Stephen Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hard-Luck Henry

Council Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,194
0
36
RE: Harper vows free vote

Minority rights need to be protected, too, Grover. Majority rule can threaten these rights. It's not the way to go.
 
G

Grover Knight

Nominee Member
Dec 10, 2005
51
0
6
RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

The Constitution is the foundation, you have to get input from the general public. The only people opposed to this would be those who knew their chance would be a snow ball in hell. Whatever the topic might be. Why should a whipped caucaus be the ones deciding?
 
G

Grover Knight

Nominee Member
Dec 10, 2005
51
0
6
RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Why? Are you not satisfyied with the possible out come, are we too ignorant to decide, is it flawed? These things are very important, and our input is the utmost. Otherwise there is really no democracy.
 
N

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Harper vows free vote

Gee should we of had a vote to declare women people, and not property of their husbands? Should we of had a vote to give women and natives the right to vote? Should we of had a vote to see if Divorce should be legal?

With such high divorce rates and even higher divorce rates for second and third marriages, you so called pro marriage saviours seem to have more important things to worry about than two couples of the same sex getting married.

Why don't you try and save marriages from the high divorce/seperation rates and try to keep your so called traditional families together, instead? Hypocrites. :roll:

To me you so called marriage saviours are worried two people of the same sex that are married will show you guys how marriage is really suppose to work.
 
G

Grover Knight

Nominee Member
Dec 10, 2005
51
0
6
RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

well, NO ONE, maybe we should have. Good Ideas there held by all. Calling me a hypocrite is a little petty, but oh well, I forgive you. These things have to be regarded with some for of intelligence.
 
H

Hogwild

New Member
Dec 1, 2005
25
0
1
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

The argument continues.

Point 1: Homosexuals are genetic dead-enders.

The following common counterpoint theme has emerged.

That homosexuals can reproduce heterosexually when they want to and still call themselves homosexuals.

My rebuttal is that this is pure and simple hypocrisy.

To accept this as the nature of homosexuality is to accept that homosexuals are naturally hypocrites.
 
N

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Harper vows free vote

:roll:
 
R

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Harper vows free vote

Hypocrisy is not a scientific matter, pig boy. Make a scientific case since you claimed you could.

Grover, a major tenet of demcracy going all the way back to ancient Greece is the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Your cries of "It's undemocratic," show a lack of understanding of democracy beyond the bare minimum. What you are promoting is more akin to mob rule than to democracy.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Re: RE: Harper vows free vote

Reverend Blair said:
Hypocrisy is not a scientific matter, pig boy. Make a scientific case since you claimed you could.

Grover, a major tenet of demcracy going all the way back to ancient Greece is the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Your cries of "It's undemocratic," show a lack of understanding of democracy beyond the bare minimum. What you are promoting is more akin to mob rule than to democracy.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
S

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
52
Das Kapital
Re: RE: Harper vows free vote

Reverend Blair said:
.

Grover, a major tenet of demcracy going all the way back to ancient Greece is the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Your cries of "It's undemocratic," show a lack of understanding of democracy beyond the bare minimum. What you are promoting is more akin to mob rule than to democracy.
Click to expand...

Actually, not so. Aristotle didn't feel that way, as did a few others. They felt democracy was really mob rule.

How many examples of total democracy are out there, India? I have little problems with representation, although politicians can be influenced by public opinion polls, sometimes. :D
 
S

Summer

Electoral Member
Nov 13, 2005
573
0
16
Cleveland, Ohio, USA (for now...)
RE: Harper vows free vote

Here in the U.S., that's the problem we have with many people who don't realize that the U.S. was conceived as a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy, because our founders felt democracy to be mob rule. Our own citizens often mistake us to be a democracy and insist that they ought to vote on things like civil rights, etc. The phrase "tyranny of the majority" is something they have honestly never even heard of and do not understand.

In reality, a pure democracy cannot be stable in the long term because there would be no protection for the rights of the citizenry.... at any moment a demographic shift or even a shift in opinion could cause those comfortably ensconced in the majority to find themselves in the minority and their rights and freedoms subject to the whim of others.

I sometimes wonder if this sort of mistaken thinking about "democracy" is for some strange reason being encouraged....
 
N

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Harper vows free vote

Harper changing stand on equal marriage?

A teaser:


Not likely.

The Globe and Mail is reporting that the federal Conservative Party is attempting to distance itself from efforts by conservative Christian political activists who oppose equal marriage.


Conservative aides attempted to move the Harper campaign bus ahead of schedule as news media traveling with the Conservative leader attempted to interview David Mainse and Charles McVety.

As the Globe reports, "On Saturday, Charles McVety, the Canada Christian College head who also led the Defend Marriage organization against same-sex marriage, turned up at Mr. Harper's Mississauga rally, and was ushered into an office afterward to meet the party leader. But Tory campaign aides again pushed reporters to leave before Mr. McVety had departed."

Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory told reporters that Ontarians do not wish to re-open the equal marriage debate, settled earlier this year. Harper's first major policy statement was a call to hold a free-vote in the House of Commons on equal marriage. The Conservative Party policy manual contains that commitment plus the commitment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. [/end of teaser]

Harper sure has some strange associates.


and.......

Christian leaders want him to push on; Ontario Tory Leader urges him to back off

A teaser:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has been getting reminders of the controversial same-sex marriage issue, even though he has sidestepped it since the earliest days of his campaign.

Mr. Harper, before capping a week of campaigning in Mississauga, Ont., on Saturday, was visited by two prominent evangelical Christian leaders nudging him to stick with his pledge to reopen the issue. On Saturday, he got a suggestion from Ontario's Progressive Conservative Leader that most people in the province would rather move on.

At an afternoon rally, with about 400 supporters and the party's Toronto-area candidates, Ontario Conservative Leader John Tory delivered a strong endorsement of Mr. Harper, but told reporters that he believes most Ontarians would prefer to move on from the same-sex marriage debate, even though Mr. Harper has said he will re-open the issue if his party takes office[/end teaser]

Why he wants to revisit this because a few right wing religious fanatics say so is beyond me.
 
Dexter Sinister

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Hogwild said:
The argument continues.

Point 1: Homosexuals are genetic dead-enders.

The following common counterpoint theme has emerged.

That homosexuals can reproduce heterosexually when they want to and still call themselves homosexuals.

My rebuttal is that this is pure and simple hypocrisy.

To accept this as the nature of homosexuality is to accept that homosexuals are naturally hypocrites.
Click to expand...

And there Summer's link, which indicates the occurrence of homosexuality in males is associated with increased fecundity among their female relatives, with whom they presumably share some genetic material which is thus being passed on.

This still isn't an argument. You have yet to produce anything but constant repetition of your initial hypothesis. You've been fooling around with this for a few days now, demanding it be accepted as true before you'll go any further. Several posters, including me, have agreed to accept it as a hypothesis for the sake of argument just to see where you'll take it, but you keep insisting on the black and white view of things. I call you intellectual coward and sophist.

Calling something hypocrisy isn't much of a rebuttal either. Whatever you call it, it can still happen. Labelling it doesn't change anything, it's still a true statement.
 
H

Hogwild

New Member
Dec 1, 2005
25
0
1
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

That article is completely irrelevant. Point 1 is that Homosexuals (themselves - not their reproductive sisters) are genetic dead-enders.

Is that good enough a rebuttal for you? If not - explain why.

Science is merely the study of knowledge and truth. Identifying and exposing a hypocritical argument is just good logic.

I have shown the hypocrisy in the counter argument claiming that homosexuals reproduce. By doing so succesfully rebutting that counterpoint.

Arguments don't always yield quick results. I do have faith that as long as we argue sincerely the argument will move forward. I have no intention of accepting an insincere agreement to disagree.

There is no trickery here. Point 1 is clear and easy to understand. I don't see how it can be so confusing.

If you agree with it - say so. If you don't - say why.

You are challenged to argue your counterpoint or accept point 1 as the truth.
 
H

Hard-Luck Henry

Council Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,194
0
36
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

:roll: Is there a point 2 to all this hogwash?

Hogwash: Worthless, false, or ridiculous speech or writing; ludicrously false statements; nonsense.

Synonyms: bullshit, bull, Irish bull, horseshit, shit, crap, bunk, bunkum, buncombe, guff, rot, dogshit.

Antonyms: sense, truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom