Why Stephen Harper won't win the election...

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 »

Posted by malek on Dec-06-2005 01:56:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
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.

are you kidding me? There's no more bilingual city like Montreal or sheer bilinguals than in Quebec.

Where else can you be served in Canada? nowhere man, bilingualism is just a facade.

Posted by Yohan on Dec-06-2005 01:58:

quote:
Originally posted by Chiclet
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.

Well, we're just talking about same sex marriage in context of Canadian law, right?

If law is passed that civil union equals marriage in every aspect, then any discrimination against it based on it being 'merely' civil union would be against the law.

I believe that a lot of religious types are against same sex marriage is the use of word 'marriage' which to them is sacred as bond between a man and a woman blessed by God or Allah or whoever.

I dunno. I just think civil union equating to marriage is good enough compromise for all parties.

Posted by Yohan on Dec-06-2005 01:58:

Posted by malek on Dec-06-2005 02:01:

quote:
Originally posted by EvilTree
New Brunswick?

and they fought for it...

Posted by malek on Dec-06-2005 02:10:

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 because of Canada's history... (i guess you guys landed in Ontario with helicopters). French and English used to have about the same population in numbers... but English spreaded faster (like a bad cancer ) and some actions by the English didn't help French either like the deprortation of French living in New Brunswick, or the extermination of the (French) metis in Manitoba...

Posted by Yohan on Dec-06-2005 02:13:

Posted by malek on Dec-06-2005 02:20:

quote:
Originally posted by EvilTree
Not my intention to debate history of French Canada... Merely trying to give an example of tyranny of minority.

I knew that was a bad example.

its not a tyranny, a country founded by two people needs to treat each party good, which wasn't the case until recently (historically speaking) or since the spectre of separation appeared.

Posted by Chiclet on Dec-06-2005 02:29:

quote:
Originally posted by EvilTree
Well, we're just talking about same sex marriage in context of Canadian law, right?

If law is passed that civil union equals marriage in every aspect, then any discrimination against it based on it being 'merely' civil union would be against the law.

I believe that a lot of religious types are against same sex marriage is the use of word 'marriage' which to them is sacred as bond between a man and a woman blessed by God or Allah or whoever.

I dunno. I just think civil union equating to marriage is good enough compromise for all parties.

But there are some churches that support same-sex marriage. The word marriage is 'sacred' to them too. That, and by calling it a civil union, you are calling it separate and different.

Here is an interesting argument:

quote:
from PATRICK MONAHAN, http://www.affirmunited.ca/SSM-cu.htm "Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry (while permitting them to enter into relationships that bear all the legal attributes of marriage) can only be based on the discriminatory assumption that gays and lesbians are unworthy to participate in the legal and social institution of marriage.

One argument that has sometimes been raised in favour of distinguishing opposite-sex from same-sex relationships relates to the potential of opposite-sex couples to procreate. But the potential to procreate is not a precondition for opposite-sex marriage. (Moreover, same-sex couples may now have children through medically assisted procreation and adoption.) In short, contemporary marriage is no longer defined through procreation. Rather, it is an exclusive, intimate, lasting relationship of two persons who agree to live to_gether and support each other. The ability to enter into these kinds of lasting, intimate relationships is clearly unconnected to the sexual orientation of the partners. It is for this reason that courts in seven provinces and one territory have found that the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage contravenes the Charter equality rights of same-sex couples"

Posted by MarkT on Dec-06-2005 02:44:

quote:
Originally posted by EvilTree
^I'm quite aware of tyranny of majority. But I also think that tyranny of minority is just as dangerous.

is it?

the majority, at any time if left unchecked, can theoretically just say "no" to any given minority, by simply virtue of their numbers if we're going to put the issue to a simple "majority rules" vote (as Harper would do for issues such as gay marriage).

the minority has no such option and *requires* certain checks (e.g. the Charter) to be in place in order to not potentially be subject to the whim of the majority.

Posted by Yohan on Dec-06-2005 02:50:

quote:
Originally posted by malek
its not a tyranny, a country founded by two people needs to treat each party good, which wasn't the case until recently (historically speaking) or since the spectre of separation appeared.

fack mate. I was just trying to give an example of a minority imposing something on a majority. LOL

Posted by malek on Dec-06-2005 02:52:

quote:
Originally posted by EvilTree
fack mate. I was just trying to give an example of a minority imposing something on a majority. LOL

its ok, you owe me a beer (not a coors lite )

Posted by Yohan on Dec-06-2005 02:56:

quote:
Originally posted by Chiclet
But there are some churches that support same-sex marriage. The word marriage is 'sacred' to them too. That, and by calling it a civil union, you are calling it separate and different.

Here is an interesting argument:

And those churches would be a very small minority. All other Christian denominations, plus religious like Muslim and I think Hindu too consider marriage to be sacred.

As for the person you're quoting, I have no problem with argument, except that it does not refute my argument which is based on religious beliefs.

quote:
MarkT
is it?

the majority, at any time if left unchecked, can theoretically just say "no" to any given minority, by simply virtue of their numbers if we're going to put the issue to a simple "majority rules" vote (as Harper would do for issues such as gay marriage).

the minority has no such option and *requires* certain checks (e.g. the Charter) to be in place in order to not potentially be subject to the whim of the majority.

And I don't disagree with you. But sometimes these 'checks' can be used by the minority to impose its will on the majority and there is no democratic process to decide whether it's should be allowed or not.

Posted by Yohan on Dec-06-2005 02:57:

quote:
Originally posted by malek
its ok, you owe me a beer (not a coors lite )

Coors light with a lime is quite refreshing. Try it some time.

Posted by MarkT on Dec-06-2005 03:13:

quote:
Originally posted by EvilTree
...
And I don't disagree with you. But sometimes these 'checks' can be used by the minority to impose its will on the majority and there is no democratic process to decide whether it's should be allowed or not.

I wouldn't ever suggest that minority groups don't attempt to forcefully push their agenda...or abuse the 'checks'...but I would also not suggest that they have anything even approaching the power of the majority.

to use the gay marriage issue, the minority only gained rights which the majority previously only enjoyed...I think that's different than a majority denying rights to a minority...or a minority seeking something "more" than what the majority enjoys.

Posted by Yohan on Dec-06-2005 03:15:

quote:
Originally posted by MarkT
I wouldn't ever suggest that minority groups don't attempt to forcefully push their agenda...or abuse the 'checks'...but I would also not suggest that they have anything even approaching the power of the majority.

to use the gay marriage issue, the minority only gained rights which the majority previously only enjoyed...I think that's different than a majority denying rights to a minority...or a minority seeking something "more" than what the majority enjoys.

Again, I don't disagree with you.

I was merely suggesting that the minority might be limited in its power, but it does get opportunities to use its power on majority which can be just as dangerous as majority imposing its will on minority.

Posted by Jayx1 on Dec-06-2005 03:53:

quote:
Originally posted by mr_obvious
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?

Thats the special interests' favourite tactic to shut down any logical debate.

Just use a few "ism" names and thats the end of that.

Sorry but i dont buy that one.

Some of the most racist and bigotted people ive met are those who are supposed to be champion the cause against such things.

Posted by Jayx1 on Dec-06-2005 03:55:

quote:
Originally posted by malek
are you kidding me? There's no more bilingual city like Montreal or sheer bilinguals than in Quebec.

Where else can you be served in Canada? nowhere man, bilingualism is just a facade.

Montreal yes... but go 30 mins outside of it and see how far english gets you.

And officially the provincial government does not operate in english and it does not allow francophones to go to english immersion schools.

Posted by Jayx1 on Dec-06-2005 03:58:

quote:
Originally posted by malek
French is an official language because of Canada's history... (i guess you guys landed in Ontario with helicopters). French and English used to have about the same population in numbers... but English spreaded faster (like a bad cancer ) and some actions by the English didn't help French either like the deprortation of French living in New Brunswick, or the extermination of the (French) metis in Manitoba...

Actually truth be known. The English conquered the french on the plains of abraham. The english the allowed the french to keep their culture, heritage and religion instead of forcing assimilation like the americans did to the mississippi corridor of New France(Louisiana to detroit).

Look at the ingrateful response english canada gets now. "je me souviens" .....Yes you should remember that the british didnt force assimilation like the americans did..

Oh sorry that wasnt politically correct history...

Posted by malek on Dec-06-2005 04:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
Montreal yes... but go 30 mins outside of it and see how far english gets you.

And officially the provincial government does not operate in english and it does not allow francophones to go to english immersion schools.

you'll get more English than French in downtown Toronto, let alone the 'burbs.

Quebec govt can deal with its citizens in French, all paperworks are in both languages and if you request you'll get someone who speaks English. As for schools... yeah thats a can of worm.

Posted by mr_obvious on Dec-06-2005 04:08:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
Thats the special interests' favourite tactic to shut down any logical debate.

Just use a few "ism" names and thats the end of that.

Sorry but i dont buy that one.

Some of the most racist and bigotted people ive met are those who are supposed to be champion the cause against such things.

i said a select few, not everyone

you find it hard to buy that a few people on this board are bigots??? really??? after all the posts on gay marriage and other gay topics you can't think of one person on this board that could be labelled a homophobe??? one person who's agenda goes beyond the simple and oft overused political and religious arguments??? i find that incredible!

Posted by Jayx1 on Dec-06-2005 04:10:

everyone has their opinions and other than a few off colour jokes i have not seen anyone express anti gay sentiments.

And just because some people are anti gay marriage doesnt mean they are anti gay.

Posted by Chiclet on Dec-06-2005 04:20:

quote:
Originally posted by EvilTree
And those churches would be a very small minority. All other Christian denominations, plus religious like Muslim and I think Hindu too consider marriage to be sacred.

As for the person you're quoting, I have no problem with argument, except that it does not refute my argument which is based on religious beliefs.

Actually, the United Church is a very large, organized church. If it's about "religious freedom" then all religions should have the right to practice what they preach. No religious group should be 'forced' to perform a same-sex marriage, but at the same time, if they choose to do so, they should have that choice. Remember, it's about affording rights, not denying them.

There are also some sects of the Anglican church in North America who endorse gay marriage.

And in this case, that quote does refute what you say. It says what a Civil Union implies, is that all gays, regardless of religion or religious affiliation, or lack thereof, should never be entitled to enter a formal marriage, whether secular or not. It is discriminatory and impolies that, for the simple fact they are gay, they are not worthy of being called married.

Posted by mr_obvious on Dec-06-2005 04:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
everyone has their opinions and other than a few off colour jokes i have not seen anyone express anti gay sentiments.

And just because some people are anti gay marriage doesnt mean they are anti gay.

i never said anti gay marriage meant anti gay however there is an ongoing pattern to certain peoples posts that go beyond the basic arguments of personal rights. this is nothing new and has been a common theme with them for a while now. if you don't see it then you don't see it

Posted by malek on Dec-06-2005 04:30:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
Actually truth be known. The English conquered the french on the plains of abraham. The english the allowed the french to keep their culture, heritage and religion instead of forcing assimilation like the americans did to the mississippi corridor of New France(Louisiana to detroit).

Look at the ingrateful response english canada gets now. "je me souviens" .....Yes you should remember that the british didnt force assimilation like the americans did..

Oh sorry that wasnt politically correct history...

aha. you don't know your history. The British Royal proclamation of 1763 right after the conquest clearly stipulated:

- abolishment of all French laws and customs
- establishment of the anglicane church, the catholic church was barely tolerated (Canadiens were Catholics)
- the Canadiens cannot occupy a position in the govt at that time unless they deny their Catholic Church and become Anglican.
- a project of massive english immigration, helped by huge lands giveaways to members of the British military (ex 5000 acres to Officers)
- Catholic Church could no more collect its tithes (money or sunday basket)
- The British forbid religious persons like priests or nuns to come from France, even to replace dead ones in New France
- All laws and customs were in English
- etc etc etc

their motives were clear, you're smart enough to see that.

But, this never worked out, barely any English came and established in Canada, there was 65000 French for 600 English, no one understood the laws and there was not enough people (english) to apply them.

In 1774 the British had no choice but to return to French laws and customs... with the Grand Act of French Canada (loose translation).

Posted by Chiclet on Dec-06-2005 04:49:

quote:
Originally posted by mr_obvious
i never said anti gay marriage meant anti gay however there is an ongoing pattern to certain peoples posts that go beyond the basic arguments of personal rights. this is nothing new and has been a common theme with them for a while now. if you don't see it then you don't see it

"I don't mind gays, just as long as they don't touch me... marriage."

Just kidding, btw.

Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 »