Right Wing Bigotry From Alberta
- Thread starter SirKevin
- Start date
- Status
RE: Right Wing Bigotry Fr
ha ha
I am glad when ssm is legal in Alberta ole Ralphie will not be able to use notwithstanding clause.
ha ha
I am glad when ssm is legal in Alberta ole Ralphie will not be able to use notwithstanding clause.
Re: RE: Right Wing Bigotry Fr
Oh, I'm sure he'll try though...he's stated so publicly enough times...
no1important said:
Oh, I'm sure he'll try though...he's stated so publicly enough times...
RE: Right Wing Bigotry Fr
Oh I know he will but thankfully only Ottawa could impose the notwithstanding clause on sss.
Of course Ralphie may not be premeir too much longer, anyways.
The thing is if old Ralphie was able to use notwithstanding clause to prevent ssm and all other jurisdictions allowed it, it would finally prove what a real bigot he and his supporters are once and for all.
Oh I know he will but thankfully only Ottawa could impose the notwithstanding clause on sss.
Of course Ralphie may not be premeir too much longer, anyways.
The thing is if old Ralphie was able to use notwithstanding clause to prevent ssm and all other jurisdictions allowed it, it would finally prove what a real bigot he and his supporters are once and for all.
Andem said:
With all due respect, The Rev has posts about sperm and my mother in the same post, and it is still on the forum. This is the second time he has made references to my mother and the second time I have made a complaint. Is there a double standard?
Vanni Fucci said:
Just thought I'd take this one up with you again, since you failed to respond to my satisfaction...
Vanni Fucci said:
No, Vanni. Calling a SS union a marriage bestows no more and no less rights and privileges than a traditional marriage, so no rights are being denied. So there is no discrimination.
So why not legislate that churches who refuse to perform SSM will not lose their tax exempt status? You and others have said that is a right the churches currently have so there is no need to legislate it into law. By your response, it would seem there should be a reason to legislate it. And calling me a bigot does not make me one/ As I told the Rev, I as a male have the "right" to call myself a woman, but that still doesn't make it so. Give up on the bigot, it grows old and stale and is so far from the truth you are making yourself look idiotic. You are only furthering my point about the intolerant and extreme left who cannot tolerate anyone or anything who does not hold the exact same viewpoint as you do.
bluealberta said:
Good, then they can use the term marriage, as no rights are being infringed upon...
bluealberta said:
No, I've never said that, and I don't recall Blair saying that either...but show me the section in the Charter that explicitly states the churches' rights to tax exemption...in fact the church enjoys no such right, it is a privalege afforded them, and can be taken away...
Having said that, in all likelyhood, this would not happen, because it would be political suicide for any government to attempt such an action...
Does it need to be legislated? Hardly...we can't pass legislation for every thing that might happen...if that were the case, we atheists would have to push for legislation protecting us from the Catholic church should we wake up tomorrow and find that they've re-established the Offices of Inquisition and are burning heretics and apostates...do we need to legislate against such a thing...I sure as hell hope not...but it could happen...
Bottom line is that the law was written in such a way as to ensure that no church would be forced to perform same sex marriages if it is against their doctrine...those that would have us believe otherwise are the same fear-peddling homophobes that you want to elect to governement...
I've presented two examples of compelling evidence as to the bigotry of the Alberta conservativism, which you ardently endorse...you've come up with lame excuses that could hardly be considered a refutation...
I hope all here can take the time to read these posts and decide for themselves where the hidden agenda lies...
RE: Right Wing Bigotry Fr
Oh, fer F**k sakes. Blue...if I was was to tell your daughter that she could hump people from Saskatchewan, but if she wanted to hook up with one permanently she couldn't call it a marriage, what would you say?
How about if it was the people from Saskatchewan saying it about your daughter?
Oh, fer F**k sakes. Blue...if I was was to tell your daughter that she could hump people from Saskatchewan, but if she wanted to hook up with one permanently she couldn't call it a marriage, what would you say?
How about if it was the people from Saskatchewan saying it about your daughter?
Vanni Fucci said:
Whatever. I've made my points so many times, and you have disagreed with me so many times, we are simply going around in circles and probably boring the hell out of other people who read these forums. You think that SS unions should be called marriage because no rights are being infringed on, and I think SS unions should not be called marriage because no rights are being infringed on. You never did answer one question though. If there are gays and there are heterosexuals, why cannot there be different terms for SS unions? We already define the two groups by different names, what is wrong with having different names for SS unions and Hetero unions? They are not the same thing, any more than gays and heteros are the same type of people, and that is not meant as a negative. Men and women are different, and that is how I mean the above comment. Quite frankly, if gays want to have unions that have no more or no less rights than traditional marriage, I would think a different term would appeal to them. I know some for which a different term would be preferential, but no one has come up with different term yet.
However, maybe SSM will be a good thing. If we are all to be the same, then the need for separate parades, weeks, days, etc. would be eliminated. Either that, or we really need to get hetero days, hetero weeks, hetero parades etc. in order to be equal from the other side, so to speak.
Take this as it was meant, a little bit of tongue in cheek to close off a long day of posting. And truly, Vanni, if you really knew me, you would quickly come to the conclusion I am not a bigot or racist. However, you are certainly free to think what you want, but just know that you are wrong.
I have a question...
Marriage is just a word. If all rights etc. are equal, what difference does it make what word is used?
I'd like to hear both sides, if possible.
I really don't get why this is such a big deal... to either side.
Marriage is just a word. If all rights etc. are equal, what difference does it make what word is used?
I'd like to hear both sides, if possible.
I really don't get why this is such a big deal... to either side.
C,
Do the laws that govern the conduct of heterosexuals differ from the laws that govern the conduct of homosexuals? No.
Should the laws that govern the conduct of heterosexuals differ from the laws that govern the conduct of homosexuals? I would hope not.
Seems simple, and it is...
Do the laws that govern the conduct of heterosexuals differ from the laws that govern the conduct of homosexuals? No.
Should the laws that govern the conduct of heterosexuals differ from the laws that govern the conduct of homosexuals? I would hope not.
Seems simple, and it is...
Re: RE: Right Wing Bigotry From Alberta
Lady: You may be right. As I responded to Cathou in Quebec, my position is based on tradition and custom, nothing more. I cannot change how I was brought up, and although I have changed my position on a lot of things over the years, I believe strongly in tradition and customs and this is one that, for whatever reason, is important to me. I cannot give you a black and white, mathematical, scientific answer, my position comes from within.
Some people want to take the religious aspect out and that is fine. But when you do that, you boil it down to a rights and equality issue, and if there are no more or no less rights in a SS union than a traditional marriage, why cannot marriage remain the traditional definition for those to whom it is important? If there are no more or no less rights, then there is no equality issue either, so both the rights and equality arguments, in my opinion, are moot. I guess if there is no difference, why force it? And I know the response is if there is no difference, why not have it? Both positions are probably valid.
I know this probably does not help, but this is more of a "How I feel" issue that anything concrete. Hope you follow me!!
LadyC said:
Lady: You may be right. As I responded to Cathou in Quebec, my position is based on tradition and custom, nothing more. I cannot change how I was brought up, and although I have changed my position on a lot of things over the years, I believe strongly in tradition and customs and this is one that, for whatever reason, is important to me. I cannot give you a black and white, mathematical, scientific answer, my position comes from within.
Some people want to take the religious aspect out and that is fine. But when you do that, you boil it down to a rights and equality issue, and if there are no more or no less rights in a SS union than a traditional marriage, why cannot marriage remain the traditional definition for those to whom it is important? If there are no more or no less rights, then there is no equality issue either, so both the rights and equality arguments, in my opinion, are moot. I guess if there is no difference, why force it? And I know the response is if there is no difference, why not have it? Both positions are probably valid.
I know this probably does not help, but this is more of a "How I feel" issue that anything concrete. Hope you follow me!!
Thanks, Vanni and Blue. But neither of you answered the question.
Why does it matter what WORD is used?
Why does it matter what WORD is used?
Re: RE: Right Wing Bigotry Fr
REv,I have made my point, and you keep bringing up ridiculous analogies. Now I have to add interprovincial marriages to the things I don't oppose. For future references, heres another: Inter country, interconinetal, interstellar, intergalactic. I think that probably covers the immediate possibilites, in addition to the interracial marriages I have already said I have no problem with.
Reverend Blair said:
REv,I have made my point, and you keep bringing up ridiculous analogies. Now I have to add interprovincial marriages to the things I don't oppose. For future references, heres another: Inter country, interconinetal, interstellar, intergalactic. I think that probably covers the immediate possibilites, in addition to the interracial marriages I have already said I have no problem with.
RE: Right Wing Bigotry Fr
So everything is fine except if your daughter decides to hump somebody else's daughter? that don't seem right...
So everything is fine except if your daughter decides to hump somebody else's daughter? that don't seem right...
Re: RE: Right Wing Bigotry From Alberta
A word is a word is a word, no doubt. The question I would ask back is if the word makes no difference, why the insistence on using it? And the point from the other side is equally as valid, if the word makes no difference, why not use it.
This really all depends on which side of the issue you are on. From my side, I wonder why gays insist on using marriage, and from the other side, gays wonder why some insist that they can't. Like I said, I have no 2+2=4 explanation, just how I feel. I feel that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I have no other explanation for how I feel, that's all there is.
LadyC said:
A word is a word is a word, no doubt. The question I would ask back is if the word makes no difference, why the insistence on using it? And the point from the other side is equally as valid, if the word makes no difference, why not use it.
This really all depends on which side of the issue you are on. From my side, I wonder why gays insist on using marriage, and from the other side, gays wonder why some insist that they can't. Like I said, I have no 2+2=4 explanation, just how I feel. I feel that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I have no other explanation for how I feel, that's all there is.
- Status