Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

[Jay]

Well I know for a fact that there are ppl who are not religious who believe that marriage should be as it is/was.

They don't have a problem extending the benefits of marriage to these unions, they simply believe marriage is a union between a man and woman, anything else should have a different name, because it’s different.

No big deal and I think they have a point. There are many points to this debate.

Oh well, good to read all posts on this thread. Think I will leave it alone for now.

 

[Jay]

Well I know for a fact that there are ppl who are not religious who believe that marriage should be as it is/was.

They don't have a problem extending the benefits of marriage to these unions, they simply believe marriage is a union between a man and woman, anything else should have a different name, because it’s different.

No big deal and I think they have a point. There are many points to this debate.

Oh well, good to read all posts on this thread. Think I will leave it alone for now.

 

[Jay]

Well I know for a fact that there are ppl who are not religious who believe that marriage should be as it is/was.

They don't have a problem extending the benefits of marriage to these unions, they simply believe marriage is a union between a man and woman, anything else should have a different name, because it’s different.

No big deal and I think they have a point. There are many points to this debate.

Oh well, good to read all posts on this thread. Think I will leave it alone for now.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Well I know for a fact that there are ppl who are not religious who believe that marriage should be as it is/was.

I have no doubt that those people are out there, Jay. You have to admit that the majority of those opposing same-sex marriage are from the religious right though. So far that has mostly been Christians, but Harper is clearly making an attempt to appeal to fundmentalists of all faiths to back him up.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Well I know for a fact that there are ppl who are not religious who believe that marriage should be as it is/was.

I have no doubt that those people are out there, Jay. You have to admit that the majority of those opposing same-sex marriage are from the religious right though. So far that has mostly been Christians, but Harper is clearly making an attempt to appeal to fundmentalists of all faiths to back him up.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Well I know for a fact that there are ppl who are not religious who believe that marriage should be as it is/was.

I have no doubt that those people are out there, Jay. You have to admit that the majority of those opposing same-sex marriage are from the religious right though. So far that has mostly been Christians, but Harper is clearly making an attempt to appeal to fundmentalists of all faiths to back him up.

 

[Jay]

Here I am reneging on my last post, to not post on this thread for awhile.

Sure I will admit that religious groups are the larger voice of opposition on this point.

I respect their opinions on the matter and am glad they have the right to voice their positions.

They are doing exactly what they should be doing, representing themselves.

Fortunately I can see both sides of this argument. I have only very recently made my mind up where I stand on this issue.

I do hope however that Martin doesn't call an election over it as the CBC just reported. I doubt there could be a more useless reason to go to the polls.

 

[Jay]

Here I am reneging on my last post, to not post on this thread for awhile.

Sure I will admit that religious groups are the larger voice of opposition on this point.

I respect their opinions on the matter and am glad they have the right to voice their positions.

They are doing exactly what they should be doing, representing themselves.

Fortunately I can see both sides of this argument. I have only very recently made my mind up where I stand on this issue.

I do hope however that Martin doesn't call an election over it as the CBC just reported. I doubt there could be a more useless reason to go to the polls.

 

[Jay]

Here I am reneging on my last post, to not post on this thread for awhile.

Sure I will admit that religious groups are the larger voice of opposition on this point.

I respect their opinions on the matter and am glad they have the right to voice their positions.

They are doing exactly what they should be doing, representing themselves.

Fortunately I can see both sides of this argument. I have only very recently made my mind up where I stand on this issue.

I do hope however that Martin doesn't call an election over it as the CBC just reported. I doubt there could be a more useless reason to go to the polls.

 

[NSA]

They don't have a problem extending the benefits of marriage to these unions, they simply believe marriage is a union between a man and woman, anything else should have a different name, because it’s different.

I don't see how this is substantially different from the religious objections - denying someone else equal rights because you have a *semantic* objection to their lifestyle ("civil union" = marriage, why not just call it that?!). Why should two men/women who love each other and want to get married give a %$#@ whether I think their relationship is "different" from mine?

If you call it something different, but it has all the same features, you're still sending a message. And not a particularly pleasant or progressive one either.

 

[NSA]

They don't have a problem extending the benefits of marriage to these unions, they simply believe marriage is a union between a man and woman, anything else should have a different name, because it’s different.

I don't see how this is substantially different from the religious objections - denying someone else equal rights because you have a *semantic* objection to their lifestyle ("civil union" = marriage, why not just call it that?!). Why should two men/women who love each other and want to get married give a %$#@ whether I think their relationship is "different" from mine?

If you call it something different, but it has all the same features, you're still sending a message. And not a particularly pleasant or progressive one either.

 

[NSA]

They don't have a problem extending the benefits of marriage to these unions, they simply believe marriage is a union between a man and woman, anything else should have a different name, because it’s different.

I don't see how this is substantially different from the religious objections - denying someone else equal rights because you have a *semantic* objection to their lifestyle ("civil union" = marriage, why not just call it that?!). Why should two men/women who love each other and want to get married give a %$#@ whether I think their relationship is "different" from mine?

If you call it something different, but it has all the same features, you're still sending a message. And not a particularly pleasant or progressive one either.

 

[no1important]

I think with this ad campaign Harper and his party are starting will just solidify what many people think of the new "Conservative" party. Is that they are a bunch of right wing religious intolerant wacko's.

Harper and the conservatives are going to isolate themselves. They are going to brand them selves more as a right wing racist non tolerant party.

This ad campaign will back fire and ensure PM Martin gets re elected.

Their support slipped a bit in last election here in BC, which used to be a pretty solid Reform/Alliance stronghold. But with so many fellow "lefties" out here they are finished, except in some of the outlying areas and interior.

 

[no1important]

I think with this ad campaign Harper and his party are starting will just solidify what many people think of the new "Conservative" party. Is that they are a bunch of right wing religious intolerant wacko's.

Harper and the conservatives are going to isolate themselves. They are going to brand them selves more as a right wing racist non tolerant party.

This ad campaign will back fire and ensure PM Martin gets re elected.

Their support slipped a bit in last election here in BC, which used to be a pretty solid Reform/Alliance stronghold. But with so many fellow "lefties" out here they are finished, except in some of the outlying areas and interior.

 

[no1important]

I think with this ad campaign Harper and his party are starting will just solidify what many people think of the new "Conservative" party. Is that they are a bunch of right wing religious intolerant wacko's.

Harper and the conservatives are going to isolate themselves. They are going to brand them selves more as a right wing racist non tolerant party.

This ad campaign will back fire and ensure PM Martin gets re elected.

Their support slipped a bit in last election here in BC, which used to be a pretty solid Reform/Alliance stronghold. But with so many fellow "lefties" out here they are finished, except in some of the outlying areas and interior.

 

[Jay]

Perhaps you misunderstood. They weren’t objecting to the rights issue. It was the naming of the union. It is a different union (weather you care to agree or disagree).

If you have a definition that says something is X and then Y comes and says I want in on it, and you have to introduce legislation, or rewrite a law over it, its different.

You see it doesn't have all the same features.


As for pleasantries well the no compromise position of those who wish to have same sex MARRAIGE as opposed to another type of union don't appear to be to pleasant. In fact they prefer to name call etc. ( think words like religious right, fundamentalists) They could easily, very easily say to those in opposition of the naming issue, we want the benefits you have but your entitled to keep your name and we will use another.

As for progressive, one mans progressiveness is another’s backwardness. You will just have to get used to that.

 

[Jay]

Perhaps you misunderstood. They weren’t objecting to the rights issue. It was the naming of the union. It is a different union (weather you care to agree or disagree).

If you have a definition that says something is X and then Y comes and says I want in on it, and you have to introduce legislation, or rewrite a law over it, its different.

You see it doesn't have all the same features.


As for pleasantries well the no compromise position of those who wish to have same sex MARRAIGE as opposed to another type of union don't appear to be to pleasant. In fact they prefer to name call etc. ( think words like religious right, fundamentalists) They could easily, very easily say to those in opposition of the naming issue, we want the benefits you have but your entitled to keep your name and we will use another.

As for progressive, one mans progressiveness is another’s backwardness. You will just have to get used to that.

 

[Jay]

Perhaps you misunderstood. They weren’t objecting to the rights issue. It was the naming of the union. It is a different union (weather you care to agree or disagree).

If you have a definition that says something is X and then Y comes and says I want in on it, and you have to introduce legislation, or rewrite a law over it, its different.

You see it doesn't have all the same features.


As for pleasantries well the no compromise position of those who wish to have same sex MARRAIGE as opposed to another type of union don't appear to be to pleasant. In fact they prefer to name call etc. ( think words like religious right, fundamentalists) They could easily, very easily say to those in opposition of the naming issue, we want the benefits you have but your entitled to keep your name and we will use another.

As for progressive, one mans progressiveness is another’s backwardness. You will just have to get used to that.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

the new "Conservative" party. Is that they are a bunch of right wing religious intolerant wacko's.


As i said, they prefer to name call.

Thanks for the quick quote.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper says he'll protect traditional marriage

the new "Conservative" party. Is that they are a bunch of right wing religious intolerant wacko's.


As i said, they prefer to name call.

Thanks for the quick quote.