How will a Conservative government be better?

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Because the Canadian people need child care, Lady C. Not everybody is fortunate enough to be able to choose to work part-time.

The problem with this issue is that a lot of people really don't know the present situation. There are massive subsidies already available for everyone who qualifies. For instance, my wife has taken care of kids where out of $350 - $400, the parents pay less than $100, and in some cases, virtually nothing. To say that daycare is not affordable is simply a misrepresentation of the truth. If the goal is to increase the amount of subsidies, then there will be a massive increase to the program. The difference between the left and right on this issue is that the right would like to provid programs allowing families to make a choice about whether both parents are in the workplace, and the left wants both parents in the workplace, then the kids can go to a government run daycare, thus ensuring a cradle to grave role for the government in their lives.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

One last thing: No one has ever definitively said that churches will not lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to perform SS marriages. This makes me wonder about the scarey hidden agenda the supporters of SSM have. What are they out to destroy?

They should lose their taxexempt status regardless of their stance on SSM. To try and tie the two together is ridiculous though. Nothing more than fear mongering. There is no party...right, left, or centre...that is talking about removing the tax exempt status of churches in any serious way. If any party was to do such a thing, they would have to do it across the board. The beliefs of the religion or sect within the religion would have no bearing on it.

The problem with this issue is that a lot of people really don't know the present situation.

That's the situation in your province. The situation in other provinces is quite different.

 

[SirKevin]

Just a couple of things, first of all the pot issue, if the pot were the same as it was when I was a kid, I would feel different. However, knowing some police involved in drug duty, they tell me that pot today is laced with other stuff like meth which makes it more addictive and more dangerous, which increases the possibility of it being a gateway drug. I have to take these guys words for this, they are in the business.

I didn't see this part of your post originally, just let me touch on it now.

This is actually the heart of my argument for legalizing pot. On the streets and in underground networks, there is all kinds of room for pot to be laced with unnatural substances, crack and many other things people did not bargain for.

If pot were legal, the government would sell carefully regulated pot, and common sense dictates that if people can buy pot legally from the gov't or buy it illegally from the underground, it will be bought legally.

Kevin: thanks. Regarding SS unions, the claim is made that this is a rights and equality issue. SS unions now have the same rights and benefits that tradional marriages have. Therefore, it is not a rights issue, bu definition.

I don't think so. A lot of people attach a lto to the term/concept of marriage and what it means; if gay couples want the terminology I can't think of a good reason as to why they should not get it.

Another important point to raise is that it is very difficult to try to claim that homosexuals are fully equal and complete people who merit the same protections as everyone else - be it legal ones or be it not getting beat up at school - when elected officials (and religious officials for that matter) still refuse to give them the same status as "everyone else."

As the same rights are conferred on SS unions as tradional marriages, then they are equal, ergo, no equality issue. I simply would like to preserve the defintion of marriage as a unions between a man and a woman, regardless of race. I believe in keeping some traditions in our society, and this is one of them.

All I see in your argument is tradition and history -- both have been horribly discriminative and wrong...we need to be careful we aren't allowing them to continue to be.

I have to ask a question back, though: If there are no additional rights or benefits, why the insistence by SSM supporters on using the term marriage?

Actually, I think a better question is "Why not?" If they want it, why can't they have it?

But as I explained above it is an issue of being equal -- terminology plays a role there I do think -- and the emotional and societal parts of marriage that many people get from it. I do think though that for a lot of same sex couples it is an issue as being treated the same as heterosexual couples. And, hell, given the way we have treated gay people throughout history, if they want to share a word with us, why say no?

One last thing: No one has ever definitively said that churches will not lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to perform SS marriages. This makes me wonder about the scarey hidden agenda the supporters of SSM have. What are they out to destroy?

Well, if you listen to the Conservatives, most of them acknowledge that this bill will adequately protect religious freedoms....it's something everyone involved is mostly beyond.

 

[LadyC]

Re: RE: How will a Conservative government be better?

How does registering my gun keep me from using it (or another one) to commit a crime? The gun registry is designed to solve crimes, not prevent them.

Erm...and solving the crime becomes easier if your gun is on registry. Though that isn't the entire scope of argument for the registry, it is a refutation of the point that you make.

You're switching your argument midstream, Kev. You said it was about preventing crimes, not solving them.

Same as fingerprinting kids. It doesn't prevent them from being kidnapped, it helps to identify the body.

People who commit crimes with guns can kill again, though.

People who....... ?
I'm sorry... I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[Reverend Blair]

You said it was about preventing crimes, not solving them.

Police regularly check the registry before responding to domestic disputes and so on. Being aware that there is a gun on the premises means that they treat the situation accordingly. That cuts down on the chance of a shooting taking place. Crime prevented.

 

[bluealberta]

Sir Kevin wrote:

I didn't see this part of your post originally, just let me touch on it now.

This is actually the heart of my argument for legalizing pot. On the streets and in underground networks, there is all kinds of room for pot to be laced with unnatural substances, crack and many other things people did not bargain for.

If pot were legal, the government would sell carefully regulated pot, and common sense dictates that if people can buy pot legally from the gov't or buy it illegally from the underground, it will be bought legally.

Actually, a few years ago, the government tried to grow pot and failed miserably, which is hardly a surprise, given that anything a private person can do in their sleep the government will screw up. While I understand your argument, I don't agree with you. Just as government regulation of booze has not stopped dangerous homemade stuff, it will not stop bad drugs.

Regarding SSM, yes, my position is based on history and tradition, and the tradional definition of marriage is something I have great respect for, and wish to maintain. If this definition denied somebody else rights or benefits, I would feel different, but it doesn't, so I don't. Denying rights or benefits is wrong, but I have explained how I see this issue not as a rights or benefits or equality issue as well as I can, and that is where I will stay. When someone can show me how my definition denies rights or benefits, then I will look at it again.

 

[no1important]

RE: How will a Conservati

Because you do not want to call it what it is Marriage. Thats what it is nothing more and nothing less. Fortunatly we have a Charter that prevents discrimination.

What are you guys so afraid of?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

You mean the definition of marriage that means connecting two boards together?

Your definition denies gays and lesbians the right to call themselves married.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Because you do not want to call it what it is Marriage. Thats what it is nothing more and nothing less. Fortunatly we have a Charter that prevents discrimination.

What are you guys so afraid of?

Actually, it is not in the Charter, it is deemed to have been written into the Charter, and the makers of the Charter left this issue out on purpose.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

You mean the definition of marriage that means connecting two boards together?

Your definition denies gays and lesbians the right to call themselves married.

But does not deny the rights and benefits which a marriage provides.

 

[no1important]

RE: How will a Conservati

Well SCOC says it is Constitutional and that is more than good enough for me.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

It denies them the right to call themselves married.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Well SCOC says it is Constitutional and that is more than good enough for me.

Okay, that's fine, we simply disagree. The sun will come up again tomorrow.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

Unless the Conservatives figure out a way to impose a user fee. ;-)

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

Unless the Conservatives figure out a way to impose a user fee. ;-)

....or the Liberals and NDP figure out a way to tax it for environmental issues :lol:

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: How will a Conservative government be better?

You're switching your argument midstream, Kev. You said it was about preventing crimes, not solving them.

The gun registry can both solve and prevent crimes. I previously made the argument that it prevents crime; you raised the issue of it's inability to prevent crimes which I also refuted.

The registry is about keeping guns away from people who could be dangerous with them and where a crime is committed solving it.

People who....... ?
I'm sorry... I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

You commit a crime with a gun; we solve the crime and arrest you. You can no longer commit a crime with a gun.

You commit a crime but, since the crime has already been committed we don't really bother with having a registry to solve it. You go and commit another crime.

 

[LadyC]

HowEVER did the police solve crimes before the registry?

The gun registry cannot prevent crimes. Your saying it can doesn't qualify as refuting anything.

 

[mrmom2]

Criminals don't register guns :x Only a fool would think they so The gun registry is nothing but a complete waste of tax dollars on a political football it's got to go :evil:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

The gun registry grew as much out of a lack of reasonable resistance as anything else though. The Reform/Alliance/Conservatives failed to offer an alternative, yet it was clear that some sort of regulation was going to come in.

It is also having a positive effect. There are fewer guns being stored unsafely, the police know where at least some of the guns are, and gun thefts are now reported more often. Ammunition cannot be as easily purchased.

 

[LadyC]

Didn't need an expensive gun registry to get those benefits.