LGBTories encouraging Conservatives to change same-sex marriage stance

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,248
2,879
113
Toronto, ON
Given this is a dead topic in Canada (it will not be revisited), it makes no sense for them to continue to have it in the books. For me, if I honestly thought they would act on this, I would not consider them as a choice at all.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
Given this is a dead topic in Canada (it will not be revisited), it makes no sense for them to continue to have it in the books. For me, if I honestly thought they would act on this, I would not consider them as a choice at all.

They're just trying to butter both sides of the bread.....keep the small but vocal social conservatives happy by making it an issue but placate the more socially progressive members of the party by acknowledging that it is, as you say, a dead topic in Canada.

For me, this is when politics gets really, really boring. They're talking, as most politicians do, out of both sides of their face in an attempt to make everybody happy and what they say essentially means nothing.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,281
3,999
113
Edmonton
Dixie, are you aware that the topic of the thread is same-sex marriage and not transgender issues?

I know a fair number of gay and lesbian individuals who cannot quite wrap their heads around transgender issues either. (Although some do and are very empathetic with such issues, I'm sure.) I'm not defending that or stating one point of view is right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that they are different issues.



Absolutely.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Why? Are blue eyed people not allowed to be married? Because I think they should have the ability to marry people with any eye colour they choose. In fact, not allowing them to marry just because they have blue eyes is discriminatory. Now, I'm not personally a fan of blue eyes so I can choose not to marry someone with blue eyes but I'll be damned if I will dictate my personal taste upon the rest of society.

Particularly when the confines of anyone's taste or proclivity or orientation (however the hell you choose to define it) in no way whatsoever affects anyone other than yourself. You dig? Whether you tolerate it or not does not matter and should not matter to the extent that it affects the choices that other people get to make.

And if you can't see that, then you are blind and I only hope the next generations weed out your particular blindness.

Your're right you will not dictate your personal taste upon the rest of society unless you form the body of the majority. If as you imply that the tastes and orientations in no way whatsoever affects anyone other than myself in the face of enormous media leveraging to affect exactly that displacement of conservation of natural law did not exist, I might agree with you. Such is clearly not the case, as we are informed in a constant solid stream flowing in exactly a direction opposite to your reccomendation. The subject clearly affects everyone, on many levels. And the most alarming aspect to me is what is shunted aside so that these divergent matters can overshadow the real and pressing needs of modern social advancement. The whole subject was elevated to national debate of nations to deflect minds from substantial matters directly associated with pressing undertakings of far greater importance to the species. It's a near zero subject painted and pandered to elevate the idiot to saintly status and does nothing but agravate and divide. There are choices that the individual does not get to make.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
Your're right you will not dictate your personal taste upon the rest of society unless you form the body of the majority. If as you imply that the tastes and orientations in no way whatsoever affects anyone other than myself in the face of enormous media leveraging to affect exactly that displacement of conservation of natural law did not exist, I might agree with you. Such is clearly not the case, as we are informed in a constant solid stream flowing in exactly a direction opposite to your reccomendation. The subject clearly affects everyone, on many levels. And the most alarming aspect to me is what is shunted aside so that these divergent matters can overshadow the real and pressing needs of modern social advancement. The whole subject was elevated to national debate of nations to deflect minds from substantial matters directly associated with pressing undertakings of far greater importance to the species. It's a near zero subject painted and pandered to elevate the idiot to saintly status and does nothing but agravate and divide. There are choices that the individual does not get to make.

Yeah....or the idiot is the one who can't see beyond his own bigotry and bias...but, whatever....we'll have to agree to disagree on the finer points.

Or, as I like to say, you can have your opinion, and I'll be right.
 

WLDB

Senate Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,182
0
36
Ottawa
Same sex people cannot get married despite artificial laws pretending to circumvent the laws of reproduction.

Marriage is not just for reproduction. If we were to follow that rule heterosexuals who are sterile or too old to reproduce wouldnt be allowed to get married. We don't.

By now this should be a non-issue in all of the major parties here. Unfortunate that it isn't yet.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
Please, someone start a third thread on this exact same topic.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
Please, someone start a third thread on this exact same topic.

Where are the other threads about lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals within the Conservative Party petitioning for change on a party position?

As with global warming...Never argue with the consensus....differing opinions not allowed!

Like global warming consensus? Do you mean how people confuse opinions (marriage is for procreation only) with being a fact?

Unlike issues surrounding global warming, where regulations and legislation actually will affect us all, whether Bob and Doug or Laverne and Shirley are allowed to marry one another has no bearing whatsoever on my life or your life or anyone's lives but their own.

It's not treating them like they're special, it's treating them the same as everyone else.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
As one of the true conservatives on this forum, I support the government getting out of people's personal lives. My personal living arrangements are no business of the governments. Therefore I can't support the government recognizing gay marriage as I don't support the government recognizing heterosexual marriage.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Re: LGBT Tories organizing to change party's policy on same-sex marriage

Isn't bear LGBT?