Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
- Thread starter Jo Canadian
- Start date
Religion is a hidden agenda of Liberals?
You're probably right, since the majority of Liberal PMs of the past, and probably cabinet ministers of the present, are Catholics.
You're probably right, since the majority of Liberal PMs of the past, and probably cabinet ministers of the present, are Catholics.
I think not said:
It is an issue of rights though ITN, but yes it does have sociological significance as well...
The opponents of SSM are effectively saying "yeah, we'll give them the benefits of marriage, but they'll never be equals." and that's just not good enough, goddammit...in a free and just society, that is not equality...
Your own Constitution says it even better than ours..."We hold these truths self-evident, that all men are created equal", or some such...those are powerful words, but do they not have any meaning in your society? Your countrymen fought and died so that those words could be written...and yet your president has shat all over your constitution with regards to gay marriages...among many other things...
I hold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the same regard that you hold your Constitution...powerful words written specifically to protect against tyranny and oppression...whereas yours is old, ours is a fairly new enactment, and will be amended to fit the needs of our society...but if the needs of all segments of our society with regards to equality cannot be met, then we should just burn it now and be done with, and let bigotry and hatred reign supreme...
The fact of the matter is that in this debate, one party is going to have to back down...and why should it be the party that is seeking to be recognized as equals?
Re: RE: Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
Yes. It's called thinking out of the box. Shhh. don't tell anyone I said that.
Jay said:
Yes. It's called thinking out of the box. Shhh. don't tell anyone I said that.
Re: RE: Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
I have two questions:
1. What is the rush to have this done by this July?
2. Why not have a national referendum on this issue to let the people decide? What could be more democratic, fair, and less open to criticism than letting the people of the country decide how they want their social fabric to be.
Actually, I know the reason why some will not like a referendum. The last one we had, Meech Lake, went against the government. Since then, we have had absolutely zero referendums. Democracy is great except when it goes against you, if you are the government.
The CPC would put this to a referendum. The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc refuse to allow the citizens of Canada to have a direct say. The CPC has a positive approach, the others are negative.
I think not said:
I have two questions:
1. What is the rush to have this done by this July?
2. Why not have a national referendum on this issue to let the people decide? What could be more democratic, fair, and less open to criticism than letting the people of the country decide how they want their social fabric to be.
Actually, I know the reason why some will not like a referendum. The last one we had, Meech Lake, went against the government. Since then, we have had absolutely zero referendums. Democracy is great except when it goes against you, if you are the government.
The CPC would put this to a referendum. The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc refuse to allow the citizens of Canada to have a direct say. The CPC has a positive approach, the others are negative.
Re: RE: Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
Well actually that's three questions...glad we don't have Conservatives minding the store...
*HERE ENDS THE LEVITY OF MY POST*
Are you entirely bereft of sense blue?
Rights issues, (as much as the right would like to claim that this isn't a rights issue) are never decided by referendum for a very good reason. If this issue were to be voted down in a referendum, it would be done by bigots.
Yeah...a referendum for a human rights issue...what a swell idea... :roll:
bluealberta said:
Well actually that's three questions...glad we don't have Conservatives minding the store...
*HERE ENDS THE LEVITY OF MY POST*
Are you entirely bereft of sense blue?
Rights issues, (as much as the right would like to claim that this isn't a rights issue) are never decided by referendum for a very good reason. If this issue were to be voted down in a referendum, it would be done by bigots.
Yeah...a referendum for a human rights issue...what a swell idea... :roll:
dave s said:
why ? just for having fun ?
what christmas is a religious holiday ? :wink: seriously, religion is crashing down these days, at least in quebec. and gays have nothing to do with it.
And stop talking about gay agenda. there's no such thing. gay is not an association you know. i've not receive a member card or something neither that i have receive instruction on how i should behave or like when i've "became" homosexual. if someone have an hidden agenda, it's for they own purpose, they dont represent gays...
dave s said:
No...the, that ., though... :wink:
Anyone who has an opinion that is inherently discriminatory, and would like to halt legislation that would promote equality is labelled a bigot...
I have to admit though, I'm growing tired of calling people bigots, and I hope with all my heart that one day you people will just grow the f**k up!!
It is a human rights issue and the law now varies massively because only PEI, Alberta, and the NWT have not had the law stricken down as unconsitutional. New Brunswick whacked it off of the books today. Besides, a lot of people get married in the summer.
You don't hold referendums on human rights issues, Blue. One of the basic tenets of democracy is the protection of minorities against the tyranny of the majority and, although it is far from clear that a referundum would fail, this is not the sort of issue that you hold referendums on.
It would be very divisive for the country and many Christian leaders have shown that they are willing to lie and cheat to impose their religious beliefs on others.
Re: RE: Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
Well, Vanni, if you could count, there are only two questions. There is a statement within a question, but there are only two questions. But then the NDP were never really good with numbers, anyway.
So anyone who disagrees with your position is a bigot. Given that at least 50% of the Canadian public want to keep the traditional definition of marriage, then by your definition, all these people are bigots. If I were you, I would leave such a bigotted country, I cannot imagine living where there are that many intolerant and bigotted people. :lol:
Changes to social policies and the social fabric of a community or country take time, and cannot be accomplished all at once without some backlash. As the generations change, there is probably no doubt that your position will prevail in a peaceful and easy transition. However, by forcing the issue at this time, there will be a backlash by some, it is inevitable.
Let the people have their democratic say. You and others have often said that Alberta complaints were immaterial because the population in the east had the majority, and was a part of democracy. Let's have a referendum to decide this issue, and let the results speak for themselves. Majority rules, just as you have often said.
And get over it, it has nothing to do with legal rights. IT is a traditional issue, nothing more, and nothing less. There are no more rights given to a traditional married couple than there are in a civil union between people of same or different sexes. That people with your viewpoint view this as a rights issue is the biggest obfuscation of the real issues out there, and is totally a lie.
Vanni Fucci said:bluealberta said:
Well actually that's three questions...glad we don't have Conservatives minding the store...
*HERE ENDS THE LEVITY OF MY POST*
Are you entirely bereft of sense blue?
Rights issues, (as much as the right would like to claim that this isn't a rights issue) are never decided by referendum for a very good reason. If this issue were to be voted down in a referendum, it would be done by bigots.
Yeah...a referendum for a human rights issue...what a swell idea... :roll:
Well, Vanni, if you could count, there are only two questions. There is a statement within a question, but there are only two questions. But then the NDP were never really good with numbers, anyway.
So anyone who disagrees with your position is a bigot. Given that at least 50% of the Canadian public want to keep the traditional definition of marriage, then by your definition, all these people are bigots. If I were you, I would leave such a bigotted country, I cannot imagine living where there are that many intolerant and bigotted people. :lol:
Changes to social policies and the social fabric of a community or country take time, and cannot be accomplished all at once without some backlash. As the generations change, there is probably no doubt that your position will prevail in a peaceful and easy transition. However, by forcing the issue at this time, there will be a backlash by some, it is inevitable.
Let the people have their democratic say. You and others have often said that Alberta complaints were immaterial because the population in the east had the majority, and was a part of democracy. Let's have a referendum to decide this issue, and let the results speak for themselves. Majority rules, just as you have often said.
And get over it, it has nothing to do with legal rights. IT is a traditional issue, nothing more, and nothing less. There are no more rights given to a traditional married couple than there are in a civil union between people of same or different sexes. That people with your viewpoint view this as a rights issue is the biggest obfuscation of the real issues out there, and is totally a lie.
Re: RE: Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
*snicker*
Hmmm...statements that begin with the word "What"... the Cons suck at numbers and writing... :lol: :lol:
I'll respond to the rest later...I've got to get to my niece's grad... 8)
bluealberta said:
*snicker*
Hmmm...statements that begin with the word "What"... the Cons suck at numbers and writing... :lol: :lol:
I'll respond to the rest later...I've got to get to my niece's grad... 8)
Yup. I've some of tactics of the Christian Coalition or whatever they are calling themselves too. I wonder if any of these people have actually read the book they claim to worship?
Vanni Fucci said:Reverend Blair said:
Ah...you've read some of the crap that Bishop Henry's written too then...
What you just wrote certainly is crap. What you quoted the Rev as saying is more crap. Any religious leader is within his rights to promote his faith and its teachings, it is up to the public to decide if they want to believe and/or follow them. I read Henrys writings, and found nothing offensive about them. I am not Catholic, either, so my opinion has nothing to do with the teachings of that church.
Re: RE: Gay advocates fight churches' charity status
Well, if a certain position is one of bigotry, then presumably the people holding that position are bigots, I think that is just common sense.
It's like saying to someone who opposes segregation, "Oh, so anyone who disagrees with you is a racist?" Inherently, if the position adopted is one of bigotry then the holder of that position is a bigot...it isn't that hard, really.
At least 50 %? Polls show support anywhere from 45-55, so trying to make it a popular opinion issue is moot.
Right, because just packing up and leaving when there is equality to be fought for is the courageous thing to do.
The majority does not rule on issues that only affect a minority..that is common sense.
Yes, it does. Marriage plays two roles in our society, legal and religious/cultural. Marriage simply has been adopted as a legal issue by oour government, and that part of marriage has to be treated as a legal issue.
The only way to justify preserving a traditional definition of marriage is proving that not doing so will be negative for society...I really don't get the idea that "civil unions" are okay but "marriages" are not...I cannot think of a scoeity that has been destroyed by semantics.
bluealberta said:
Well, if a certain position is one of bigotry, then presumably the people holding that position are bigots, I think that is just common sense.
It's like saying to someone who opposes segregation, "Oh, so anyone who disagrees with you is a racist?" Inherently, if the position adopted is one of bigotry then the holder of that position is a bigot...it isn't that hard, really.
bluealberta said:
At least 50 %? Polls show support anywhere from 45-55, so trying to make it a popular opinion issue is moot.
bluealberta said:
Right, because just packing up and leaving when there is equality to be fought for is the courageous thing to do.
bluealberta said:
The majority does not rule on issues that only affect a minority..that is common sense.
bluealberta said:
Yes, it does. Marriage plays two roles in our society, legal and religious/cultural. Marriage simply has been adopted as a legal issue by oour government, and that part of marriage has to be treated as a legal issue.
bluealberta said:
The only way to justify preserving a traditional definition of marriage is proving that not doing so will be negative for society...I really don't get the idea that "civil unions" are okay but "marriages" are not...I cannot think of a scoeity that has been destroyed by semantics.
bluealberta said:
Thank you for that blue... :wink:
You've now just shown the entire board who and what you are...
Bishop Henry - Pastoral Letter to be Released January 15-16
Calgary bishop wants government to act against gays
Bishop defends anti-gay remarks
Bishop faces human rights complaints
The Pope should have told this guy to STFU...
I have to wonder why, since you are not caught up in some insane religious conviction, you would write in support of this clown and his campaign against homosexuals...is it fear, or abject hatred blue?
Come on tell me, I really want to know...
I wonder if any provinces are considering using a notwithstanding clause once this passes,(yes, some of you know me as a conservative supporter, but I'm also a realist and its pretty much said and done at this point). Or if they are not considering it right now, if they'll succumb in any way to pressure by these defend marriage groups to do so.
As for my position on SSM, I'm one of those 2% (I believe that's the number I've heard) who are undecided. Actually, its not that I'm undecided, its just not an issue that really affects me since I'm not gay or religious. So the outcome, whether it were to be for or against, has been pretty much insignificant to me ever since this debate started. I can say though that in terms of the whole arguments of destroying morality and family norms, I can think of worse things occuring than 2 guys or 2 girls getting married.
As for my position on SSM, I'm one of those 2% (I believe that's the number I've heard) who are undecided. Actually, its not that I'm undecided, its just not an issue that really affects me since I'm not gay or religious. So the outcome, whether it were to be for or against, has been pretty much insignificant to me ever since this debate started. I can say though that in terms of the whole arguments of destroying morality and family norms, I can think of worse things occuring than 2 guys or 2 girls getting married.
RE: Gay advocates fight c
Individual Provinces will not be able to use notwithstanding clause to prevent same sex marriage. Old Ralphie brought that up a while back and he can not. Only the Feds could use the notwithstanding clause, and that obviously is not going to happen.
Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the marriage of same-sex couples is constitutional, that the federal government has the sole authority to amend the definition of marriage, and the Charter's protection of freedom of religion grants religious institutions the right to choose not to perform the marriage ceremonies of same-sex couples if they see fit.
Also SSM will pass easier now, since the budget was finally passed last night.
As being with change and how Canadians seem to forget things when it comes to federal politics, this won't even be an issue a year or two down the road anyways. It will be forgotten in typical Canadian fashion.
Individual Provinces will not be able to use notwithstanding clause to prevent same sex marriage. Old Ralphie brought that up a while back and he can not. Only the Feds could use the notwithstanding clause, and that obviously is not going to happen.
Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the marriage of same-sex couples is constitutional, that the federal government has the sole authority to amend the definition of marriage, and the Charter's protection of freedom of religion grants religious institutions the right to choose not to perform the marriage ceremonies of same-sex couples if they see fit.
Also SSM will pass easier now, since the budget was finally passed last night.
As being with change and how Canadians seem to forget things when it comes to federal politics, this won't even be an issue a year or two down the road anyways. It will be forgotten in typical Canadian fashion.