Stronach crosses the floor

[metallicat]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 17 2005, 04:35 PM
At the risk of completely derailing this topic, the government should just strike the word "marriage" altogether and call everything a union. Let people decide on their own what a "marriage" is, and pull the rug right out from under the lobby's pushing the definition of a word as a major politial issue in a nation that has far, far, far more important political crises to deal with.

I don't agree with catering to the left like that. Let them call their "entaglements" 'civil unions' and any opposite sex couple who wants to get married and keep the term 'marriage' can do so. So often solutions, to what seem like major problems, are actually quite simple. All this pandering to people is ridiculous, and I've about had enough.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@May 17 2005, 10:26 PM
Seems to me many other definitions need to be redefined after marriage is re-tooled as they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or even (eeep!) race.

I don't see the parallels.

African Americans are allowed to marry. They have the same rights as caucasians or any other ethnic group in our country. If they did not we would clearly see that as discrimination and a lot of people would be in an uproar.

This issue here is that gays are not allowed to marry. They are being denied that.

I don't see having two terms as a good compromise. As I've said it divides. It segregates. It discriminates. It says this one group isn't good enough for marriage.

Why can't Christians share the term marriage? I thought Christians were supposed to be about sharing, tolerance, loving people and treating them the same even if they are different. Christ hung out with social outcasts in his day. Today homosexuals are still seen as social outcasts. And that's why two terms are not acceptable. We need to embrace this group of people and not make them outcasts. Marriage is not only a Christian insitution here. I don't have to be Christian to get married in this country. Therefore "marriage" is not a term that the Church can claim as their own, one that they can allow or disallow to groups of people. That would be discrimination.

We're not talking strictly about the definition of the word. We're talking about allowing a group of people to be able to do what everybody else in this country can do, which is get married. If "marriage" provides the exact same benefits that "civil unions" do then they are the same. The two terms should be interchangeable. If there is no distinction between the two terms then we shouldn't have two terms. The only point would be to separate one group from another. To exclude one group.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by oilers_fan@May 17 2005, 10:39 PM
I don't agree with catering to the left like that. Let them call their "entaglements" 'civil unions' and any opposite sex couple who wants to get married and keep the term 'marriage' can do so. So often solutions, to what seem like major problems, are actually quite simple. All this pandering to people is ridiculous, and I've about had enough.

Would you feel the same if we weren't allowing blacks to marry but only giving them "civil unions." Everyone could "marry" except blacks?

[metallicat]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 17 2005, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 17 2005, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-oilers_fan@May 17 2005, 10:39 PM
I don't agree with catering to the left like that. Let them call their "entaglements" 'civil unions' and any opposite sex couple who wants to get married and keep the term 'marriage' can do so. So often solutions, to what seem like major problems, are actually quite simple. All this pandering to people is ridiculous, and I've about had enough.

Would you feel the same if we weren't allowing blacks to marry but only giving them "civil unions." Everyone could "marry" except blacks? [/b][/quote]
They can have their freaking civil unions all they want. Let the religious people keep the damn term "marriage". Is that so hard? If an opposite sexed couple simply wants a civil union, let them have it as well. The term marriage means something to certain people, so why does that have to be screwed with?

And don't even bring race into this. My stance is not one of sexism, and the CPC policy isn't based on that either. It's about maintaining a word that has significant meaning to certain people. If the homosexuals that want to get married simply want all the same benefits, what is the problem with civil unions?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by oilers_fan@May 17 2005, 10:52 PM

They can have their freaking civil unions all they want. Let the religious people keep the damn term "marriage". Is that so hard?

No one is taking it away from them. They can still call their unions "marriages" too.

BTW, the term "marriage" already describes the term for union omong atheists and non-Christian religions. It's not about God at all.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by oilers_fan+May 17 2005, 03:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (oilers_fan @ May 17 2005, 03:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@May 17 2005, 04:35 PM
At the risk of completely derailing this topic, the government should just strike the word "marriage" altogether and call everything a union. Let people decide on their own what a "marriage" is, and pull the rug right out from under the lobby's pushing the definition of a word as a major politial issue in a nation that has far, far, far more important political crises to deal with.

I don't agree with catering to the left like that. Let them call their "entaglements" 'civil unions' and any opposite sex couple who wants to get married and keep the term 'marriage' can do so. So often solutions, to what seem like major problems, are actually quite simple. All this pandering to people is ridiculous, and I've about had enough. [/b][/quote]
Believe me, I will never consider a gay union to be a marriage. Hell, I dont even consider common-law unions to be marriages either, even though the legal definition says otherwise.

Point is, however, that we are fighting over a word. To me, this isnt a case of catering to the left, but of pulling the rug out from political opportunists.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 09:34 PM
Having two definitions for the same thing is discrimination. The hetero's get the "real" marriage while the homos get the "civil unions." What is the point in that? To appease Christian fundamentalists? All it does is say you're not good enough for the real marriage. We can't ban you completely from marrying so we've been forced to give you this other version of it. We won't allow you to share our term because we don't agree with your lifestyle and still want you to be considered sub-standard, we don't want to be seen as condoning your lifestyle.

Some people value equality. They want gays to feel normal, they don't want them to be discriminated against. They want to be tolerant of them and allow them to have the same status, privileges and rights that hetero's have. Allowing the "traditional" definition of marrige for hetero's and "civil unions" for gays does not do that. It segregates. It divides. It is discriminatory.

Shut the fata up. Does every political discussion has to get turned into a platform about same sex marriage by homosexual activists and the bleeding heart homohuggers


Until a gay couple can conceive together, a same sex union is not the same as a marriage. So spare me the "its the same thing" garbage. It isn't but no one is looking to treat anyone differently even though it is different. Just like men and women are treated equally even though they are different.

It isn't a rights issue. It is an election tool used by the Liberals to stay in power. It is a method for insecure homosexuals to gain attention that they crave. It is just a big waste of time.

So we can't vote out the corrupt party, whose abuse of public funds affects all Canadians, because the other party isn't willing to redefine a term that will affect less then 5% of Canadians?

Is this country really that fataing stupid?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by oilers_fan@May 17 2005, 10:52 PM
Let the religious people keep the damn term "marriage". Is that so hard?

The "religious people" do not own that term. I do not have to be "religious" to get "married".

It's not their term. It's a societal institution.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25+May 17 2005, 11:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackRedGold25 @ May 17 2005, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Until a gay couple can conceive together, a same sex union is not the same as a marriage. So spare me the "its the same thing" garbage. [/b]

Well based on that brilliant logic I'd have to assume you're against infertile couples marrying since they can't conceive together.

Since when was being able to have a kid what allowed someone to marry?

<!--QuoteBegin-BlackRedGold25@May 17 2005, 11:02 PM
It isn't a rights issue.[/quote]

Well you can say it as many times as you'd like but there's a lot of people that don't agree.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 17 2005, 03:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 17 2005, 03:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@May 17 2005, 10:16 PM
However, either measure takes power away from Ontario, and moves it into the hinterland.# Why would Ontario want that?

Well it might surprise you but not everybody in Ontario is only looking after their own self interest. Not every Canadian or Ontarian would put having a greater voice in government ahead of fairness. I think most Canadians would respond to a rational argument as to why the current electoral system is not fair and how it encourages some of the regionalism that most of us are unhappy with. [/b][/quote]
You cant get any more rational than the argument, that comes up after every election, of how the Liberals usually took 60% of the seats with 40% of the vote, or how the NDP got screwed, as usual.

I'm sorry, but it has become patently obvious that Canadians, and specifically Ontarians, dont respond to this.

And yes, I am aware that I am over-generalizing.

I've actually been arguing the flaws of the system with someone from Ottawa lately. In his view, which he argued as typical of the majority of Ontarians, Quebec deserves special treatment, while Alberta is simply whining. He also sees no problems with the national makeup as it exists today.

As you say, PR is bad for the Bloq, so Quebec will not support it. PR takes power away from Ontario, so Ontario will not support it. It is no coincedence at all that the provinces working hardest to change the system are the provinces farthest from Ottawa.

Honestly, the only way we in Alberta are going to make Ontario sit up and listen is to do what Quebec has done. Build the damn firewalls. Seperate ourselves from as many national policies as possible, and leave it up to Ontario to cover the welfare bill for the rest of the nation.

So long as we accept being treated like a piggy bank and nothing more, Canada will treat us like a piggy bank and nothing more. We need to push our agenda harder.

[Reggie Dunlop]

I support Gay Marriage as long as both chicks are hot.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 11:05 PM
Well based on that brilliant logic I'd have to assume you're against infertile couples marrying since they can't conceive together.

Since when was being able to have a kid what allowed someone to marry?

Since marriage is an institution whose function is to raise children in a well balanced environment and society as a whole prefers children are born in wedlock, how can a couple know if they are infertile until after they are married? There is no way to know which couple is and isn't infertile.

And since historically there was no way to determine if someone was infertile you couldn't test before marriage to determine if they could marry. You wind up with a chicken and an egg argument if you attempt to determine that only fertile couples can marry while society prefers that only married couples conceive.

But it is easy to determine which same sex couples cannot conceive together.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25@May 17 2005, 11:12 PM

Since marriage is an institution whose function is to raise children in a well balanced environment and society as a whole prefers children are born in wedlock, how can a couple know if they are infertile until after they are married? There is no way to know which couple is and isn't infertile.

And since historically there was no way to determine if someone was infertile you couldn't test before marriage to determine if they could marry. You wind up with a chicken and an egg argument if you attempt to determine that only fertile couples can marry while society prefers that only married couples conceive.

But it is easy to determine which same sex couples cannot conceive together.

That's not true, there are many cases where you know if someone will be infertile or not. Different diseases, syndromes, and deformities exist that are often known at birth and guarentee infertility.

Are you saying those people should never be allowed to marry?

And what about people who are fertile but don't offer the "well-balanced" environment to raise children?

Besides, who cares about "historically"? This is the year 2005 - things change. Many people know today if they are fertile or not long before they get married.

[JohnnyTitan]

Quick hit on Same-Sex, although it's terrible that this interesting debate has been hijacked:

- Christians DO NOT own the word. (And should have no say in government...but that's a different thread)
- Allowing someone else...ANYONE ELSE...to marry does not challange my freedoms. Just as being vegetarian or an artist or an atheist or anything else does not directly impact my life in a negative way. As long as my freedoms and liberties are protected...let people do what ever they want. My $0.02.

[fokakya]

As far as the 'she only wants power' argument is concerned, well, you're correct to a certain extent. That is what politics is, an attempt to gain more power to further the voice you and your constituents have. Stronach's decision creates a larger voice for her constituents which achieves the most important goal of any politician.

She has not betrayed her constituents. They did not vote for the Conservative Party, they voted for Belinda Stronach. If she, as a candidate, represented what the people of her consituency wanted, then switching parties does not affect anything.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25@May 17 2005, 05:12 PM
Since marriage is an institution whose function is to raise children in a well balanced environment and society as a whole prefers children are born in wedlock, how can a couple know if they are infertile until after they are married? There is no way to know which couple is and isn't infertile.

This is freaking hilarious. There is not way to know which couple is infertile until they are married?

Do you really believe people don't have sex before they get married? Some of them even try to make babies! Also, and you may not know this because it's a new custom, but women go to the Doctor sometimes and they learn all sorts of weird and wonderful things.

[metallicat]

Getting back to the topic at hand if anyone wants to, how would you feel if your MP decided to switched parties? I would be pretty damn p*ssed off. Does one consult with the electorate and the constituents that voted you in to see if their opinions have changed? So much for a democracy.

[metallicat]

Originally posted by fokakya@May 17 2005, 05:28 PM
As far as the 'she only wants power' argument is concerned, well, you're correct to a certain extent. That is what politics is, an attempt to gain more power to further the voice you and your constituents have. Stronach's decision creates a larger voice for her constituents which achieves the most important goal of any politician.

She has not betrayed her constituents. They did not vote for the Conservative Party, they voted for Belinda Stronach. If she, as a candidate, represented what the people of her consituency wanted, then switching parties does not affect anything.

Are you kidding me? It means nothing? Her switching could have MAJOR implications on the current House of Commons. One vote on either side could be all the different in whether or not this government falls or remains in power. Did you poll her riding to see if they all voted for her and not the party?

[JohnnyTitan]

Wow. Great debate here. I'd love to make a monster posting, but don't have time right now. I certainly agree with many of you and disagree with others.

Quick hit that hasn't been discussed yet: The biggest betrayals of the past 2 years have been Peter Mackay and Stephen Harper to the true Progressive Conservatives. HANDS DOWN! There is no-where for us now.

Scott Brison is a political star. Visionary and intelligent. Harper forced him out with his intolerance and unilateral way of dealing with things.

Joe Clark could not support anything Harper.

Belinda needs more grooming, but is clearly an up-and-commer. A couple of years ago I had hoped, like her, that the Tory-Alliance union would result in flushing out the religious zealots and western seperatists and make room for moderate candidates with great ideas and a love for the country as a whole.

When you consider Belinda's vs Harper's views on same-Sex, Abortion, Over-Throwing the government, and concern for Urban policies...was it really any surprise that she felt compelled to leave? Harper left her no choice. Life behind the scenes for her must have been hell. As it was for Brison, and I'm sure it is for the few "Good" PCs left in caucus. (Jim Prentice being one of the best).

I think in Calgary we over-look everything social and just see the fiscal. We hate wasted dollars and status-quo...but I don't think many Calgarians really believe in what Harper is trying to do. He's forming an alliance with the BLOC for CS!! Talk about power-hungry! How many of you as Albertans really support a party that wants to tear the country apart?

And his decisions are too religously based.

Calgary was the only Urban riding to really support the Conservatives. They ARE a regional / niche party. And they are not getting better (as I had hoped) but are getting worse. The moderates and future stars are leaving, and Harper really just leads the Reform Party. They have betrayed blue Tories horribly...far more than any woman walking across the floor today did.

And the fact that Harper can not take all the anger Canadians have for the government of the day and translate it into a majority is HIS fault and proves that he is truly out-of-touch with the majority of Canadians. They do not like him in Vancover or Winnipeg or Toronto or Montreal or Halifax. Even Edmonton had a hard time swallowing him. Harper is a huge problem to the right-wing initiative in this country. I agree 100% with the electoral reforms FDW is preaching, but Harper must go well before I even funnel one ounce of energy into anything else.

Some people spin it as saying Canadians are voting for Anger over Fear. But maybe they're actually voting for what is REALLY important over dollars.

Seriously, 120 million is NOTHING. I am PETRIFIED to find out where some-odd $2 Billion has went with the gun registry. But in the end, I don't need to be hated by the world and I don't want to be represented by bigots and people who don't have a love for the country as a WHOLE.

I live in Calgary and have NEVER voted Liberal.

[JohnnyTitan]

Originally posted by fokakya@May 17 2005, 11:28 PM
She has not betrayed her constituents. They did not vote for the Conservative Party, they voted for Belinda Stronach. If she, as a candidate, represented what the people of her consituency wanted, then switching parties does not affect anything.

I 100% agree.

Once elected, you represent EVERYONE, not just those who voted for you.

Her last election was won by 600 votes, in a riding that had been Liberal for a long time. Do you really feel fewer than 300 voters either voted for her ahead of the party...or would change their "vote" in order to pass the pro-Urban buget?

Belinda will have a much more convincing win next time around. Just as Scott Brison did in Nova Scotia. These candidates won IN-SPITE of their party, not because of it. And once Harper crushes any chance they have to moderate the party...they cross and leave true Tories in other parts of the country homeless.