In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will win...
- Thread starter Semperfi_dani
- Start date
RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will win
If it's only a word, then why does the "Religious Right" care so much? You can't have it both ways. If the Right can care, then so can gays and lesbians.
I for one choose to withdraw from this particular thread, with all due respect to its other participants. I already feel marginalized, and to continue on this thread would only serve to frustrate me.
If it's only a word, then why does the "Religious Right" care so much? You can't have it both ways. If the Right can care, then so can gays and lesbians.
I for one choose to withdraw from this particular thread, with all due respect to its other participants. I already feel marginalized, and to continue on this thread would only serve to frustrate me.
RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will win
Citizen - Um... this has been Harper's position on same sex unions/marriages for a year or more now. He has stated that he is in favour of gay civil unions, but against the recent change in the legal definition of 'marriage'.
Whether or not you agree with his position, that has been his position for quite some time now.
Citizen - Um... this has been Harper's position on same sex unions/marriages for a year or more now. He has stated that he is in favour of gay civil unions, but against the recent change in the legal definition of 'marriage'.
Whether or not you agree with his position, that has been his position for quite some time now.
Re: RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will
Absolutely!
Nobody said you had no right to an opinion, or no right to fight for what you think is right......you certainly do. And your opinion is as valid as anyone else's opinion.
But so are the opinions of those whe believe the traditional definition of marriage should stand.
FiveParadox said:
Absolutely!
Nobody said you had no right to an opinion, or no right to fight for what you think is right......you certainly do. And your opinion is as valid as anyone else's opinion.
But so are the opinions of those whe believe the traditional definition of marriage should stand.
Re: RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will
I'm aware of that fact.
I find it disingenous on the part of Harper to claim he will revisit this already decided upon issue by holding a free vote should be move into the PMO, while at the same time claiming he would not use the notwithstanding clause with respect to the SCOC judgement.
Am I missing something here? Why hold a free vote if you don't plan on carrying the exercise any further?
Triple_R said:
I'm aware of that fact.
I find it disingenous on the part of Harper to claim he will revisit this already decided upon issue by holding a free vote should be move into the PMO, while at the same time claiming he would not use the notwithstanding clause with respect to the SCOC judgement.
Am I missing something here? Why hold a free vote if you don't plan on carrying the exercise any further?
Re: RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will
Well, my own position is that the very term 'marriage' shouldn't be in the government's vocabulary at all. It just creates too much divisiveness, no matter what you do with the term at the governmental level. Either one side is ticked off, or the other side is. The Canadian government should call ALL marriages (heterosexual, and homosexual) civil unions, and just get out of the debate altogether.
But... I'm not gay. Maybe I'd feel like you if I was.
FiveParadox said:
Well, my own position is that the very term 'marriage' shouldn't be in the government's vocabulary at all. It just creates too much divisiveness, no matter what you do with the term at the governmental level. Either one side is ticked off, or the other side is. The Canadian government should call ALL marriages (heterosexual, and homosexual) civil unions, and just get out of the debate altogether.
But... I'm not gay. Maybe I'd feel like you if I was.
RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will win
Actually, Triple_R, I proposed the same thing that you just did in the Same-sex Marriage thread.
So I guess our opinions on the matter aren't so different, after all. In terms of the Government, though, I think that it should be one standard for all citizens — either all civil marriages, or all civil unions.
The Supreme Court refused to rule on the validity of the opposite-sex requirement for civil marriage (for lawful purposes) — if the Court were again challenged after Stephen Harper would repeal the Act (if he had the opportunity, and if he felt so inclined) then we could find ourselves in this exact same spot again a few years from now. lol
Actually, Triple_R, I proposed the same thing that you just did in the Same-sex Marriage thread.
So I guess our opinions on the matter aren't so different, after all. In terms of the Government, though, I think that it should be one standard for all citizens — either all civil marriages, or all civil unions.The Supreme Court refused to rule on the validity of the opposite-sex requirement for civil marriage (for lawful purposes) — if the Court were again challenged after Stephen Harper would repeal the Act (if he had the opportunity, and if he felt so inclined) then we could find ourselves in this exact same spot again a few years from now. lol
Re: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will win
I am not againt homosexuals, what you do in the privacy of your home does not interest me. I however dont want to see society start promoting this unnatural behavior as it has an affect on our children, my children. Same with the issue of polygamy and other areas we don't need to get into. Canada as a society should be protecting our traditions as long as they do not harm a segment of people....and I don't buy homosexuals being discriminated against if they cant get married...it jsut a smoke screen.
I am not againt homosexuals, what you do in the privacy of your home does not interest me. I however dont want to see society start promoting this unnatural behavior as it has an affect on our children, my children. Same with the issue of polygamy and other areas we don't need to get into. Canada as a society should be protecting our traditions as long as they do not harm a segment of people....and I don't buy homosexuals being discriminated against if they cant get married...it jsut a smoke screen.
RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will win
« Cut: I have elected to self-moderate my thread. I think I was getting a bit cranky here. »
For the last time — homosexuality is not unnatural. I didn't choose to be gay. It just happened. One day, happy kid. Next day, freaked-out homo.
And on another note, yes, you're right — it's a smoke screen. Soon, we shall finally have advanced our gay agenda enough to take over Canada; we're already in the House of Commons — soon, the Senate, and then we will have the monopoly we need to topple society from the top-down!
« Cut by Author »
I don't pose a threat to society.
I'm done with this thread. Nice chatting with all of you.
:!: Self-moderated Removed possibly-infringing content.
« Cut: I have elected to self-moderate my thread. I think I was getting a bit cranky here. »
For the last time — homosexuality is not unnatural. I didn't choose to be gay. It just happened. One day, happy kid. Next day, freaked-out homo.
And on another note, yes, you're right — it's a smoke screen. Soon, we shall finally have advanced our gay agenda enough to take over Canada; we're already in the House of Commons — soon, the Senate, and then we will have the monopoly we need to topple society from the top-down!
« Cut by Author »
I don't pose a threat to society.
I'm done with this thread. Nice chatting with all of you.
:!: Self-moderated Removed possibly-infringing content.
Re: RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will
Okay, let's clear something up.
The SCOC has NEVER ruled the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional. When Martin quized them, they specifically REFUSED to rule on that question.
The SCOC simply ruled that it would be constitutional for Martin to include same sex couples under the definition of marriage.
Please read the above again: the SCOC has NEVER ruled the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman as unconstitutional.
Google it, you will see I am correct.
Triple_R said:
Okay, let's clear something up.
The SCOC has NEVER ruled the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional. When Martin quized them, they specifically REFUSED to rule on that question.
The SCOC simply ruled that it would be constitutional for Martin to include same sex couples under the definition of marriage.
Please read the above again: the SCOC has NEVER ruled the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman as unconstitutional.
Google it, you will see I am correct.
RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will win
FiveParadox - I think that my position (or our position if you perfer) is the only one that guarantees true equality for homosexuals, but also cuts down on the amount of divisiveness in Canada.
The thing with cultural/social issues is that you have to be very careful, and nuanced, in how you resolve them... otherwise they can poison your politics for ages.
Ideally, politics is about health care spending, education spending, tax policy, how the federal government relates to the provincial government, and other such largely fiscal issues. These are the issues that have tangible impact on Canadians.
FiveParadox - I think that my position (or our position if you perfer) is the only one that guarantees true equality for homosexuals, but also cuts down on the amount of divisiveness in Canada.
The thing with cultural/social issues is that you have to be very careful, and nuanced, in how you resolve them... otherwise they can poison your politics for ages.
Ideally, politics is about health care spending, education spending, tax policy, how the federal government relates to the provincial government, and other such largely fiscal issues. These are the issues that have tangible impact on Canadians.
Re: RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will
The CPC will get at least two years, as it will take that long for the Libs to get rid of Martin, have a convention etc. By then all you doubters will see the benefit of a free enterprise, less government, more choice government, and they will be elected again with a majority. Further, the only party that has enough money to fight another quick election is the CPC, the libs are in debt up to their eyeballs, and the Dippers don't have that much to begin with. The issue of the CPC and the Bloc supporting each other on provincial issues is the common ground they can and will find to keep the CPC in power. As an Albertan, I am very much in favor of more provincial responsibility over the areas of provincial jurisdiction as guaranteed by the Constitution, so in this narrow area, I support the Bloc.
Anwyay, it is a moot point, as if the polls keep up their recent trends, it will be a CPC majority anyway. CPAC polls tonight show the CPC tied with the LIbs in Atlantic Canada, ahead by 9 in Ontario,second in Quebec, and massively ahead in Western Canada. The Quebec vote is the one that will prove to be the most interesting, as Quebecers typically like to make sure they are on the winning side. If the polls stay the same, look for non separtist Quebecers to vote CPC instead of Liberal.
Citizen said:
The CPC will get at least two years, as it will take that long for the Libs to get rid of Martin, have a convention etc. By then all you doubters will see the benefit of a free enterprise, less government, more choice government, and they will be elected again with a majority. Further, the only party that has enough money to fight another quick election is the CPC, the libs are in debt up to their eyeballs, and the Dippers don't have that much to begin with. The issue of the CPC and the Bloc supporting each other on provincial issues is the common ground they can and will find to keep the CPC in power. As an Albertan, I am very much in favor of more provincial responsibility over the areas of provincial jurisdiction as guaranteed by the Constitution, so in this narrow area, I support the Bloc.
Anwyay, it is a moot point, as if the polls keep up their recent trends, it will be a CPC majority anyway. CPAC polls tonight show the CPC tied with the LIbs in Atlantic Canada, ahead by 9 in Ontario,second in Quebec, and massively ahead in Western Canada. The Quebec vote is the one that will prove to be the most interesting, as Quebecers typically like to make sure they are on the winning side. If the polls stay the same, look for non separtist Quebecers to vote CPC instead of Liberal.
Re: RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will
My understanding is that the legal definition of marriage has been changed in every province except Alberta, and perhaps one other province (due to the notwithtsanding clause). Am I wrong on this?
Admittably, this isn't a big issue for me (it's not a very big issue in Newfoundland), so I may be misinformed.
Colpy said:
My understanding is that the legal definition of marriage has been changed in every province except Alberta, and perhaps one other province (due to the notwithtsanding clause). Am I wrong on this?
Admittably, this isn't a big issue for me (it's not a very big issue in Newfoundland), so I may be misinformed.
RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will win
Well, I don't put much stock in campaign polls anyway, so CPAC polls are of no interest.
If the Liberals lose this election, I doubt it will take 2 years for the party to rid itself of Paul Martin. Why do you think it would take that long?
Well, I don't put much stock in campaign polls anyway, so CPAC polls are of no interest.
If the Liberals lose this election, I doubt it will take 2 years for the party to rid itself of Paul Martin. Why do you think it would take that long?
Re: RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will
So much for this forum. I'd like to know what Harperites having to deal with the Bloc to get anything passed, and not getting a free ride to get the support of the Bloc (they'll demand tax points), the original post, has to do with same-sex marriage. Typical "conservatives."
Every province but Alberta and PEI (not due to the notwithstanding clause, they don't have the balls to use it) had already changed their statutes regarding marriage before the totally pointless Civil Marriage Act, 2005 was passed.
Why pointless? Which province had to invoke the notwithstanding clause to change its statutes to include same-sex couples in the legal meaning of the word "marriage" (not any religion meaning, no religious organization or parking lot or supermarket can nullify a marriage; only a court of law can), which is the legal meaning of the word "spouse" for the most part, and for insurance purposes and so forth.
Go ahead and repeal the ridiculous confederate Civil Marriage Act. Who cares? The status quo remains, equal marriage remains legal in every jurisdiction in the Canadas (any marriage in any jurisdiction of the Canadas is legal in any other jurisdiction of the Canadas -- and the U.S. and its territories; which is why they scrambled around to get it banned. No registrar gives a crap if you were married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas as long as the piece of paper has State of Nevada on it and certifies that the necessary oral vows/contracts were witnessed by WHATEVER they happen to call an official -- which has nothing to do with religion), including Alberta, PEI and Nunavat.
They just haven't have court cases at their federal courts yet. If/when they do, and if the confederate "conservatives" win a minority government, they would have to repeal the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to cause any federal court to rule any differently than the majority already have (based on the same Charter and same airtight cases).
Then there's the little problem that the largest group of Protestents in the Canadas, the United Church of Canada, started marrying same-sex couples; not some city/town hall, and every federal court had to consider that as well. So either repeal freedom of religion or get homosexuality back into the confederate criminal code -- and then it would be illegal for the United Chuch of Canada (or anything else) to marry same-sex couples.
Otherwise it is a total waste of your (whomever's) time and brain cells to bother thinking about it.
Furthermore, the definition of marriage everyone keeps blabbering about, while also claiming that "our courts have too much power", "The union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" comes from a common law court precedent in the U.K., Hyde v Hyde, 1866.
And that was overturned in 2000 by federal legislation. Any same-sex couple that has been in a relation of some permanence for a year or more from 2000 on is already married and there is no difference at all between a statutory marriage and common law marriage other than on insurance forms and such (common law spouses can be excluded from receiving benefits and there can also be legal problems settling estates when a spouse dies and the other doesn't; it depends on provincial/territorial statutes because it is no the domain/jurisdiction of the confederates to deal with contracting marriages), and a common law spouse can be compelled to testify against his or her spouse in a court of law. That's it.
As per usual the confederates have been wasting our time and money pretending that they mean something when they mean nothing.
And as per usual, "Canadian" conservatives think that religion has something to do with being conservative when Canada is one of the most secular countries on the planet. If you want to be a religious zealot who has influence in politics -- move to Jesusland and you'll be understood as a "conservative" when you bring up religious crap. Not here.
Ultra-capitalist or ultra-socialist (extreme right, extreme left) or where you are in between is what determines whether you are "right" or "left", "conservative" or "liberal" in the Canadas.
And hopefully this site will be reflecting that soon with a Tolerant Religion forum and what the tolerant religions are calling the rest, a Toxic Religion forum that ignorant, hateful, discriminatory (etc., the usual around toxic religion) posts can be moved to; read-only as a sort of "gallery of fools" forum and to clean the religious crap out of all other forums: separation of Church from State in action.
Triple_R said:
So much for this forum. I'd like to know what Harperites having to deal with the Bloc to get anything passed, and not getting a free ride to get the support of the Bloc (they'll demand tax points), the original post, has to do with same-sex marriage. Typical "conservatives."
Every province but Alberta and PEI (not due to the notwithstanding clause, they don't have the balls to use it) had already changed their statutes regarding marriage before the totally pointless Civil Marriage Act, 2005 was passed.
Why pointless? Which province had to invoke the notwithstanding clause to change its statutes to include same-sex couples in the legal meaning of the word "marriage" (not any religion meaning, no religious organization or parking lot or supermarket can nullify a marriage; only a court of law can), which is the legal meaning of the word "spouse" for the most part, and for insurance purposes and so forth.
Go ahead and repeal the ridiculous confederate Civil Marriage Act. Who cares? The status quo remains, equal marriage remains legal in every jurisdiction in the Canadas (any marriage in any jurisdiction of the Canadas is legal in any other jurisdiction of the Canadas -- and the U.S. and its territories; which is why they scrambled around to get it banned. No registrar gives a crap if you were married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas as long as the piece of paper has State of Nevada on it and certifies that the necessary oral vows/contracts were witnessed by WHATEVER they happen to call an official -- which has nothing to do with religion), including Alberta, PEI and Nunavat.
They just haven't have court cases at their federal courts yet. If/when they do, and if the confederate "conservatives" win a minority government, they would have to repeal the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to cause any federal court to rule any differently than the majority already have (based on the same Charter and same airtight cases).
Then there's the little problem that the largest group of Protestents in the Canadas, the United Church of Canada, started marrying same-sex couples; not some city/town hall, and every federal court had to consider that as well. So either repeal freedom of religion or get homosexuality back into the confederate criminal code -- and then it would be illegal for the United Chuch of Canada (or anything else) to marry same-sex couples.
Otherwise it is a total waste of your (whomever's) time and brain cells to bother thinking about it.
Furthermore, the definition of marriage everyone keeps blabbering about, while also claiming that "our courts have too much power", "The union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" comes from a common law court precedent in the U.K., Hyde v Hyde, 1866.
And that was overturned in 2000 by federal legislation. Any same-sex couple that has been in a relation of some permanence for a year or more from 2000 on is already married and there is no difference at all between a statutory marriage and common law marriage other than on insurance forms and such (common law spouses can be excluded from receiving benefits and there can also be legal problems settling estates when a spouse dies and the other doesn't; it depends on provincial/territorial statutes because it is no the domain/jurisdiction of the confederates to deal with contracting marriages), and a common law spouse can be compelled to testify against his or her spouse in a court of law. That's it.
As per usual the confederates have been wasting our time and money pretending that they mean something when they mean nothing.
And as per usual, "Canadian" conservatives think that religion has something to do with being conservative when Canada is one of the most secular countries on the planet. If you want to be a religious zealot who has influence in politics -- move to Jesusland and you'll be understood as a "conservative" when you bring up religious crap. Not here.
Ultra-capitalist or ultra-socialist (extreme right, extreme left) or where you are in between is what determines whether you are "right" or "left", "conservative" or "liberal" in the Canadas.
And hopefully this site will be reflecting that soon with a Tolerant Religion forum and what the tolerant religions are calling the rest, a Toxic Religion forum that ignorant, hateful, discriminatory (etc., the usual around toxic religion) posts can be moved to; read-only as a sort of "gallery of fools" forum and to clean the religious crap out of all other forums: separation of Church from State in action.
RE: In the ever likely event that the Conservatives will win
back to the topic of the cons winning and alligning with the bloc, here is an interesting site:
http://www.bloc-harper.com/blocharper/splash.htm
back to the topic of the cons winning and alligning with the bloc, here is an interesting site:
http://www.bloc-harper.com/blocharper/splash.htm
RE: In the ever likely ev
Hahaha..thanks caracal kid for rehijacking our post back to the original topic at hand! you rock! wooo.
That's pretty funny ..and pointed. I have to say, i never thought i would live to see the day where i would miss the PC party.
The rest of ya, go debate gay marriage somewhere else will ya
Hahaha..thanks caracal kid for rehijacking our post back to the original topic at hand! you rock! wooo.
That's pretty funny ..and pointed. I have to say, i never thought i would live to see the day where i would miss the PC party.
The rest of ya, go debate gay marriage somewhere else will ya
The Progressive Conservative Party
I must admit, I know very little about the former (current?) Progressive Conservative Party; being only seventeen, by the time I was old enough to become interested in our system of governance, that party had disappeared from the radar of the House of Commons.
I assume that they had at least something "progressive" about them — would they be the modern-day Red Tory? Were they conservatively-aligned in terms of the economy, but progressive on subjects of social policy?
I would thank anyone, in advance, who could briefly shed some light on the Progressives of old — the only members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada that I know of are Senators, I believe.
I must admit, I know very little about the former (current?) Progressive Conservative Party; being only seventeen, by the time I was old enough to become interested in our system of governance, that party had disappeared from the radar of the House of Commons.
I assume that they had at least something "progressive" about them — would they be the modern-day Red Tory? Were they conservatively-aligned in terms of the economy, but progressive on subjects of social policy?
I would thank anyone, in advance, who could briefly shed some light on the Progressives of old — the only members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada that I know of are Senators, I believe.
RE: In the ever likely ev
Well they were definately more "moderate" than the current batch of Conservatives.
If i recall back in the day, the Liberals used to be more to the left of centre...and the PC's in the centre and a bit to the left.
When the Reform came in, they were clearly to the right..and as a result..the Libs sortof shifted to the centre.
They were Red Torys to be sure...i would almost say they were to the 80's what the Liberal Government has been now.
Think more along the lines of Peter MacKay and less Stephen Harper.
Well they were definately more "moderate" than the current batch of Conservatives.
If i recall back in the day, the Liberals used to be more to the left of centre...and the PC's in the centre and a bit to the left.
When the Reform came in, they were clearly to the right..and as a result..the Libs sortof shifted to the centre.
They were Red Torys to be sure...i would almost say they were to the 80's what the Liberal Government has been now.
Think more along the lines of Peter MacKay and less Stephen Harper.