Klein wants Referendum

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Red+Dec 12 2004, 02:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Red @ Dec 12 2004, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The Familia@Dec 12 2004, 01:51 PM
That's a good call Thunderball. I'm very curious as why now in the last few years Gay's want to be married? You rarely heard of this kind of stuff 10, 20, 30 years ago. In fact even befor that it was almost obsolete. Why must the gays make this an issue now? Why can't they keep doing what they were doing all those years. Gay marriages don't affect me personally, I won't lose sleep over gay marriages. Personally I'm just against the idea of altering this tradition. Too many GOOD customs and traditions have disappeared over the years. I find marriage despite all the divorce, has still remained a prestigious ceremony in my opinion. I don't wanna see this altered like so many other things.

Too many GOOD customs and traditions have disappeared over the year

Which GOD told you that they were good?
Kiddig of course.

I totally agree with you. I like to have traditions, WE ALL GREW UP WITH THEM, but are about to deny that to out children. I guess we all really hated Christmas (oops, can I say Christmas without offending someone?), we hated the Santa guy, hallowen and all the other rediculous traditions. Let's save our children and get rid of all that "old ways" line of thinking. Tell Johny when he is 2 that there is no Santa and that he was just a spokesperson for every large retail outlet etc.

Yup, we're sure doing the society a favor.

Enough ranting. I have to go and buy my son a copy of the Human Rights bill and the Contitution for Christmas so he can better prepare himself for the life of a free man that can't say anything without offending someone. I better hurry up and do it before the freedom seekers cancel Christmas. [/b][/quote]
What exactly are you trying to say? Same-sex marriage is going to force you to cancel Christmas?

It's never going to happen. Christmas is a time when people of all religions and all walks of life come together to celebrate the birth of Santa Claus. I'm never going to give it up and if the gays come after that then I'll change my tune because that will have a direct effect on me.

[Hakan]

Yes, my family tradition of gathering 'round the yule log chanting "Zeus bless Santar Christ" will in no way be inhibited by gays having the right to get married.

[moon]

Originally posted by Hakan@Dec 12 2004, 01:59 PM


You're right, this argument does sound ridiculous. The whole poor discriminated against white guy argument is so fallacious and backwards that I can't believe people still bring that up anymore. Listen, the reason that poor and aboriginal and whomever else gets to have favourable admission policies to university is because of a wholly deplorable lack of representation of those people in university institutions. Is that because they're lazy or just don't have what it takes? No, it's because they've been beaten down from the beginning over real sociological differences in priviledge and from historical legacies of discrimination and oppression (see: residential schools). And frankly, I'm quite glad to have gone to a university where it wasn't 100% white men and women but had a diversity of ethnicities and backgrounds.

I would be much more happy to attend a university where you were admitted based on academic qualifications and not based on whether or not you are a minority or not. Allowing people in to universities with lower admission requirements because of the color of their skin or economic background does nobody any favors not the students you let in, not the students that are already there and certainly not the more qualified white students that may be excluded.

[calf]

Originally posted by Red+Dec 12 2004, 02:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Red @ Dec 12 2004, 02:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

They can adopt a child or have a surrogate mother/father.

and if they don't allow it, the government loses out on the registration fee from issuing the license too

You are not understanding me. Most governments want you to reproduce so they can have more tax payers. Adoption has nothing to do with reproduction. [/b][/quote]
Perhaps...but they can raise a future taxpayer that a straight couple chose not to keep.

I noticed you totally ignored my surrogate mother/father arguement. Why is that? That's all about the reproduction there.

...and again, the government would lose out on the registration fee as well...hmmm

so to answer your original question: that's horrible reasoning.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by moon+Dec 12 2004, 02:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Dec 12 2004, 02:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hakan@Dec 12 2004, 01:59 PM


You're right, this argument does sound ridiculous. The whole poor discriminated against white guy argument is so fallacious and backwards that I can't believe people still bring that up anymore. Listen, the reason that poor and aboriginal and whomever else gets to have favourable admission policies to university is because of a wholly deplorable lack of representation of those people in university institutions. Is that because they're lazy or just don't have what it takes? No, it's because they've been beaten down from the beginning over real sociological differences in priviledge and from historical legacies of discrimination and oppression (see: residential schools). And frankly, I'm quite glad to have gone to a university where it wasn't 100% white men and women but had a diversity of ethnicities and backgrounds.

[/b][/quote]
You just said that discrimination can be a good thing. White male disrimination is not a fallacious argument, its a very logical one:

White men = person, Brown girl = person, persons are equal under the law, brown girl gets access to many scholarships cause of race, white man gets no scholarship access due to race, both are supposed to be equal... therefore there is discrimination. That simple.

There are good reasons as you stated why it is this way, but it is still discrimination, just a warm cuddly version of it.

Either way, back to topic... we have myself, Red, Cowboy, Moon and others on one side, Hakan, Claeren, Calf and others for it, another group kinda apathetic in the middle... who's right?

the answer... none of us are wrong. But everyone on this board has different reasons to be for or against it.

I mean, if you look at the diversity of opinions on this board, it reflects society, and do we really think 300 odd MPs are capable of representing that vast array of opinions? no... this is clearly an issue that must come back to the people. I think both pro and anti same-sex marriage advocates agree, because each think they have the majority on their side... well, lets find out.

I agree with Ralph that we need a vote, even if gay marriage wins 95% to 5%.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Faid1+Dec 11 2004, 02:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Faid1 @ Dec 11 2004, 02:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I disagree because men shouldn't be with men, but as long as some guy isn't trying to hit on me (which is asking for a trip to the hospital) he can do however he pleases. And I don't have a problem with the gays either. It's just the fact of being gay that I disagree with.

Sounds like you're a wee bit homophobic to me. You have a problem with two gay men but I doubt you have a problem with two (hot) lesbians. [/b][/quote]
Um...IF he was Homophobic...wouldnt he be afraid of two lesbians too?

[The Familia]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 12 2004, 02:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 12 2004, 02:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Too many GOOD customs and traditions have disappeared over the year

Which GOD told you that they were good?
Kiddig of course.

I totally agree with you. I like to have traditions, WE ALL GREW UP WITH THEM, but are about to deny that to out children. I guess we all really hated Christmas (oops, can I say Christmas without offending someone?), we hated the Santa guy, hallowen and all the other rediculous traditions. Let's save our children and get rid of all that "old ways" line of thinking. Tell Johny when he is 2 that there is no Santa and that he was just a spokesperson for every large retail outlet etc.

Yup, we're sure doing the society a favor.

Enough ranting. I have to go and buy my son a copy of the Human Rights bill and the Contitution for Christmas so he can better prepare himself for the life of a free man that can't say anything without offending someone. I better hurry up and do it before the freedom seekers cancel Christmas.

What exactly are you trying to say? Same-sex marriage is going to force you to cancel Christmas?

It's never going to happen. Christmas is a time when people of all religions and all walks of life come together to celebrate the birth of Santa Claus. I'm never going to give it up and if the gays come after that then I'll change my tune because that will have a direct effect on me. [/b][/quote]
I hope you are being sarcastic. I believe you are, but one can never be sure unless the winking smily is put up! In fact Christmas is a Christian holiday. It's the birth of Christ. People in North America celebrate it because Christianity is the dominant religion out here. Christmas is not celebrated in some other religions. People who don't follow or believe in Christianity have altered the form of Christmas. They now celebrate Christmas as a time for family and friends to get together and give gifts. This is all cool, but the original underlining message of the birth of Christ is being lost. Personally I see Christmas has become nothing but a coorporate joke. Buying countless gifts for people, only to have countless gifts given to you. In essence nothing more than a huge shopping spree on yourself. Nice holiday eh?

[snappyk]

Originally posted by The Familia@Dec 12 2004, 08:51 PM
That's a good call Thunderball. I'm very curious as why now in the last few years Gay's want to be married? You rarely heard of this kind of stuff 10, 20, 30 years ago. In fact even befor that it was almost obsolete. Why must the gays make this an issue now? Why can't they keep doing what they were doing all those years. Gay marriages don't affect me personally, I won't lose sleep over gay marriages. Personally I'm just against the idea of altering this tradition. Too many GOOD customs and traditions have disappeared over the years. I find marriage despite all the divorce, has still remained a prestigious ceremony in my opinion. I don't wanna see this altered like so many other things.

10, 20, 30 years ago, being gay wasn't socailly excepted like it is today but there were still gay people. They make an issue now because it's alright to be gay, are you saying that it isn't? Hell even marriage has become a joke to what it used to be, look at the trends over the years, 30 years ago divorces didn't happen, now what 50% of marriages end in divorce?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by The Familia+Dec 12 2004, 04:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Familia @ Dec 12 2004, 04:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What exactly are you trying to say? Same-sex marriage is going to force you to cancel Christmas?

It's never going to happen. Christmas is a time when people of all religions and all walks of life come together to celebrate the birth of Santa Claus. I'm never going to give it up and if the gays come after that then I'll change my tune because that will have a direct effect on me.

I hope you are being sarcastic. I believe you are, but one can never be sure unless the winking smily is put up! In fact Christmas is a Christian holiday. It's the birth of Christ. People in North America celebrate it because Christianity is the dominant religion out here. Christmas is not celebrated in some other religions. People who don't follow or believe in Christianity have altered the form of Christmas. They now celebrate Christmas as a time for family and friends to get together and give gifts. This is all cool, but the original underlining message of the birth of Christ is being lost. Personally I see Christmas has become nothing but a coorporate joke. Buying countless gifts for people, only to have countless gifts given to you. In essence nothing more than a huge shopping spree on yourself. Nice holiday eh? [/b][/quote]
Uh oh I think we might agree on something.

[Hakan]

I hope you are being sarcastic. I believe you are, but one can never be sure unless the winking smily is put up! In fact Christmas is a Christian holiday. It's the birth of Christ. People in North America celebrate it because Christianity is the dominant religion out here. Christmas is not celebrated in some other religions. People who don't follow or believe in Christianity have altered the form of Christmas. They now celebrate Christmas as a time for family and friends to get together and give gifts. This is all cool, but the original underlining message of the birth of Christ is being lost. Personally I see Christmas has become nothing but a coorporate joke. Buying countless gifts for people, only to have countless gifts given to you. In essence nothing more than a huge shopping spree on yourself. Nice holiday eh?

Do you not find it just a tad assinine to celebrate the essentially trivial birthday of Jesus as opposed to celebrating and living by the message he came here to deliver and was trying to get into your thick skull? Tolerance, acceptance, not judging other people, being loving etc.

There is no doubt in my mind from what I've learned from Jesus' words and teachings is that he would have no problem what-so-ever with gay people being allowed to get married in a pluralistic society such as ours.

[fokakya]

Originally posted by Red+Dec 12 2004, 02:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Red @ Dec 12 2004, 02:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

They can adopt a child or have a surrogate mother/father.

and if they don't allow it, the government loses out on the registration fee from issuing the license too

You are not understanding me. Most governments want you to reproduce so they can have more tax payers. Adoption has nothing to do with reproduction. [/b][/quote]
Ohhh, but Red, it is you who are not understanding. The government is not biased, in any way, toward people that reproduce. Besides that fact, adoption has everything to do with reproduction and also everything to do with the government's interest.

Let's say a heterosexual couple reproduces and has a child that they cannot afford to have and thus the child is put up for adoption. That child could either 1) not be adopted and be put through foster care for many of its developmental years and therefore be more likely to be an unproductive member of society and perhaps even a burden or 2) be adopted by a loving, nurturing family (that could be *gasp* homosexual) and raised to be a productive and tolerant member of society that has a job, pays its taxes and does everything the government wants its citizens to do. Don't give me that crap about what the government wants out of its couples. Yeesh.

[simonsays]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Dec 12 2004, 02:44 PM
I agree with Ralph that we need a vote, even if gay marriage wins 95% to 5%.

This talk of referendum I have some real problems with. I mean if the supreme court decides it's a Right, then it's a Right. If Ralph can invoke a province wide referendum I would be really torn. I don't believe that you can vote on what is or isn't a Right. I stand by the conviction that by voting on what is a Right, by nature, invalidates that Right. Maybe it's just me, but redefining the concept of Rights saddens me far greater than the redefinition of marriage.
________
magic flight launch box

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by simonsays+Dec 12 2004, 07:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (simonsays @ Dec 12 2004, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Dec 12 2004, 02:44 PM
I agree with Ralph that we need a vote, even if gay marriage wins 95% to 5%.

This talk of referendum I have some real problems with. I mean if the supreme court decides it's a Right, then it's a Right. If Ralph can invoke a province wide referendum I would be really torn. I don't believe that you can vote on what is or isn't a Right. I stand by the conviction that by voting on what is a Right, by nature, invalidates that Right. Maybe it's just me, but redefining the concept of Rights saddens me far greater than the redefinition of marriage. [/b][/quote]
One branch of government thinks its a right because of the way they interpretted it... but judges do not make law... they interpret what is there.

I think the fact that there won't be a referendum is a Parliamentary power trip. These guys love the idea that they are toying with something big for once.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Dec 12 2004, 06:14 PM
I think the fact that there won't be a referendum is a Parliamentary power trip. These guys love the idea that they are toying with something big for once.

It's not a power trip, it's a recognition no country serious about equality and protecting minority rights should let the majority dictate what those rights are.

This notion that, "it's acceptable to repress anyone we want to as long as 51% of people agree with it" goes against some things that are fundamental to Canada.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by The Familia+Dec 12 2004, 08:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Familia @ Dec 12 2004, 08:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@Dec 12 2004, 01:23 AM
Christanity preaches tolerance.

Look at you people.# Make me sick in this thread.

People like you make me sick. Explain to me the link between tolerance and marriage. As far as I know Christianity doesn't have a problem with homosexuals, and they are tolerated just like anyone else. They have a problem with the sacrament of marriage and what it entails. There is a major difference between tolerating gay people, and allowing them to get married. Why must they get married? Why can't they just stay in some common law bond or whatnot? This whole topic makes me sick.

MOD edit: Watch the language please. [/b][/quote]
Ok I'll explain the Tolerance point...

You are trying to dictate whether gay people can MARRY.

YOU CANNOT TOLERATE A GAY GETTING MARRIED which is why you are against it. You think its morally wrong. Maybe you should try practicing what you preach sir.

The Sacrament of marriage was ruined long ago... if you read the bible, divorcing then remarrying is considered a sin and adulterous...

How many churchs do you know who don't let people re-marry?

[moon]

Originally posted by simonsays+Dec 12 2004, 07:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (simonsays @ Dec 12 2004, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Dec 12 2004, 02:44 PM
I agree with Ralph that we need a vote, even if gay marriage wins 95% to 5%.

This talk of referendum I have some real problems with. I mean if the supreme court decides it's a Right, then it's a Right. If Ralph can invoke a province wide referendum I would be really torn. I don't believe that you can vote on what is or isn't a Right. I stand by the conviction that by voting on what is a Right, by nature, invalidates that Right. Maybe it's just me, but redefining the concept of Rights saddens me far greater than the redefinition of marriage. [/b][/quote]
There is a reason that we have clause 33 so that provinces can decide that for them it would be better/in their interest to opt out of federal decisions

[simonsays]

Well Moon, you're right. After looking at 33 that's exactly what it's aimed at. I'm unimpressed, but wrong. I don't like it, but it's not for me to say. Simple as it is to argue one way and then the other, after reading your refute and '33 I'm satisfied to say that I'll have to think up another arguement.

BTW, I'm not agruing one way or the other on gay marriage (because that's been done plelty), I was just trying to add (invalide based on our government type/your speedy response) some more fuel to the fire.
________
Honda XL600R

[KowOfLang]

Originally posted by The Familia+Dec 12 2004, 04:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Familia @ Dec 12 2004, 04:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What exactly are you trying to say? Same-sex marriage is going to force you to cancel Christmas?

It's never going to happen. Christmas is a time when people of all religions and all walks of life come together to celebrate the birth of Santa Claus. I'm never going to give it up and if the gays come after that then I'll change my tune because that will have a direct effect on me.

I hope you are being sarcastic. I believe you are, but one can never be sure unless the winking smily is put up! In fact Christmas is a Christian holiday. It's the birth of Christ. People in North America celebrate it because Christianity is the dominant religion out here. Christmas is not celebrated in some other religions. People who don't follow or believe in Christianity have altered the form of Christmas. They now celebrate Christmas as a time for family and friends to get together and give gifts. This is all cool, but the original underlining message of the birth of Christ is being lost. Personally I see Christmas has become nothing but a coorporate joke. Buying countless gifts for people, only to have countless gifts given to you. In essence nothing more than a huge shopping spree on yourself. Nice holiday eh? [/b][/quote]
Thanks Tips

[Flame On]

Christmas is in fact a random day that it's been proven was nowhere near the predicted birth of Jesus. What they did do was implant it over certain Pagan sacred days; like a winter festival. Christmas has never been a Christian day it was made up, just like marriage was, so that assets could be transfered between fathers, their daughters and the suitor. Sure these became traditions and some moral imperative was placed on them, but they were still placed. I'm not saying that Christmas isn't inherantly Christian, I'm just saying that many of the "values" and reasons to stop something aren't as based in deed as much as you'd like.
I say, when there's a 0% divorce rate and or adultry rate, then hetrosexuals and Christians that are opposed, can lay claim to marriage as being a value that needs to be protected. Until then, in my country and in my province of Alberta, the church is seperated from state, and so the Christian "value" arguement is redundant.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Flame On@Dec 13 2004, 03:53 PM
Christmas is in fact a random day that it's been proven was nowhere near the predicted birth of Jesus. What they did do was implant it over certain Pagan sacred days; like a winter festival.

That's true. After the Roman Empire became Christian, they purposely placed Christian days of celebration at the same time as pagan days of celebration. That is why Christmas is close to the winter solstice and Easter in close to the spring equinox. They figured it would be easier to convert people by doing so.

In fact, the easter bunny is directly borrowed from pagan beliefs. So are Santa's "elves" and flying reindeer.