Liberals popularity rising

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 20 2005, 09:24 AM
Unless suggesting that you support your largest trading partners decision to eradicate a brutal dictator and try to instill a democratic process in one of the worlds most unsettles areas.....pro-war?

And you accuse everyone else of spinning things?

[MarchHare]

And yet, ironically, you support a party that is not only corrupt, but also pushes "values" down people's throats - ie: calling gay unions "marriages". Something that the country is divided on, at best, 50-50. So, on this one issue, at least, half the country would have someone else's values stuffed down their throats.

Actually, quite the opposite. By not allowing gay marriage, the government would be imposing their values on the entire population. Much like the abortion debate: banning abortion is forcing the pro-life position on everybody, but allowing abortions doesn't affect people opposed to them; they're perfectly free to choose not to have one.

while the conservative media controls the most politically irrelevent region of Canada.

The Maritimes?

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 20 2005, 01:57 PM
... but allowing abortions doesn't affect people opposed to them; they're perfectly free to choose not to have one.

...Then I'm perfectly free not to recognize a gay "marriage?"

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Oct 20 2005, 04:01 PM
...Then I'm perfectly free not to recognize a gay "marriage?"

How does your recognizing, or not recognizing a marriage in any way affect you?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Oct 20 2005, 02:01 PM
...Then I'm perfectly free not to recognize a gay "marriage?"

What a strange question.

Of course you are. You are perfectly free to disagree with all sorts of laws.

[Cube Inmate]

Badly phrased...

How about, if I'm a civil marriage commissioner and wish to continue acting as one, am I allowed to refuse to perform gay marriages on the basis that I don't agree with the re-definition of a word?

Come to think of it, I don't know the answer to that one.

To clarify the point, this isn't about garriage...it's about whether or not the Libs are forcing their values on us, which is what many people fear the Cons will do if elected. I think this is just the best example of their values overriding those of the people of the country.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Oct 20 2005, 02:15 PM
How about, if I'm a civil marriage commissioner and wish to continue acting as one, am I allowed to refuse to perform gay marriages on the basis that I don't agree with the re-definition of a word?

No he can't refuse because then he's not doing his job. It is the law now, and he's an employee, not an etymologist or some moral compass.

Would you hire a gas-jockey that refuses to fill up SUVs because he doesn't like pollution?

[evman150]

For the record, I vote Green, so I do not really "support" the Liberals. I just feel they are the much better choice among the two main parties. And my riding has been left-voting for 20 years so I don't feel bad about tossing my vote away on the Greens.

[evman150]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@Oct 20 2005, 12:15 PM
To clarify the point, this isn't about garriage...it's about whether or not the Libs are forcing their values on us, which is what many people fear the Cons will do if elected. I think this is just the best example of their values overriding those of the people of the country.

You may have a point, the Liberals may be "forcing" their "beliefs" on us. But at least their beliefs are grounded in truth, fairness and equality. Unlike the Conservative/Republican beliefs which are grounded in ignorance, inequality and hate.

I just don't understand how somebody can say two gay people shouldn't be able to get married. Marriage is a union of two people in love who wish to spend the rest of their lives together. The only thing that stipulates that it has to be a man and a woman is the bible, and any reasonably educated person knows the bible is bullshinguard, so really nothing worth the paper it's written on says it has to be a man and a woman.

To me, people that say "gays shouldn't be able to marry" or "don't kill babies" is an ignorant bible thumping fascist. It's like the 21st century version of the KKK. 100% self righteuosness and hate. Just disgusting.

[MarchHare]

To clarify the point, this isn't about garriage...it's about whether or not the Libs are forcing their values on us, which is what many people fear the Cons will do if elected. I think this is just the best example of their values overriding those of the people of the country.

Making gay marriage legal isn't forcing anything on anyone. You're perfectly free not to marry a gay man if you don't want to.

On the other hand, banning gay marriages is forcing that morality on others. If it's banned, gay couples who wish to get married are not free to do so.

Do you see the difference?

[Cube Inmate]

The creation of new rights that did not exist before is the problem here. The liberals chose to create new rights--they were not compelled to re-define marriage by law. Creating rights is a way of imposing their moral compass on ME, and everyone else, and it should not be within their legal power.

I was never opposed to allowing legal gay partnerships, but many people are. For that reason alone, this was bound to be a very contentious issue. A reasonable compromise would have been to have a "separate but equal" union for anyone who chose to participate--gay or straight--without re-defining the word marriage. Legally equal, but separate in the minds of those who wish to keep it that way.

Everyone knows that for all intents and purposes, any couple would call themselves "married" regardless of which legal mechanism they used to formalize their union. Nobody has ever explained why separate cannot be equal...we already have dozens of divisions along visible lines that are, nonetheless, equal: men & women, elderly & young, black & white. Rather than use this logic, though, the Liberals claimed that the *only* solution, demanded by the Constitution, was to change the definition. "We have no choice," they said.

The Supreme Court DID NOT RULE on the constitutionality of traditional marriage, because the government had already implicitly conceded the position that the old definition was unconstitutional by failing to appeal lower court rulings. So here we have a question that has never been fully answered with respect to the constitution, but MOST of the Canadian population thinks that the change was made solely because the constitution demanded it.

There is now a new category of rights in existence,"couple's rights," that did not exist until this year. I repeat: the creation of rights for political purposes is a problem that directly affects me. The value of the rights explicitly contained in the Charter of Rights is eroded every time something new is read into those rights, and that's something that affects us all.

Anyhow...I give up.

I leave now, a broken and battered man.

Congratulations on your next majority.

I hope my right to be a dick has not infringed on your right to have a nice day.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by evman150@Oct 20 2005, 01:34 PM
]You may have a point, the Liberals may be "forcing" their "beliefs" on us. But at least their beliefs are grounded in truth, fairness and equality. Unlike the Conservative/Republican beliefs which are grounded in ignorance, inequality and hate.

First, dont be foolish enough to equate Canadian conservatism with American Republicanism. They are not the same, and not even close, to be honest.

Second, you might want to reconsider what the Liberals stand for. If there is one thing the Liberal Party of Canada stands for, it is hate, and it is patently obvious in the comments of it's past and present MPs, including Heidi Fry (false accusation of racism in west, specifically Prince George), Eleanor Caplin, who claimed that CA (now CPC) supporters are "holocaust-deniers, prominent bigots and racists", Joe Volpe's KKK comments, Carolyn Parrish, who was allowed to spew anything she wanted, right up until she took aim at Paul Martin.

Of course, there is a great Liberal hallmark: Free speech unless you disagree with the Liberal party.

Even Jean Chretien, who stated his dislike for Albertans, and outright refusal to work with them.

I just don't understand how somebody can say two gay people shouldn't be able to get married. Marriage is a union of two people in love who wish to spend the rest of their lives together. The only thing that stipulates that it has to be a man and a woman is the bible, and any reasonably educated person knows the bible is bullshinguard, so really nothing worth the paper it's written on says it has to be a man and a woman.

I don't get why a gay union (or common-law union for that matter) feels the need to call their union a marriage, when they still get the same benefits, same rights, etc.

To me, people that say "gays shouldn't be able to marry" or "don't kill babies" is an ignorant bible thumping fascist. It's like the 21st century version of the KKK. 100% self righteuosness and hate. Just disgusting.

Speaking of a belief grounded in ignorance, inequality and hate. You might want to cool your own intolerance before you start casting that stone on others. Your own self righteous hate is making you into quite the hypocrite.

I find it terribly funny how you think you have a monopoly on what the right beliefs are, and it is everyone else who is intolerant.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 20 2005, 04:26 PM

I don't get why a gay union (or common-law union for that matter) feels the need to call their union a marriage, when they still get the same benefits, same rights, etc.

I don't get why you care what they call their own relationship.

It's been what, 4 or 5 months now since the law passed and gays started getting hitched. What difference has it made in your life?

[evman150]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Oct 20 2005, 02:26 PM
Speaking of a belief grounded in ignorance, inequality and hate. You might want to cool your own intolerance before you start casting that stone on others. Your own self righteous hate is making you into quite the hypocrite.

Okay, so by saying I HATE what Hitler did because his government was full of HATE, I'm a hypocrite?

I don't think so.

Yes it's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. Your argument is flawed.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 20 2005, 02:35 PM


And you accuse everyone else of spinning things?

huh?

[transplant99]

I don't get why you care what they call their own relationship.

I dont care personally.

But I certainly do understand why others have a problem....which makes me much more understanding than YOU!

By the faith of a HUGE part of the population...marriage is defined between a woman and a man...period. That applies to the world, not just Canada.

So who is the bigot now? Me for understanding each sides opinon/beliefs, or you for outright dismissing one side completely?

Careful how you answer.

[evman150]

Blacks were opressed and considered below whites by the whole white world for hundreds of years and in some places still are.

Does that make it right?

[transplant99]

Originally posted by evman150@Oct 20 2005, 07:02 PM
Blacks were opressed and considered below whites by the whole white world for hundreds of years and in some places still are.

Does that make it right?

errrrr.....ummmm.....no?

What the hell is your point though?

[Fire]

It's hard to believe that a majority of Canadians are this dense, but it looks like it's true. How else can you explain the Liberal's popularity? These polls just make me wish that Alberta separates as soon as possible.

[Azure]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 20 2005, 03:31 PM
I don't get why you care what they call their own relationship.

It's been what, 4 or 5 months now since the law passed and gays started getting hitched. What difference has it made in your life?

So we're not allowed to care or disagree if gay people are allowed to get married? Yet, they have every right to force their belief, which many people don't agree with on the basis of regulating marrige, down our throat?

Shouldn't it concern you if 50% of Canada disagrees with gay marriage yet the government legalizes it anyways? What's next?

But of course it seems fair that a party that has had the majority vote against them 90% of the time in the last 50 years, would do something that is against the will and belief of many, many Canadians.