universal’ and ‘united’ and ‘Anglican’ and ‘atheist’ and ‘communist’ and ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’ and ‘straight’ and ‘crooked’; however you want to use names, because everyone is called by names, other than human beings. 

Lets recognize this and we have the basis to being a dialogue and make it become a stepping-stone for all of mankind.

God bless you all.

Roger Poisson

We invite any comments or questions by e-mail sindone@shaw.ca, phone (204) 233-6087 or fax (204) 233-6217.