|
TOTA Election (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| b4k-oz |
Crypers Jayx1 and ShadoWolf....u guys need to chill....ur getting too emotionally wrapped up in this shyte. The TOTA election poll results, thus far, should have made you wonder by now that ur taking this too far. I commend you for your efforts but let it go *sigh*
I could start pulling out my history data/facts about the liberals and fyi ShadoWolf the lists is much longer as to how many good things they have implemented for Canada...but I know u guys aren't interested in that....all u wanna do is manipulate our voting rights and you know what..that's exactly what the Conservative used to do back when it was an open ballot (telling their workers if they voted the wrong way they cudn't come back to a job). Shame on you guys....that's a pretty low brow tactic :(
Perhaps what you should do is learn to give the TOTAs some credit for knowing and understanding what they have to do come next election.
Even if the Liberals win again....don't think for a minute they aren't going to be under a microscope. However....the Conservatives have always been very secretive about their actions and it's no secret that they support privatization and Corporate interests...and for me....that's not something to be proud of.
SO GIVE IT A REST GUYS!  |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Everyone thinks the Conservatives are against gay marriage. They are not. They want a comprimise. They want to have a civil union that is equal in every way to marriage except they dont want to call it marriage. I dont see what the issue is. And the ironic thing here is that HArper is doing it to protect rights. He wants to ensure the right of churches, synogogues and mosques to refuse to marry gays which runs against their religious beliefs. He feels that calling a gay union a civil union will protect those rights. It's a decent comprimise in my opinion.
Please do not say that the conservatives are against gay marriage. They are not. |
You don't see what the issue is? Then why not just call it marriage? The issue is this.... calling it anything other than marriage sets it appart from marriage and further lables homosexuality as abnormal. Moreover, there are certain legal rights that are availible to married couples (for instance, a man cannot be forced to testify against his wife)... if you call it a civil union homosexual couples don't have access to these rights.
What I find amazing is that you buy this argument that the Conservatives are trying to prevent churches, synogogues, and mosques (you forgot temples and kingdom halls) from being forced to preform these marriages. In the offering of marriage services the minister/preist/rabbi/cleric are independant business men/women. They do not have to preform the wedding if they do not want to. Try getting married in a catholic curch if neither you or your fiancee is catholic... can't do it! Just because homosexuals would have the right to be married does not equate to religious institutions being forced to preform said marriages. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
calling it anything other than marriage sets it appart from marriage |
As it should be. Clearly, a gay union is FUNDAMENTALLY different than a marriage.
| quote: | | Moreover, there are certain legal rights that are availible to married couples (for instance, a man cannot be forced to testify against his wife)... if you call it a civil union homosexual couples don't have access to these rights. |
The terms "husband" and "wife" no longer exist in Ontario. Harper's plan would give gays all the rights that you mentioned.
| quote: |
What I find amazing is that you buy this argument that the Conservatives are trying to prevent churches, synogogues, and mosques (you forgot temples and kingdom halls) from being forced to preform these marriages. In the offering of marriage services the minister/preist/rabbi/cleric are independant business men/women. They do not have to preform the wedding if they do not want to. Try getting married in a catholic curch if neither you or your fiancee is catholic... can't do it! Just because homosexuals would have the right to be married does not equate to religious institutions being forced to preform said marriages. |
http://www.queenofpeace.ca/Human_Rights_Complaint.htm |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
As it should be. Clearly, a gay union is FUNDAMENTALLY different than a marriage.
The terms "husband" and "wife" no longer exist in Ontario. Harper's plan would give gays all the rights that you mentioned.
http://www.queenofpeace.ca/Human_Rights_Complaint.htm |
I disagree with you. The only difference is that two homosexuals do not have potential to reproduce as a result of their sexual union. If that is the reason why their marriage cannot be called marriage then I would argue the second a man gets a vasdectomy, a woman gets a tubal ligation or enters menopause their marriages must be declaired null and void.
Even if the Conservatives were able to effect legislation that would grant persons in a "civil union" the same rights as "married" persons for all existing statutes it would still leave a problem with regard to private association/business policy which may not. Moreover, calling it anything other then marriage will remain unconstitutional. By trying to side step this and call marriage between two homosexuals a civil union it will only invite more litigation and another supreme court ruling (which will likely rule the same way as the charter is very clear that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation). This will cost millions and jepordize the rights of hundreds of thousands of people... why, because some people have a problem reconciling the constitution with their religious beliefs.... sorry, but the rule of law means that the constitution trumps your conscienous.
The problem we have in this whole issue is that the homosexuals are emotionally invested in this as they want to have all the same rights as anyone else. The opponants of homosexual marriage are emotionally invested because they think that allowing gays to get married will either a) bring the scorn of God upon Canada or b) demeen the institution of marriage. It's too bad there is so much emotion in this arguement because a simple passionless reading of the law clearly results in the conclusion that disallowing homosexuals to marry is unconstitutional. |
|
|
| kwongandy |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ShadoWolf
As it should be. Clearly, a gay union is FUNDAMENTALLY different than a marriage.
as it should not be, in my most humblest opinion. |
|
|
| drgoodvibe |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I disagree with you. The only difference is that two homosexuals do not have potential to reproduce as a result of their sexual union. If that is the reason why their marriage cannot be called marriage then I would argue the second a man gets a vasdectomy, a woman gets a tubal ligation or enters menopause their marriages must be declaired null and void.
Even if the Conservatives were able to effect legislation that would grant persons in a "civil union" the same rights as "married" persons for all existing statutes it would still leave a problem with regard to private association/business policy which may not. Moreover, calling it anything other then marriage will remain unconstitutional. By trying to side step this and call marriage between two homosexuals a civil union it will only invite more litigation and another supreme court ruling (which will likely rule the same way as the charter is very clear that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation). This will cost millions and jepordize the rights of hundreds of thousands of people... why, because some people have a problem reconciling the constitution with their religious beliefs.... sorry, but the rule of law means that the constitution trumps your conscienous.
The problem we have in this whole issue is that the homosexuals are emotionally invested in this as they want to have all the same rights as anyone else. The opponants of homosexual marriage are emotionally invested because they think that allowing gays to get married will either a) bring the scorn of God upon Canada or b) demeen the institution of marriage. It's too bad there is so much emotion in this arguement because a simple passionless reading of the law clearly results in the conclusion that disallowing homosexuals to marry is unconstitutions. |
good read, thanks! I agree. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
Crypers Jayx1 and ShadoWolf....u guys need to chill....ur getting too emotionally wrapped up in this shyte. The TOTA election poll results, thus far, should have made you wonder by now that ur taking this too far. I commend you for your efforts but let it go *sigh*
I could start pulling out my history data/facts about the liberals and fyi ShadoWolf the lists is much longer as to how many good things they have implemented for Canada...but I know u guys aren't interested in that....all u wanna do is manipulate our voting rights and you know what..that's exactly what the Conservative used to do back when it was an open ballot (telling their workers if they voted the wrong way they cudn't come back to a job). Shame on you guys....that's a pretty low brow tactic :(
Perhaps what you should do is learn to give the TOTAs some credit for knowing and understanding what they have to do come next election.
Even if the Liberals win again....don't think for a minute they aren't going to be under a microscope. However....the Conservatives have always been very secretive about their actions and it's no secret that they support privatization and Corporate interests...and for me....that's not something to be proud of.
SO GIVE IT A REST GUYS! |
Unlike Shadowwolf i dont care what they have done in the past good or bad. All i know is the last 13 years of this regime have been a disgrace and it's time for a change of power. Whether its adscam or a whole host of other issues. |
|
|
| dc ajaxs |
| Ya i'm pretty fed up with canadian politics as well, when will we get a government that starts working together on issues rather than saying no and only no. on top of that they get paid the big bucks to be in ottawa as well thanks to us the taxpayers of canada. |
|
|
| MarkT |
it's almost funny to see Shadowolf say things like "it would taint or cheapen the institution for straights".
thank you...that's what I've been asking for...just admit that there is no legal reason for the exclusion of gays from marriage. This is *ALL* about some heterosexuals feeling that this is offensive to them and somehow detracts from their own sham of a institution.
I don't think there are any laws or Charter provisions for preventing your self-perceived "tainting" or "cheapening" of straight marriage. What a lame reply, LMFAO.
Jayx1...why do you keep harping on this silly notion that religious organizations are going to be FORCED to perform gay marriages??? DUDE, DROP IT because it's not going to happen and it's not on anyone's agenda. Besides, if such force was *somehow* possible...if "unions" are legally "the same" as marriage, what would prevent gays from trying to force a Church to perform a union? This is such a stupid line of thinking...
The public, with most gays included, wouldn't stand for it...I have not read of any major group or spokesperson promoting gay marriage who is also advocating *forcing* of Churches to perform ceremonies. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
...that's what I've been asking for...just admit that there is no legal reason for the exclusion of gays from marriage.
I have not read of any major group or spokesperson promoting gay marriage who is also advocating *forcing* of Churches to perform ceremonies. |
Not only is there no legal reason, the law is quite clear that any exclusion of homosexuals from marriage is unconstitutional. This civil union idea is silly. It's an odd thing though... my father, who is pretty socially progressive, supports the civil union thing but not marriage... funny part is that he recognizes that there is no logical reason for this. I think this true of many opponates to allowing homosexuals to marry.
Oddly enough there is one church that has already come out and said they will preform marriage right for homosexuals.... the United Church, that being said they have always been the most progressive church in this country. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| FYI, I'm getting married in July and I don't think that because a gentleman in my office will be getting married to another man that same week my marriage is any less meaningful. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The opponants of homosexual marriage are emotionally invested because they think that allowing gays to get married will either a) bring the scorn of God upon Canada or b) demeen the institution of marriage. It's too bad there is so much emotion in this arguement because a simple passionless reading of the law clearly results in the conclusion that disallowing homosexuals to marry is unconstitutions. |
God will scorn all of us for talking about this. Let the gay community have what they want....we let everyone else have what they want....to bad I am a white male.....I can't ask for anything.
If we want a real goverment to run this country I say vote Communist Party |
|
|
|
|
