Election!

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

[b]

See Agamemnon's last post.

Non-religious heterosexual couples already have the option for a civil union. It's called a Common Law partnership, but thousands (if not millions) of non-religious Canadians choose to get married anyway, for purely cultural reasons.

I think regardless of what the law calls it, people will still call it a marriage.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

So, just to understand what you are saying...
The piece of paper your ancestors have says "Marriage", and you are not religious, so a ceremony in front of a JoP would suffice, but only if it says "Marriage", not "Union" or "Partnership"?

Sure, it might 'suffice'. But I want my 'marriage' to more than 'suffice', I want it to be the way other people have it (all my friends, family, everyone I know), which is in a big church with all my friends. Barring that, a big community centre with all my friends.

Marriage is not what I 'want to call it', it's what 'it is' for me. And if someone denies my use of that term, I believe they're doing so with no right.

This sounds like an opportunity for Cheese to start a non-religious religion. For a small fee you can have him perform the ceremony, and a license stating you weren't married before god, but damnit you're still married.

No dice. I want my marriage where my parents had it. God can show up if he likes, but it makes no difference to me.

I, and I think, MANY other Canadians, do not intimately link 'marriage' with 'Christianity'. I know a LOT of people who NEED to be married in a church because that's the way our society does it. Churches are beautiful places, and movies/television/parents/life tells us that that's where these things happen. Unless you don't qualify, in which case it's go to hell (in both ways).

By the way, if respecting your ancestors beliefs and traditions is such a huge issue for you, would you care to predict grandpappie's reaction to a gay marriage being performed in his church? The rules for marriage have already changed, what is wrong with a little more change?

He'd probably be against it being held in a Church, but i wouldn't know, I never met him.

Keep in mind, nowhere have I said 'Churches _must_ be forced to perform gay marriages'. Churches are free to be as discriminating and intolerant as they like, they're private institutions. Homosexuals _should_ be allowed to marry in Churches that allow them and Civil cerimonies. If they prefer the term 'marriage' or 'union', it should be up to them.

Without trying to be inflammatory, or offensive, all I am saying is so many people talk about the need for absolute separation of church and state. So take the religous overtones out of the licensing. If it is important enough for the couple to have the sacred word "marriage" on their certificate, they will have every means to use an institution that has the same definition of marriage as them.

So... Christian churches have the right to use the term 'marriage', and, under your above description, the government does not? Only a church would have the 'right' to marry you? What if you're aetheist?

I honestly don't get this fundamental tying of Christianity to Marriage. People outside Christianity get married, it's not owned by the Church as an institution. I also don't see the fundamental need for 2 terms to describe 1 thing. Many have already admitted that a union would be 'practically the same', and then go on to bemoan why homosexuals care so much about 'just a word', when they're fighting tooth and nail to keep it theirs!! The hypocracy of it all!!

[evman150]

Stephen Harper. What a guy.

[MarchHare]

Many have already admitted that a union would be 'practically the same', and then go on to bemoan why homosexuals care so much about 'just a word', when they're fighting tooth and nail to keep it theirs!! The hypocracy of it all!!

I've said something similar to this many times in the past. If people dismiss the demands of homosexual couples to be permitted to marry, claiming a civil union will suffice and marriage is "just a word", why do they fight so hard to keep gays from using that word?

Or to turn the debate around: if marriage is "just a word", why do the religious conservative people care if homosexual couples can get married?

[transplant99]

The Lib apologists and spinmasters took NO time in coming out swininging....frickin hilarious and OH SO predictable.

Good stuff.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I find it quite refreshing that this thing has already been absolutely sidetracked by this totally inconsequential issue and we have nobody to blame but Harper and he'll have nobody to blame but himself when he loses.

People won't vote for him because they are afraid he's too socially conservative. So what is the first thing he does? Volunteers his own socially conservative agenda. Sure the Liberals would have brought it up. So what? It doesn't mean he has to, on his own accord, on the very first day of the campaign.

It's the equivalent of Paul Martin coming out today and saying "we are going to set up a federal sponsorship program in Quebec if we win the election".

Normally I'd be happy to agree that Harper gets schooled in the political game but in this case it's probably smart. This is a looong campaign. By the end no one will remember anything before Christmas.

As you said, its actually an inconsequential issue, so the problem (for Harper) comes in when it becomes part of the 'great conspiracies of the evil empire formerly known as Reform'. If the gay marriage issue gets beat to death by the media, the public, the libs (and Harpers own wingnuts) in the next two weeks then it will make very little splash come election time. Not unlike the gomery report for the Libs really.

[transplant99]

damn double posts!!

[transplant99]

If it works then good move, I wish they just took the high road though

Is the "high road" the one where they abondon their beliefs in favor of what may be popular?

If so, no thanks...had enough of that BS for the last 13 years.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The Lib apologists and spinmasters took NO time...

And which apologists and spinmasters are those? Harper started up with the old conservative social agenda. You can whine about spinmasters and the dreaded liberal media, but he started it. Did you think people were just going to ignore it?

Every media outlet in the country, even the liberal Sun chain and the Calgary Herald carried the story.

I notice the Conservative apologists and spinmasters are working fulltime as well. I'm not surprised though, transplant. Why are you? It is an election, after all. Why wait?

If Harper whiffs again on this big fat hanging curveball, I suppose you'll blame the lefties again?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Actually, the Toronto Star is the toilet paper of Canadian media, but SunMedia isnt far above it.

The Edmonton and Calgary Suns in particular are often as biassed as many Ontario based papers and media outlets are. Who they are biassed toward is the primary difference between them.

This is very true.

What really irks me is when a goverment funded media, rhyming with CBC incidentally, cheerleads for one party.


Any party that will do away with the CBC and the Peoples' Endlessly Bailedout Airline and a clue to reforming our crap healthwaitanddieinline will have my vote. Something I have no trust the Liberals will do. They have lied far too much for me to believe anything they say.

[transplant99]

And which apologists and spinmasters are those?

Ummm...you? Ag. Hare. And the rest of the usual suspects.

Good enough?

Harper started up with the old conservative social agenda.

What a concept!!. A party leader following his parties mandate......something so foreign to Libs and their ilk, apparently its now a bad thing.

You can whine about spinmasters and the dreaded liberal media, but he started it.

Started what? His campaign? No kidding...and tomorrow the sun will rise..

Did you think people were just going to ignore it?

Ignore what?? His position on gay marriage? Nope...i fully expected they would jump all over what was supposedly "his hidden agenda", which clearly isnt so hidden apperntly since he "started it". You guys confuse me.

Every media outlet in the country, even the liberal Sun chain and the Calgary Herald carried the story.

The story where what was said? What you thought he said (or wished he had) or what was actually said? Thats spin Rouge...you know it and I know it. Whats your problem with calling a spade a spade?

I notice the Conservative apologists and spinmasters are working fulltime as well.

They are? If you say so. You know through this very board, I personally have no problem witn either side of the gay marriage debate. I understand both sides, unlike those who claim to be sympathetic to all. I apologize for nothing actually. So what do you mean?

If Harper whiffs again on this big fat hanging curveball, I suppose you'll blame the lefties again?

If the lefties screw up over and over, regardless of what Harper does or doesn't do, your damn right I will. A crook is a liar is a sham...no matter how many sheep vote for them

[MarchHare]

Ummm...you? Ag. Hare. And the rest of the usual suspects.

Please point out any apologizing or spinning I've done in this thread.

I suppose you're next going to say that I'm a mindless sheep who has bought into the liberal media's propaganda.

Please.

Just because I don't happen to share your own political views doesn't make me a brainless automaton. Show some more respect for those on the other side of the spectrum. Don't be so classless.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The story where what was said? What you thought he said (or wished he had) or what was actually said? Thats spin Rouge...you know it and I know it. Whats your problem with calling a spade a spade?

What have I possibly spun?

The guy said ""We were committed at the time of the convention and through the last debate to put a free vote to the next Parliament on this issue," he said."

I didn't make it up. It's not spin at all to say that it's stupid to bring this pointless debate up again. It's not spin to say that wafflers and fence-sitters again will be scared off by his droning on about irrelevant social issues that very few people care about.

If the lefties screw up over and over, regardless of what Harper does or doesn't do, your damn right I will. A crook is a liar is a sham...no matter how many sheep vote for them

So that settles it? If Harper fouls this golden opportunity up again (which he will, and already is) you are going to blame the liberals again? Apparently.

I swear, if I was a conservative in this country I'd be tearing my hair out not because of the liberal spin machine, but because the party I want to vote for is hopeless, and the leader insists on bringing up and basing his campaign on such piddling trivialities .

[transplant99]

Show some more respect for those on the other side of the spectrum

Get bent.

You telling me what to do?

Laugh.

I have NO respect for the Liberal Party nor anyone that supports their crooked, deceitful, lieing ways. As a Canadian...that's MY right and not yours to decide if i have that right or not....OK?

Anyone who hauls out the nonsense that "marriage" has some sort of grey definition is out to lunch IMO. Marriage, like it or not, has been defined by EVERY culture (meaning not just Christians) as a union between a man and a woman. Has been that way for hundreds if not thousands of years.

As I have stated before and will again I personally dont care and support equal rights for all....the whole movement by Martin was in direct opposition to what he himself once said and once claimed he believed ( as a good standing Roman Catholic Christian after all). The ONLY reason he rammed it through on a midnight vote was because of political reasons...no more and no less. I dont respect that so please dont tell me i should.


Class? Coming from a Liberal?

Maybe i should of lied and stolen...would i qualify then?

[MarchHare]

I personally dont care and support equal rights for all

Ok.

[transplant99]

The guy said ""We were committed at the time of the convention and through the last debate to put a free vote to the next Parliament on this issue," he said."

Are you seeing a theme here? He was asked a question about what happened THEN...he answered it as to how he felt THEN

whats that got to do with now? Or would you see him as smarter to just say no comment and walk away?

Im sorry, but I really have no problem with someone who answers questions poised to them in an honest and non fabricated way. Do you?

So that settles it? If Harper fouls this golden opportunity up again (which he will, and already is) you are going to blame the liberals again? Apparently.

Huh? If he loses this election...yes i blame him for that as i did the last time. However, that still doesnt exonnerate the Liberals for the lying cheating and stealing they have done in the past and will do in the future.

What the Liberal spinmasters has to do with that is beyond me....other than to deflect their own incompetance and inabilities.

IE: The gay marriage thing. Where was this free vote through parliament ( which is what Harper said he would do) anyhow? Isnt that how things should be decided?

[CaptainCrunch]

I find it somewhat funny that people are so eager to jump all over the Conservatives before the campaign has even started, it shows your unwillingness to listen to what they're presenting.

Its like that nosy neighbour that says uh huh I told you that guy was shady, now I don't have to listen anymore.

If your so willing to condemn harper after the first day, then in all damn fairness you need to condemn the Liberals for the Gomery issues, and the upcoming Income Trusts issues.

This is why I've lost a ton of respect for Canadian voters, your so eager to judge after the first day to support an ideology and damn the consequences. It dosen't matter about what the Liberal's do, people are two cowardly to punish them and force them to reform thier own party, and the only way that thats going to happen is if we make sure we don't reward thier behavior with another term in office, because if we do, all we're saying is its ok to be corrupt, its ok to steal money from the average Canadian that your supposed to be serving, as long as you say the right things, and maybe do the right thing once every 10 years.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by fotze

Risky technique though. If it works then good move, I wish they just took the high road though.

I think the hardest thing is that the economy is doing well. Has anyone done research to determine how often a ruling party is ousted during a booming economy. I think people put the blame of the economy on the government, even though in most cases it succeeds or fails in spite of gov't involvement.

Only technique they could use, really. If Harper didn't bring it up someone else would, and likely at a less opportune time.

I don't think there are a lot of votes to be won or lost on the gay marriage issue itself. There's a small % of the population who are crusaders on both sides of this issue, but they've staked their camps already.

The accountability issue has shown a lot of swing so thats where Harper needs to make hay.

Good question about the economy. Most people think we're doing just fine, but I wonder if we'd had it seemingly good for long enough now that people will take that for granted.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

... make sure we don't reward thier behavior with another term in office, because if we do, all we're saying is its ok to be corrupt, its ok to steal money from the average Canadian that your supposed to be serving, as long as you say the right things, and maybe do the right thing once every 10 years.

We said that last election, when everyone knew the libs were caught up in the mess but no one cared.

This election looks like it'll be about how best to say 'sorry'.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Anyone who hauls out the nonsense that "marriage" has some sort of grey definition is out to lunch IMO. Marriage, like it or not, has been defined by EVERY culture (meaning not just Christians) as a union between a man and a woman. Has been that way for hundreds if not thousands of years.

You might want to know what you are talking about before you accuse others of being out to lunch.

The concept of marriage that we consider "normal" has not been the norm for hundreds or thousands of years. Marriage, like it or not, has been defined by different cultures as a man married to several women, or several women married to many men, or arranged, forced, sold, traded, terminated, you name it. I'm pretty sure that with a little research you could even dig out some culture or other that had same-sex marriage in the past. So the notion that "marriage" has always been one man and one woman in love, happily and with full consent getting married to each other in a formal ceremony, is nonsense.

But no point in arguing it with you, since we happen to agree on this issue.

The whole conversation does demonstrate though how easy it is to sidetrack conservatives into forgetting about the actual issues (corruption et cetera) and focussing on pretty much nothing. You'll blame it on the liberal spin machine though, which is fair enough. Pretty simple machine though.