|
The Liberal Party is full of Homophobes (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
I'm much less concerned about individual MPs feelings than with the official party stance. Both Chretien and Martin have pushed through the legislation, basically stating that they don't care what individuals thing BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
Harper, on the other hand, has made it QUITE clear that there is no official party stance...which makes it that much scarier when one of his MPs spouts off b.s. about abortion, gay marriage, etc. like that freak Cheryl Gallant who should long ago have been booted from the party. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I'm much less concerned about individual MPs feelings than with the official party stance. Both Chretien and Martin have pushed through the legislation, basically stating that they don't care what individuals thing BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
Harper, on the other hand, has made it QUITE clear that there is no official party stance...which makes it that much scarier when one of his MPs spouts off b.s. about abortion, gay marriage, etc. like that freak Cheryl Gallant who should long ago have been booted from the party. |
So basically what you are saying is that disallowing free votes in the house of commons (the foundation of canadian democracy) is a good thing?
Well if you like communism thats great but ill stick to believing that having individual MPs vote according to their constituents wishes is a good thing. |
|
|
| Rocco |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
i think you should rethink your catholic brain-washing there Pierre. you really think it matters, who is married to who? i think they should be allowed to get married. there is more benefits to a marriage then just living together. they are not fighting for the right to be together, they are fighting for a right to be considered a couple, to share health benefits, to buy property together, to share income taxes, not just for a right to say they are married. |
i'm not Catholic, i'm Orthdox.
all i'm saying u can get married to who ever the hell u wanted just not in Church. if i was gay, i would get married and adopt children and it would be great. but i wouldn't go and say "how come straight christians get to get married in church and i dont?"
relegion has the right to allow and now allow certain moral things. that what makes relegion the way it is. |
|
|
| SKELETOR |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rocco
i'm not Catholic, i'm Orthdox.
all i'm saying u can get married to who ever the hell u wanted just not in Church. if i was gay, i would get married and adopt children and it would be great. but i wouldn't go and say "how come straight christians get to get married in church and i dont?"
relegion has the right to allow and now allow certain moral things. that what makes relegion the way it is. |
so howcome a muslim can marry a christian in a church, and howcome athiests and murderers can get married in churches? |
|
|
| SKELETOR |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rocco
relegion has the right to allow and now allow certain moral things. that what makes relegion the way it is. |
i dont agree, religion is a guideline... a blieve in having your own morals. and if a same-sex couple want to follow their morals and get married in the name of god, it would be hypocritical for them not to be allowed to get married. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by TrueToTheCrew
Catholic Brain washing??? My point exactly.
Marriage is religious event that the state decides to recognize and give benefits to couples who are married. I said it before and I'll say it again, Marriage was initiated by all kinds of religions. It is a sacred sacrament. Now, if the gov't wants to allow gays to get married, they have to come up with a civil union which only allows them to have those financial benefits they seek. No religion under God should allow same sex marriage. I would hate to see what would happen if the gov't would force these marriages in the church.
I am against same sex marriage in religion but dont care if they have some type of civil union and get some benefits. They shouldt be allowed to adopt though..... |
my thoughts exactly |
|
|
| The Highroller |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilDust
This is what our politicians will be debating on if they get into power? And people wonder why there are less voting turnouts.
You gotta ask though why married couples get all these benefits. If 2 people living together is more beneficial to society than a single person, then all the more reasons to give same sex couples these benefits.
Religion and government are 2 separate institutions. If the religion's dogma states that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then who are we to try and reform divine church laws. If you don't like it, start your own offshoot. That's what King Henry VIII did. And the Anglicans turned out fine. Also, any religion should always respect life.
If 2 people really love each other though, they shouldn't care whether religion approves or not as long as no harm is being done to them. There's nothing that can prevent unmarried couples to live happily as if they really are married. (Except maybe conservative parents) |
this guy/girl hit the nail right on the head. who gives the government the right to enforce rules on religion? doesn't that sound a bit like a dictatorship?
who cares if you're married in a hypocritical institution anyways? why do you choose to be married in an institution who's members are clearly against your way of life? |
|
|
| Cal |
This is interesting
| quote: | Far from having inferior upbringings, the children of gay and lesbian parents may have an advantage over other kids, the justice department says in an impact assessment of its proposal to legalize same-sex marriage.
There are suggestions the offspring of gay couples have extra positive role models because their parents tend to have more "supportive and egalitarian" relationships, with more equal division of labour, the assessment says. "These strengths could contribute to parents' relationship quality and have a positive impact on children."
The three-page impact summary of gay marriage on children was compiled from dozens of international studies on the issue.
Ottawa compiled the information last year, when the Liberal government announced it would become the third country in the world to legalize gay marriage, after several court rulings that the federal ban is unconstitutional.
The summary is labelled "Protected: for internal use only" and was released to CanWest News Service through an access-to-information request.
The summary also notes gay fathers may have better parenting skills than heterosexual fathers.
"There is also some initial evidence to suggest that gay fathers may be more likely than heterosexual fathers to exhibit authoritative parenting practices," the assessment says. "In North America, an authoritative parenting style that provides children with clear limitations in addition to warmth, affection and support has been found to be associated with positive child adjustment."
A Canadian government delegation used the impact assessment to support Canada's legislative plans when appearing last September at the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child.
The assessment concludes the majority of research indicates there is no difference between children of heterosexual and homosexual parents as long as they are raised in loving and supportive homes.
"Family form alone does not appear to be a risk factor, unless combined with other risk factors, such as low income, lack of support, high conflict, low education and others," says the summary. "By the same measure, poor parenting has a negative effect on children, regardless of family form."
The government concedes, however, research on gay marriage and children is controversial because of concerns about small, unrepresentative samples of pre-dominantly well-educated, middle-class American families.
|
http://dove.typepad.com/dove/2004/0...ren_of_gay.html |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| I would hardly call the Liberal Party a bunch of lefties. They're right leaning centrists at best. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
the liberals are very left.
Socialized daycare? How much more socialist can you get? |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Highroller
this guy/girl hit the nail right on the head. who gives the government the right to enforce rules on religion? doesn't that sound a bit like a dictatorship?
who cares if you're married in a hypocritical institution anyways? why do you choose to be married in an institution who's members are clearly against your way of life? |
um, no...that is *completely* off the mark...
why do so many people bring up the Church in this debate? The Church is IRRELEVANT in the issue of gay marriage.
1. Most gays probably don't give a if the Church recognizes their marriage...what matters is that the state recognizes it.
2. Since when did Churches have a monopoly on marriage? Last time I checked, you can have a civil marriage outside of the Church :rolleyes:
3. Since Church and state is separate here, how about not bringing up the Church when talking about this issue that mainly is concerned with legal rights and obligations and equal recognition under the law. |
|
|
| EvilDust |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
3. Since Church and state is separate here, how about not bringing up the Church when talking about this issue that mainly is concerned with legal rights and obligations and equal recognition under the law. |
Totally agree with you here. I believe politicians should be unbiased about this issue. But it's kinda hard for people to throw their beliefs out the door when they are brainwashed to keep their faith and spread it or else they will go to hell.
The democratic government is a representation of its people's majority, though. If the majority is against same-sex marriages because of religious beliefs, well what can we do? They don't want their tax dollars wasted on things they are against.
But I think we're headed in the direction of equality. More and more people are generally accepting the idea of same sex marriages. So who knows, maybe 10 or 50 years from now...
Personally, I'm passive about the whole thing. I don't really see how a married couple is more beneficial to society than a single person so why should they get these benefits? Maybe it's compensation for a life of torture? |
|
|
|
|
