TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Why Stephen Harper won't win the election...
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »

Make whatever argument you want EvilTree - I think everybody here knows that our military is a joke.

I think you're reading me wrong; I'm not a pacifist, I think Canada SHOULD be committing some serious coin to defense spending, but the budget's simply been slashed over and over again over the past few decades because Canadians apparently see themselves as "peacemakers" (which is not true; Americans are peacemakers, most Canadians are just pacifists and cowards).

quote:

Originally posted by Chiclet At one point, anti-racism groups were seen as 'special interest' groups.

And what's your point? Are you actually equating the emancipation of the slaves to the forced inclusion of homosexuals into a 300-year-old established legal definition of marriage, or is that just a red herring?

I have no problem with the definition of marriage being amended IF a democratic majority wants to vote for that. I do have a problem with the issue being forced. Harper has no desire to simply "overturn" the decision, he just believes (and rightly so) that it should have been put to a referendum. He doesn't want to "de-legalize" gay marriage, he just wants the people to be allowed to make that decision.

Need I remind you that the abolitionists were mostly White Christian Americans in very large numbers who fought specifically because their government was NOT hearing everyone's voice. That hardly resembles the gay marriage lobby group or a couple of aging hippie Supreme Court justices.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Make whatever argument you want EvilTree - I think everybody here knows that our military is a joke. I think you're reading me wrong; I'm not a pacifist, I think Canada SHOULD be committing some serious coin to defense spending, but the budget's simply been slashed over and over again over the past few decades because Canadians apparently see themselves as "peacemakers" (which is not true; Americans are peacemakers, most Canadians are just pacifists and cowards).

Oh, I don't think you're a pacifist. You just aren't as well informed about state of CAF.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And what's your point? Are you actually equating the emancipation of the slaves to the forced inclusion of homosexuals into a 300-year-old established legal definition of marriage, or is that just a red herring? I have no problem with the definition of marriage being amended IF a democratic majority wants to vote for that. I do have a problem with the issue being forced. Harper has no desire to simply "overturn" the decision, he just believes (and rightly so) that it should have been put to a referendum. He doesn't want to "de-legalize" gay marriage, he just wants the people to be allowed to make that decision. Need I remind you that the abolitionists were mostly White Christian Americans in very large numbers who fought specifically because their government was NOT hearing everyone's voice. That hardly resembles the gay marriage lobby group or a couple of aging hippie Supreme Court justices.

I'm not talking about abolitionists and slavery, but more about segregation and interracial marriage in the mid 20th century.

At the time of desegregation, if it were up to only a 'democratic' and popular vote and not by some force (boycott, civil disobedience), it probably wouldn't have happened so soon.

In the 60s, there were MANY similar arguments about interracial marriage. "You're going to change a (insert large number here)-year old established legal definition of marriage and allow people of different creeds to marry?"

Oh, and the only red herring I like are the ones I eat.

Here. If you want to see what I mean by similarities I found this about the case of the Lovings:

"During the course of the proceeding the trial judge asserted that: "Almighty God created the races of White, Black, Yellow, Malay, and Red, and He placed them on separate continents." "And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages." "The fact that He separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."5

After Virginia's Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision on the grounds that the Constitution of the United States prohibits states from barring interracial marriages. In so doing, the Supreme Court invalidated similar laws in fifteen States. Thus, as of June 12, 1967, interracial marriages were no longer illegal in any State. " (from: http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/s98alouis.htm )

The Supreme Court of the US was responsible for making interracial marriage legal accross the country. It was decided on 'undemocratically' by 'activist judges'.

I still can't believe it didn't happen until 1967.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [COLOR=#99CCEE]Send troops to Iraq? WHAT troops? I think the American troops would rather just do their job than have to bail out the Canadian troops (AKA hostages) once again. COLOR]

actually our soldiers are some of the best in the world, right up there with the Yanks, Brits and Australians. Yes, the army is underfunded big time, but the quality of our troops is still very high. My friend went on a soldier exchange to the US back in October and his RCR battalion defeated American Ranger troops in wargames on 3 of the 4 exercises. This isn't anything new either...our ground forces and pilots have been kicking their asses in wargames for decades.

We could easily send a couple thousand troops to Iraq, even as many as 8 or 10 thousand if we really wanted to. It would put enormous stress on the Armed Forces but it's possible. And I'm sure the Americans would welcome our troops with open arms...they need all the help they can get over there.

Anyway, I dont think Harper would do this because it would be political suicide but it's pretty well known that he would have if he had been PM back in 2003.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 We could easily send a couple thousand troops to Iraq, even as many as 8 or 10 thousand if we really wanted to. It would put enormous stress on the Armed Forces but it's possible. And I'm sure the Americans would welcome our troops with open arms...they need all the help they can get over there. Anyway, I dont think Harper would do this because it would be political suicide but it's pretty well known that he would have if he had been PM back in 2003.

Regular force (including navy and air force) is about 60,000. Reserves at about 14,000.
So just which soldiers you going to send again?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Make whatever argument you want EvilTree - I think everybody here knows that our military is a joke.

I was in the Canadian Army Resvers. The soldiers and training(limited due to funding) are some of the best in the world. We lack funding for good equipment and deployment.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Regular force (including navy and air force) is about 60,000. Reserves at about 14,000. So just which soldiers you going to send again?

Ive read before we could, if put to task, field a groun expeditionary force of about 50,000 soldiers in an emergency. It was about a year ago....Jack Granatstein whining away in the National Post.

Here's how a civilized country deals with the issue (civil unions enacted after a free vote of Parliament).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm

'Gay weddings' become law in UK

Hundreds of gay couples are preparing to form civil partnerships in the coming weeks as the law changes after decades of campaigning.

At least 1,200 ceremonies are confirmed as being scheduled already, according to figures from councils compiled by the BBC News website.

Registrars are preparing for the first ceremonies, with couples permitted to register from Monday morning.

Campaigners says the law ends inequalities for same-sex couples.

The first ceremonies under the Civil Partnerships Act can take place in Northern Ireland on 19 December, followed by Scotland the next day and England and Wales on 21 December.

Under the law, couples who want to form a partnership must register their intentions with local councils. Unlike marriages, the signing of the legal partnership papers does not need to happen in public.

Bookings coming in

Hundreds of couples are expected to go ahead quickly, with Brighton conducting 198 ceremonies before the end of the year. Overall, the city has taken 510 bookings for the coming months, thought to be the highest in the country.

Other cities which have seen strong interest include London, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and Edinburgh.


PROVISIONAL BOOKINGS
Brighton and Hove: 510
Westminster: 140
Manchester: 88
Newcastle: 80
Birmingham: 70
Leeds: 60
Edinburgh: 76
Sheffield: 58
Nottingham: 50
Glasgow: 30
Cardiff: 24
Belfast: 20
Liverpool 20
Londonderry: 6
Aberdeen: 5
Source: Councils; not all ceremonies booked for December

Meg Munn, minister for equality, said the government expected 4,500 couples to get "partnered" in the first year.

"This is an important piece of legislation that gives legal recognition to relationships which until now were invisible in the eyes of the law," Ms Munn told the BBC News website.

"It accords people in same-sex relationships the same sort of rights and responsibilities that are available to married couples.

"We know there are people who have been together maybe 40 years and have been waiting for the chance to do this kind of thing, because of the important differences it makes to their lives.

"They have the same concerns as married couples - tenancy, ownership, pensions and inheritance."

Alan Wardle, of gay campaign group Stonewall, said the importance of the change should not be underestimated.

"Our view is that civil partnerships are transformative for the lives of individual couples and their rights, but also for society more generally.

"Society now legally recognises gay relationships for the first time.

"It's a big day but 21 December, when the first partnerships take place, will be even bigger because that will see gay and lesbian people removing discrimination."

But a spokesman for the one of the UK's major Christian groups told the BBC they believed same-sex couples should not get the same rights as married couples.

"If you transport something unique, like marriage, into a different context, there's always a cost. And the cost here is in terms of reduction of marriage and the undermining of it," Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance said.

Reticent councils

Retailers are already beginning to cash in on the new partnerships.

FAMILY AFFAIRS
There was a pause as my mother took this in - and I waited and eventually said, 'So what's it to be? A cup of tea or a Scotch?'
Percy Steven on telling his mother he was gay

A range of "Mr and Mr" and "Mrs and Mrs" cards will hit Asda supermarkets this week.

And sets of "Darling, Dearest, Queerest" embroidered towel and soaps went on sale at Superdrug stores on Friday.

Meanwhile, three short advertisements were published in the Births, Marriages and Deaths columns under the heading Civil partnerships in Monday's Times newspaper.

The heading is a new addition to the paper, which has carried family announcements for nearly 221 years.

Campaigners have focused on councils which have been equivocal about the new law.

Bromley in south-east London had initially planned not to offer public ceremonies. Lisburn in Northern Ireland also overturned a proposed ban.

Ms Munn said any councils dragging their feet needed to comply with the both the spirit and letter of the law.

"The legislation requires that every authority must offer a civil partnership. The basic level of that is a simple signing of a register - some couples may just want that alone.

"But if any councils are saying they won't allow [public] ceremonies, for couples who want that kind of celebration, then it's time they came into the 21st century."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm

Published: 2005/12/05 11:19:43 GMT

� BBC MMV

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 ... Some people are already taking churches to court because they refuse to marry gays citing the charter for their rights. This is mainly where most canadians oppose gay marriage. Its not that they oppose gays being married, its the justified worry that it will lead to a loss of freedom of religion. Of course the media will never give you that angle of the story. All they want to project is fear.

until there has been a SUCCESSFUL lawsuit, don't bring that up...

*denying* rights because "the potential" for other rights to be infringed upon is a pretty weak position to take.

on what ground can you imagine that the Supreme Court will rule that a gay couple's marriage rights trump a Charter right to freedom of religion? The public outrage would be *enormous*.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf Here's how a civilized country deals with the issue (civil unions enacted after a free vote of Parliament)....

the rights of a minority ought never be determined by the majority.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT the rights of a minority ought never be determined by the majority.

And there is also a thing called tyranny of the minority...

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree And there is also a thing called tyranny of the minority...

it's actually the tyranny of the majority that is more often discussed in political philosophy.

to suggest that minorities have more "power" than the majority is laughable.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT it's actually the tyranny of the majority that is more often discussed in political philosophy. to suggest that minorities have more "power" than the majority is laughable.

Not quite, when the majority can't do much against laws and legislations that promotes minority rights at the expense of the majority.

Probably a bad example, but take for instance bilingualism. Now the anglophones are the majority in Canada. A lot of them don't care about French. But the govt decided that French must be on every product in Canada. French services for govt is to be available everywhere.

Is this a bad thing? That's up for debate.
But it is an example of minority pressing its right over the majority with perceived expense of the majority.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Not quite, when the majority can't do much against laws and legislations that promotes minority rights at the expense of the majority. Probably a bad example, but take for instance bilingualism. Now the anglophones are the majority in Canada. A lot of them don't care about French. But the govt decided that French must be on every product in Canada. French services for govt is to be available everywhere. Is this a bad thing? That's up for debate. But it is an example of minority pressing its right over the majority with perceived expense of the majority.

French is an official language of the country...it ought to be everywhere. For the rest of Canada to deny that is exactly an example of the tyranny of the majority.

The issue ought to then be why is French an official language in thef first place? (which is a separate matter on it's own).

and yes, the tyranny of the majority is more an issue...don't take my word for it, go study historical political philosophy. For commentaries on the potential tyranny of the majority, you can look to John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville, for starters.

^I'm quite aware of tyranny of majority. But I also think that tyranny of minority is just as dangerous.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 actually our soldiers are some of the best in the world, right up there with the Yanks, Brits and Australians. Yes, the army is underfunded big time, but the quality of our troops is still very high. My friend went on a soldier exchange to the US back in October and his RCR battalion defeated American Ranger troops in wargames on 3 of the 4 exercises. This isn't anything new either...our ground forces and pilots have been kicking their asses in wargames for decades.

The irony being with American's own equipment a lot of the time too...

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT The issue ought to then be why is French an official language in the first place? (which is a separate matter on it's own).

There is a simple answer to that one...

Trudeau cozying up to the french for political advantage. This is why the rest of canada muddles along through bilingualism yet quebec is allowed to get away with french only.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Not quite, when the majority can't do much against laws and legislations that promotes minority rights at the expense of the majority.

In terms of same-sex marriage, what 'expense' to the majority are you talking about? No priest will be 'forced' to perform same-sex marriage. There may be some couples who will try to sue, that happens with everything.

Other than that, how does letting gay people marry detract from anyone's rights in ANY way?

I know there are still many that think same-sex marriage is just morally wrong, that right now seems debatable, but in many cases, history has shown that many human rights that we take for granted emerged out of Supreme Court intervention, BECAUSE at the time what was popular was not was was best for the country. Again, the right or wrong of interracial marriage was just as 'debatable' at one point. I hope you look up the history of interracial marriage and see just how parallel the issue is with same-sex marriage.

Parallels:
- people argued that it was against nature, it was unnatural, it threatened to destroy the family, people did want to be forced to have to marry what they saw as illegitimate couples
- in the US, it was up to the Supreme Court to strike down all state laws banning interracial marriage

quote:

Originally posted by Chiclet In terms of same-sex marriage, what 'expense' to the majority are you talking about? No priest will be 'forced' to perform same-sex marriage. There may be some couples who will try to sue, that happens with everything. Other than that, how does letting gay people marry detract from anyone's rights in ANY way?

But I was not talking in terms of same sex marriage...

Here is a great speech from John Lewis, a Representative from Georgia regarding DOMA:

quote:

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague for yielding me the time. Let me say to the gentleman that when I was growing up in the south during the 1940s and the 1950s, the great majority of the people in that region believed that black people should not be able to enter places of public accommodation, and they felt that black people should not be able to register to vote, and many people felt that was right but that was wrong. I think as politicians, as elected officials, we should not only follow but we must lead, lead our districts, not put our fingers into the wind to see which way the air is blowing but be leaders. Mr. Chairman, this is a mean bill. It is cruel. This bill seeks to divide our nation, turn Americans against Americans, sew the seeds of fear, hatred and intolerance. Let us remember the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths self-evident that all people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This bill is a slap in the face of the Declaration of Independence. It denies gay men and women the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage is a basic human right. You cannot tell people they cannot fall in love. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used to say when people talked about interracial marriage and I quote, ``Races do not fall in love and get married. Individuals fall in love and get married.'' Why do you not want your fellow men and women, your fellow Americans to be happy? Why do you attack them? Why do you want to destroy the love they hold in their hearts? Why do you want to crush their hopes, their dreams, their longings, their aspirations? We are talking about human beings, people like you, people who want to get married, buy a house, and spend their lives with the one they love. They have done no wrong. I will not turn my back on another American. I will not oppress my fellow human being. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mr. Chairman, I have known racism. I have known bigotry. This bill stinks of the same fear, hatred and intolerance. It should not be called the Defense of Marriage Act. It should be called the defense of mean-spirited bigots act. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, to have the courage to do what is right. This bill appeals to our worst fears and emotions. It encourages hatred of our fellow Americans for political advantage. Every word, every purpose, every message is wrong. It is not the right thing to do, to divide Americans. We are moving toward the 21st century. Let us come together and create one nation, one people, one family, one house, the American house, the American family, the American nation.

And for those of you who argue for Civil Unions instead, all the Civil Unions that exist now, do not afford all the same rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Chiclet Here is a great speech from John Lewis, a Representative from Georgia regarding DOMA: And for those of you who argue for Civil Unions instead, all the Civil Unions that exist now, do not afford all the same rights.

And what if civil union is changed so that it does afford equal rights as a marriage?

bigots and haters
bigots and haters
bigots and haters

It's funny how some on this board hide their true feelings by arguing law and god. Why not just admit what you are instead of poorly trying to hide behind a cloak of transparent jibberish.

This isn't directed at everyone, just a select few and if you're asking "is he talking about me" then chances are the answer is yes.

bigot and hater, fine....but why add coward to it?

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree But I was not talking in terms of same sex marriage...

Bah Hum Bug!

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree And what if civil union is changed so that it does afford equal rights as a marriage?

Is that even possible? It could even be as simple as trying to get a family vacation package and being denied it because you are not "married".

There are some churches that support same-sex marriage. I don't know, but can they have a religious 'civil union'?

There some other issues that can come up solely based on the name that I can't think of right this moment.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.