Christian Activists Capturing Tory Races

[RougeUnderoos]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/

But Tristan Emmanuel -- the Presbyterian minister whose endorsement at the Kentville rally aided the nominations of Andrew House in Halifax, Rakesh Khosla in Halifax West and Paul Francis in Sackville-Eastern Shore -- makes no apologies.

"It's time we stopped apologizing and started defending who we are," he said. "The evangelical community in Canada, by and large, and socially conservative Catholics, are saying we have been far too heavenly minded and thus we have been of no earthly value for far too long, on too many fronts."

Surprise surprise they really hate the idea of gay marriage. And some other stuff.

This was on the front page of the Globe and Mail today. I wonder what Harper thinks of it. I'd say it doesn't help. At least it's not a hidden agenda though. :P They come right out and say what they are after. Doesn't mention a lot of other things but I've got my ideas.

[Cheese]

sheeshhhhh....these guys are about as dumb as pucks.
Really...just shut your mouths say nothing and get elected.
Instead they opt to stick both feet in and twist!!!

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Way to split the right wing vote even more, and keep the Liberals in power. If there's one thing the right hasn't figured out, it's how to keep it's own flock in order, let alone grab some of the centre-of-the-spectrum people.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

"Pro-marriage"?

Ummmmm last time I checked, pretty much everyone was pro-marriage.

Seriously, they have to come up with a better name for being anti-gay than pro-marriage.

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 27 2005, 01:52 PM
"Pro-marriage"?

Ummmmm last time I checked, pretty much everyone was pro-marriage.

Seriously, they have to come up with a better name for being anti-gay than pro-marriage.

The one I really laugh at is "anti-family". I'd like to know how anyone's family is being harmed if you allow to gay people to marry.

"Well honey, seeing as how John and Bob just got hitched, I guess our solemn vows are now worthless! It's off to divorce court for us!"

[photon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 27 2005, 02:19 PM
The one I really laugh at is "anti-family". I'd like to know how anyone's family is being harmed if you allow to gay people to marry.

"Well honey, seeing as how John and Bob just got hitched, I guess our solemn vows are now worthless! It's off to divorce court for us!"

I don't think they mean anti-a-particular-family, I think they mean anti-family as in decreasing the number of traditional mother/father families overall, and in their view causing harm to society overall by increasing the number of families that don't have the influance of a mother and a father (using studies of children in single-parent and dysfunctional homes and that sort of thing).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by photon+May 27 2005, 09:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (photon @ May 27 2005, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@May 27 2005, 02:19 PM
The one I really laugh at is "anti-family". I'd like to know how anyone's family is being harmed if you allow to gay people to marry.

"Well honey, seeing as how John and Bob just got hitched, I guess our solemn vows are now worthless! It's off to divorce court for us!"

I don't think they mean anti-a-particular-family, I think they mean anti-family as in decreasing the number of traditional mother/father families overall, and in their view causing harm to society overall by increasing the number of families that don't have the influance of a mother and a father (using studies of children in single-parent and dysfunctional homes and that sort of thing). [/b][/quote]
So how would gay marriage decrease the number of traditional families?


Are there really a lot of gay people starting traditional families right now because they can't get married? Besides, what would that say about the quality of families if that was the case?

[I-Hate-Hulse]

The thing that I always throw back at my uber-Christian friends who are ardently opposed to gay marriage is how much of a farce some heteros they have personally known have turned marriage into. Cheating on husbands, greed card marriages, it's a real Dr Phil hour. I always ask if gay marriage would really tarnish the "defination" of marriage even more than it already is.

They never really have a good reply, citing the lack of Christian morals to begin with in the marriages.

[photon]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 27 2005, 04:03 PM
So how would gay marriage decrease the number of traditional families?


Are there really a lot of gay people starting traditional families right now because they can't get married? Besides, what would that say about the quality of families if that was the case?

I'm just going by what I've read on some of the sites mentioned by that article.. I guess I worded it wrong then. Maybe decrease the ratio of traditional families to non-traditional is a better wording.

My fault, I was just trying to sum up the gist of it in one sentence.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by photon@May 27 2005, 10:11 PM

I'm just going by what I've read on some of the sites mentioned by that article.. I guess I worded it wrong then. Maybe decrease the ratio of traditional families to non-traditional is a better wording.

My fault, I was just trying to sum up the gist of it in one sentence.

OK, I get what you are saying (or rather what you are pointing out that others say).

I don't really understand the concern though. Why worry about what others are doing? I think people should worry about their own relationships and not try to be so involved with other people's personal lives and trying to ruin their happiness. Seems to me that it would be the Christian thing to do.

[kn]

The party refuses to parachute or implement non-elected candidates. Instead, they opt for 'democracy'. This democracy in choosing a candidate is strictly limited to members in the riding and as a result, you will inevitably get social conservative winners. If they are backed by a church and manage to get the congregation to sign up for membership and vote, so be it. That's the process.

The real question is whether the party wants to change this and prevent social conservative candidates from running for their party by hijacking the process. That would be an affront to the grass roots but without that, I don't see how you can weed out who wins the nomination.

[photon]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 27 2005, 04:21 PM
I don't really understand the concern though. Why worry about what others are doing? I think people should worry about their own relationships and not try to be so involved with other people's personal lives and trying to ruin their happiness. Seems to me that it would be the Christian thing to do.

Ah, now we get down to the meat of it (in my opinion anyway).

If everyone lived in such a way that their actions or inactions had no impact on others then everyone could do as you say and leave everyone to pursue their happiness.

But everything we do does impact others in some way or another, so we try to restrict the freedoms and impose the resulting obligations on everyone through things like laws to restrict freedoms and the constitution to define rights.

And we (society) try to seek that balance to minimize the amount of limitations while allowing the most amount of freedom, since it's society that defines those things in the first place.

But of course everyone has different opinions on what causes harm to society, how to measure that harm, etc etc... Let's take a more extreme case, say polygamy (note to conclusion jumpers, I'm not equating homosexuals with polygamists!!!). Why is polygamy illegal? Shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to pursue their happiness as they see fit? In that case no because society at some point decided that the harm caused by it was too great so the practice is outlawed.

So we have governments that hopefully try to represent the will of the people and create a society that best fits everyone.

Rather than looking at is as "Christians trying to ruin other people's happiness", why can't it be more like "people trying to express their opinions through the system as they should".

[RougeUnderoos]

I read an interview with James Dobson, the guy who heads Focus on the Family, and his position was basically.... "if we don't protect traditional marriage then the family as we know it could fall apart and fewer people will get married and society could collapse so it has to be protected".

They are probably the biggest group against gay marriage in the States and that's what he thinks.

I gotta admit that if he believes in that then he should do whatever he can to fight it. BUt why would he believe that? Can anyone answer that?

Marriages shouldn't be that fragile. They aren't. Guys don't marry women just because they can't marry men. Nothing will change. People won't be "taken off the market". Nobody who wants a "traditional marriage" will be persuaded to do something else.

[FlamesAddiction]

I'm not against polygamy either. If it's between consenting adults, then I don't care at all. As long as everyone has free choice, then I don't see the harm it can do. If it is not socially acceptable, then it will never become mainstream any way even if allowed.

[photon]

And maybe there is no harm (I have no idea, all I know is my wife is against it ), but if polygamy was the issue before us then you can bet there would be people on both sides, studies and stats all over the place, basically what we're seeing right now.

My point is that both sides have a right to express themselves, and if the system we've created is worth anything then the "right thing" would be done. If enough people believe that the harm polygamy causes outweighs the good, then it would stay the way it is.

Of course there's the great flaw of democracy, it's based on what the majority of people "believe", which of course has no relation to the truth or reality.

One day the Internet will become self-aware, decide what's good for all of us and impose it on us. Then our days of freedom will be OVER!! I watched I Robot, I know how it goes..

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@May 27 2005, 10:50 PM
I read an interview with James Dobson, the guy who heads Focus on the Family, and his position was basically.... "if we don't protect traditional marriage then the family as we know it could fall apart and fewer people will get married and society could collapse so it has to be protected".

They are probably the biggest group against gay marriage in the States and that's what he thinks.

I gotta admit that if he believes in that then he should do whatever he can to fight it. BUt why would he believe that? Can anyone answer that?

Marriages shouldn't be that fragile. They aren't. Guys don't marry women just because they can't marry men. Nothing will change. People won't be "taken off the market". Nobody who wants a "traditional marriage" will be persuaded to do something else.

A very flawed argument. Is he saying that right now gay people are going, "Aw screw it! I might as well marry straight and procreate."? Does he think an unhappy gay parent stuck in a heterosexual relationship is a healthy parent?

[octothorp]

Polygamy generally means a man and any number of women (although what was that movie where Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood married the same woman?), but if you were to legalize both polygamy and same sex marriages, could you have a marriage of, say, five women, or five men? Or five women and five men? Could a cult start up where they said that all members of the cult over 18 were part of one married unit, resulting in a family of a couple hundred people? Would the government need to make new tax forms? Not that I'm looking to start a cult or anything, but you know someone is going to try to take advantage of it. Just some questions for thought.

[Flame On]

The whole Polygamy arguement is a dead end in my mind in justifying gay marriage descrimination.
Polygamy is illegal. Marriage is legal for one group of people and is being restricted by the government for another group that would like to join in.
If polygamy were legal for men and women, I'd be arguing it should be legalized for same sex couples.
The issue is descrimination vs. the fundamentalists need to assert their beliefs on everyone.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@May 27 2005, 10:50 PM
Marriages shouldn't be that fragile. They aren't. Guys don't marry women just because they can't marry men. Nothing will change. People won't be "taken off the market". Nobody who wants a "traditional marriage" will be persuaded to do something else.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's the way it is brothers. Testify!

I say if guys and gals all want to get married to each other, let them get married. Who are we to judge? What are we protecting? It's time some people started realizing that 'gay' isn't a contagious disease that will take over the human race. It's here to stay, it's a small minority, and that's the way it is. Let's just learn to live with them, ofiically, instead of hiding behind millenia old stigma.

[ernie]

And as expected when talking about a lobby group they have had also had a hand in helping out the Liberal party (and NDP):

Christian liberals definitely not liberal christians