Canadians Moving to the US

[I think not]

Its all about fear, blue.

When people close down their bed and breakfasts rather than have an income because gay couples will be f*cking, its about fear.

And I have to agree with Rev on this one, people can still keep traditions. I really don't see the problem.

This shouldn't be even a policy, it should default be accepted.

I don't recall any constitution differentiating between homosexual and heterosexual couples on anything.

 

[Toro]

RE: Canadians Moving to t

Its only a matter of time before gay marriage is legalized. For the last couple hundred years, western society has slowly moved towards the actualization of the individual. And on a more practical level, old people are generally against it and young people are generally for it. The young get old and the old get no more.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Human rights challenges are underway in cases where religious groups refused to rent halls for gay celebrations.

Just like if they were being discriminated against because of the colour of their skin.

Marriage commissioners in several provinces, including Manitoba and B.C., have stepped down after receiving provincial orders to perform same-sex unions against their beliefs.

They refused to do their jobs. Provincial marriage commissioners are not there to perform faith-based weddings.

"These are very significant issues," says Conservative justice critic Vic Toews, a vocal opponent of the bill.

Vic Toews have been an idiot for a very long time.

 

[bluealberta]

Human rights challenges are underway in cases where religious groups refused to rent halls for gay celebrations.

Just like if they were being discriminated against because of the colour of their skin.

Marriage commissioners in several provinces, including Manitoba and B.C., have stepped down after receiving provincial orders to perform same-sex unions against their beliefs.

They refused to do their jobs. Provincial marriage commissioners are not there to perform faith-based weddings.

"These are very significant issues," says Conservative justice critic Vic Toews, a vocal opponent of the bill.

Vic Toews have been an idiot for a very long time.

AS usual, you miss the point that the government will not guarantee religious freedoms in this debate. That has been the issue I have complained about all along. If the government simply came out and guaranteed that churches would not lose their tax exempt status by not performing SSM, then that part of my complaint would disappear. What is the hidden agenda from the SSM supporters and government that stops them from providing this guarantee? If the churches have nothing to fear, prove it, and provide this guarantee. They won't, you know why? Because that is the next step in the gay lobby agenda. They have already said so.

 

[bluealberta]

Its all about fear, blue.

When people close down their bed and breakfasts rather than have an income because gay couples will be f*cking, its about fear.

And I have to agree with Rev on this one, people can still keep traditions. I really don't see the problem.

This shouldn't be even a policy, it should default be accepted.

I don't recall any constitution differentiating between homosexual and heterosexual couples on anything.

My question is this. In all but the most outrageous examples, it is impossible to tell if a person is gay, so they are not a visible minority, which makes the comparison between people of color and gays immaterial. So how did the B&B owners know they were gay? I don't know, but maybe they went there with the idea of pushing a point, and were over the top in their presentation? And if they went to simply make a point, is that right? And do the owners of a B&B, typically a residence in a lot of cases, not have the right to who they have in their B&B? For instance, what if it was a B&B owned by a Sikh religious couple, who do not believe in SS of any kind (as far as I am aware). Where do their rights come into this?

 

[Reverend Blair]

If the government simply came out and guaranteed that churches would not lose their tax exempt status by not performing SSM, then that part of my complaint would disappear.

How about if we remove their tax exempt status regardless of whether SSM or not?

Nobody, not even Cotler, is talking about pulling anything away from the churches. Your own article points to all of this happening outside of the church.

So how did the B&B owners know they were gay?

Perhaps they were just two grown men who wanted to keep warm. :roll:

I don't know, but maybe they went there with the idea of pushing a point, and were over the top in their presentation?

That's right, you don't know. Two guys show up and ask for a room with one bed. It ain't that complicated, dude.

And if they went to simply make a point, is that right?

You mean like a certain black woman refusing to sit at the back of the bus?

For instance, what if it was a B&B owned by a Sikh religious couple, who do not believe in SS of any kind

Do they know that same sex couple is going to have sex? Not unless they have peepholes cut in the wall or something.

 

[I think not]

My question is this. In all but the most outrageous examples, it is impossible to tell if a person is gay, so they are not a visible minority, which makes the comparison between people of color and gays immaterial. So how did the B&B owners know they were gay? I don't know, but maybe they went there with the idea of pushing a point, and were over the top in their presentation?

You mean over top as in, holding hands? necking in public? I think heterosexual couples do that as well, so I'm not even going to entertain the idea it is over the top presentation.

And if they went to simply make a point, is that right? And do the owners of a B&B, typically a residence in a lot of cases, not have the right to who they have in their B&B? For instance, what if it was a B&B owned by a Sikh religious couple, who do not believe in SS of any kind (as far as I am aware). Where do their rights come into this?

Their religious beliefs are immaterial. The law of the land prevails. While a Sikh may find gay couples offensive to their religion, their religion, does not, and should not overshadow rights of individuals. And no they do not have a say who stays at their B&B because that is discrimination, It is the same as not allowing a black couple into the establishment. There is no difference. Now, if you tell they were caught f*cking in public, I think thats another matter and breaks indescency laws.

The issue here is one, blue. SSM, is it, and will it be socially acceptable? Someone has to make the beginning for one very simple reason, SS couples can wed and everyone can still maintain the the "traditional" definition of marriage.

Think about it, it is a piece of paper that says MARRIED, instead of CIVIL UNION, or whatever term they use. And its a political marriage, not religious, I find it hard to believe any religion would wed two SS couples.

 

[bluealberta]

My question is this. In all but the most outrageous examples, it is impossible to tell if a person is gay, so they are not a visible minority, which makes the comparison between people of color and gays immaterial. So how did the B&B owners know they were gay? I don't know, but maybe they went there with the idea of pushing a point, and were over the top in their presentation?

You mean over top as in, holding hands? necking in public? I think heterosexual couples do that as well, so I'm not even going to entertain the idea it is over the top presentation.

And if they went to simply make a point, is that right? And do the owners of a B&B, typically a residence in a lot of cases, not have the right to who they have in their B&B? For instance, what if it was a B&B owned by a Sikh religious couple, who do not believe in SS of any kind (as far as I am aware). Where do their rights come into this?

Their religious beliefs are immaterial. The law of the land prevails. While a Sikh may find gay couples offensive to their religion, their religion, does not, and should not overshadow rights of individuals. And no they do not have a say who stays at their B&B because that is discrimination, It is the same as not allowing a black couple into the establishment. There is no difference. Now, if you tell they were caught f*cking in public, I think thats another matter and breaks indescency laws.

The issue here is one, blue. SSM, is it, and will it be socially acceptable? Someone has to make the beginning for one very simple reason, SS couples can wed and everyone can still maintain the the "traditional" definition of marriage.

Think about it, it is a piece of paper that says MARRIED, instead of CIVIL UNION, or whatever term they use. And its a political marriage, not religious, I find it hard to believe any religion would wed two SS couples.

I think you know what I meant by over the top

This is a topic that I will not change my opinion on at this time. Perhaps in the future. 10 years ago if you had asked if I would agree with SS unions, the answer would have been a resounding no, so in 10 years, who knows.

 

[I think not]

Honestly Blue, I don't know what you mean by over the top. But if you're willing to keep an open mind and say in ten years you may have a different opinion, then that says alot about yourself.

 

[bluealberta]

Honestly Blue, I don't know what you mean by over the top. But if you're willing to keep an open mind and say in ten years you may have a different opinion, then that says alot about yourself.

That is one of my points. People change over time and generations. To make many changes all at once may scare some, as you put it, or antagonise others, who while they may not mind change, prefer gradual changes instead of radical changes in a short period of time.

It is interesting to listen to older people. My in laws and my mother use phrases from the 40's 50's etc, that they grew up with that are not politically correct now, but were considered normal and acceptable back then. My wife and I are mildly amused sometimes, mildly shocked at other times, but our kids, for the most part, keep telling their grandparents they should not say these things. The point is, they don't know why they should not say these things, because that is how they grew up, and it was natural for them growing up to use these words or phrases. They mean no harm, it is just their makeup. It also emphasizes how things change in three generations.

 

[I think not]

I can see your point also.There is a phrase I like to use often when describing in my view what America is. The American system is desgined to change, whether it be timely and evolutionary or rapid and revolutionary.

In the case of SSM, over the last decade or so Civil Unions have been accepted (by most), but its still not really socially acceptable, depends of course which region you live in. Having SSM may put some more strain on the matter, I can see your point.

Sometimes people also need to catch their breaths.

 

[bluealberta]

I can see your point also.There is a phrase I like to use often when describing in my view what America is. The American system is desgined to change, whether it be timely and evolutionary or rapid and revolutionary.

In the case of SSM, over the last decade or so Civil Unions have been accepted (by most), but its still not really socially acceptable, depends of course which region you live in. Having SSM may put some more strain on the matter, I can see your point.

Sometimes people also need to catch their breaths.

Yes, thank you, my points exactly. Sometimes the pace of change is too fast to keep up with, especially if one has issues with what is changing. I may not express my points well all the time, but these last few posts have summed it up nicely. Thank you for your insights. Believe it or not, I do understand the other side too, just want it to slow up a bit, thats all.

 

[RedFred]

Hey Blue. When are you going to move to the USA and take your climate changing oil with you.

 

[bluealberta]

Hey Blue. When are you going to move to the USA and take your climate changing oil with you.

You mean move to the country with more freedom of choice, no wait lines for medical services, less taxes, lower prices on really important things like food and beer, equivalent health care costs, mortgage interest deductions off your income?

Ah, why would anyone want to move there anyway. :wink: :roll:

 

[I think not]

Hey Blue. When are you going to move to the USA and take your climate changing oil with you.

You mean move to the country with more freedom of choice, no wait lines for medical services, less taxes, lower prices on really important things like food and beer, equivalent health care costs, mortgage interest deductions off your income?

Ah, why would anyone want to move there anyway. :wink: :roll:

low price on beer is important? Don't you have mortgage interest deductions in Canada?

 

[bluealberta]

Hey Blue. When are you going to move to the USA and take your climate changing oil with you.

You mean move to the country with more freedom of choice, no wait lines for medical services, less taxes, lower prices on really important things like food and beer, equivalent health care costs, mortgage interest deductions off your income?

Ah, why would anyone want to move there anyway. :wink: :roll:

low price on beer is important? Don't you have mortgage interest deductions in Canada?

Gee, ITN, is there anything MORE important that cheap and good beer? :? :roll:

And no, we are not able to deduct our mortgage interest in Canada. The information you provided a couple of weeks ago was a real eye opener, I gotta tell you. The tax system in the states seems more beneficial to the taxpayer than ours does, with policies actually geared to encourage home ownership and letting taxpayers keep their own money to spend as they see fit.

If only Canada would trust us to do the same, instead of assuming that our government knows better how to spend our money. 8O

 

[I think not]

Gee, ITN, is there anything MORE important that cheap and good beer? :? :roll:

I was never much of beer drinker, although I enjoy a Sam Adams or a Molson on occassion.

 

[bluealberta]

Gee, ITN, is there anything MORE important that cheap and good beer? :? :roll:

I was never much of beer drinker, although I enjoy a Sam Adams or a Molson on occassion.

You don't know what you are missing, you need to have more than an occasional beer.

 

[Toro]

Gee, ITN, is there anything MORE important that cheap and good beer? :? :roll:

I was never much of beer drinker, although I enjoy a Sam Adams or a Molson on occassion.

You don't know what you are missing, you need to have more than an occasional beer.

Big Rock Traditional Ale, my man.

 

[I think not]

Gee, ITN, is there anything MORE important that cheap and good beer? :? :roll:

I was never much of beer drinker, although I enjoy a Sam Adams or a Molson on occassion.

You don't know what you are missing, you need to have more than an occasional beer.

Nah. Maybe some red wine with dinner here and there also.