|
Why Stephen Harper won't win the election... (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Bill C-38:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/ind...4381&List=toc-1
http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/...e-sex-marriage/
The new law, Bill C-38, implements that change by redefining parenthood from natural parenthood to legal parenthood — from an institution defined by biology, to one defined solely by law.
What the law previously treated as an exception to the norm of biological parents, it now treats as the norm. Biological parents no longer have any status in law. Legal parenthood replaces it. What the state gives (legality), it can take away.
...
The bottom line is: if you're going to take rights away from 95% of the population, at least the process should be democratic (a referendum or a free vote of the people's representatives). |
I think Moral Hazard has covered the legal angle...I'll look at it from semantics and logic as well:
I also think you have just (inadvertently) confirmed that same-sex "unions" would be considered as "same, but different" to hetero marriage and not equal to them.
The anti- gay marriage side (the part that does support gay rights at all that is), argue for a legal status or "union" to be granted to gays instead of "marriage"...yet that article, and you, are suggesting that you've "lost" something when natural parenthood is replaced by legal parenthood. Does that not, by definition, imply that opponents to gay marriage are NOT wanting to grants gays something that is equal to marriage?
i.e. you don't want gays to have the SAME rights as hetero couples...just some "similar" rights. Thanks for showing your true colours (again).
The tone of that article is also rather offensive..."A legal relationship can just as easily be given to homosexual couples who happen to want children around, presuming of course that they can procure children by one means or another". This drips with condescending attitude that gays having children is some frivolous decision...as if they are buying a new car. "Procure" further implies that children are seen as some sort of "good" to be sought out on the market. It's articles such as these that cause others, like myself, to suspect a hidden agenda on the part of some opponents to gay marriage. It's them providing some minimal level of legal tolerance, while masking some sort of moral disapproval (at best), if not outright disdain and contempt.
I suppose that children are born by happy fluke in hetero relationships? There are no hetero couples who "happen to want children around" and so they have them? There are no hetero couples who are unable to naturally have children and have to "procure" them through the very same means that a gay couple would? Are women in a "legally inferior" position because they cannot naturally produce a child and so will be deemed a "legal parent", not a natural one? Or is she granted the same status as a natural parent because normally she would have the capacity to have children, being a woman, and that circumstance/genetics/whatever has dealt her a bad card?
The inconsistencies in this line of reasoning are numerous...
What I'm asking is: Why should a legal relationship mean less than a natural one? Why is it seem as something being "taken away" from hetero couples? Change does not equal "less".
btw...suggesting that having children is the goal of marriage is also naive, at best :rolleyes: Keep your Chrisitian values to yourself, thanks, and leave them out of a LEGAL debate. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| Didn't we beat gay marriage to death a few months ago? Right now all we're doing is repeating ourselves on said topic? :sadgreen: |
|
|
| Adamo |
| why don't we all just vote NDP...:stongue: |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Didn't we beat gay marriage to death a few months ago? Right now all we're doing is repeating ourselves on said topic? :sadgreen: |
yes...I promise to refrain from further debating its merits :(
what matters now is how the new laws will be impacted if the Conservatives come to power.
many experts argue that the notwithstanding clause can't even be used...and if it can, it will (IMHO) be the downfall of their administration. |
|
|
| seelos |
| quote: | Originally posted by Adamo
why don't we all just vote NDP...:stongue: |
i would except i feel like the liberals need every vote they can get to defeat the ultra-conservative psycho harper so i will end up voting liberal just like last election. |
|
|
| She_Fitz |
Stephen Harper will never be Prime Minister because he is required to speak.. and we all know everytime he does he sticks his foot further down is throat.
This is fine with me.. means less work for the rest of us to be sure he does not get elected.. ;) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
With those two positions, what is going to stick in the minds of voters? Martin is giving numbers, and more importantly, reinforcing positives...Harper is not being positive, he's essentially talking about taking away rights that have been confirmed by the previous gov't. Most people, even the majority, don't really respond well to that mode of thinking. If he keeps this up, i think he's making a terrible mistake (again). |
What you're saying is true, but did you read or listen to his campaign speech? He did not mention the gay marriage issue ONE single time, he spent most of it talking about the reforms he's planning to make in terms of government accountability, party donations, elected senators, etc. And brought up a bunch of other "feel good" issues like health care, the Softwood lumber thing, taxes, national defense, whatever.
Honestly it wasn't that great a speech IMO, he's promising far too many conflicting things for me to take some of it seriously, but I think the media bias is abundantly clear here when they claim he "launched his campaign with" this gay marriage business when he never even mentioned it once. Obviously the reporter who wrote that article asked him one question after his speech and wrote the entire article (I should say editorial, because that's what it really is) based on that one trivial issue. There's no mention in that article of anything Harper actually said in his speech!
I actually wasn't even aware of this until I watched the speech - I actually believed that he did start campaigning on the gay marriage issue. And if I believed it, even for a minute, I'm sure millions of other Canadians will believe it as well. It's a serious problem when campaign news gets filtered through such an obvious media bias.
But like I said before, the mass media can't help what it is, they're mostly not even aware of it. Harper really needs to get out there and deliver his message directly to the skeptics, not just to the people who already support his party and not filtered through any 3rd party. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by She_Fitz
Stephen Harper will never be Prime Minister because he is required to speak.. and we all know everytime he does he sticks his foot further down is throat.
This is fine with me.. means less work for the rest of us to be sure he does not get elected.. ;) |
care to elaborate? |
|
|
| naesean3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
What you're saying is true, but did you Obviously the reporter who wrote that article asked him one question after his speech and wrote the entire article (I should say editorial, because that's what it really is) based on that one trivial issue. There's no mention in that article of anything Harper actually said in his speech!
|
THE PRODUCT OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RIGHT....
SAY ONE THING TO THE FACE YET MEAN ANOTHER...
Feels to me like someone smiling saying "Oh Hi Sean Cassidy" to my face and then when I walk away......sneering "that F@ggot"
sexualism , racism, discrimination = WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
PERIOD END OF STORY - SPEECH OR NO SPEECH - implied mal-intent and posturing against gays last time around - Harper will never be entrusted with my vote (this politcal party does not support my lifestyle - THIS DIRECTLY AFFECTS ME - THE WHOLE REASON WHY I VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!)
I vote for me and only me and what I believe is good for the greater of society - I have no future offspring to worry for - for if I did my view might change - but until that happens - I make decisions for me - ME. And with more ignorance displayed to and the demeaning of my lifestyle - I am beginning to become less complacent with allowing those in power making certain decisions over me.
I do not allow those in my personal life to do so (try my best at least) - I would love to extend that to every area - even my political party's platform and agenda on the issue.
I have voted in every parlimentary process required of me since 1990 - and take my vote seriously - always will.
You cannot effectively complain about something if you do not make a concerted effort to effect change.
I hope more young people will vote - we need strong voices for change and for what reflects our reality today for tomorrow - not an aging baby boomers - who's next 2 decades will be strife with healthcare issues and old age security issues and the laws and schemes that will fatten their wallets so they can retire "in the HIGH LIFE" while things lay in decay in the aftermath of gluttony.
Again - the old adage - what do I have to live for - I am not around much longer anyways.....DANGEROUS!
THERE IS NOTHING MORE DANGEROUS THAN A MAN WITH NOTHING TO LOSE NOTHING TO LIVE FOR AND NOTHING TO PROVE...
Social responsibilities again - where in the are they?? - and why are the not at the forefront of this society - as they should be - in terms of plain and simple defintion??
as we have learnt (still learning) what is happening behind the scenes is almost more important than what we see daily (or are allowed to see).
sidenote:
Shadowolf's - extremely offensive posts - a big :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
 |
|
|
| Wyndham |
| quote: | Originally posted by She_Fitz
Stephen Harper will never be Prime Minister because he is required to speak.. and we all know everytime he does he sticks his foot further down is throat.
This is fine with me.. means less work for the rest of us to be sure he does not get elected.. ;) |
lol where does this preconception come from that hes a bad speaker? He handles himself very well. He doesn't stick his foot in his mouth(not usually) its the media that you all pay so much attention to...headline readers. Like how he started off his election on gay marriage, which im guessing to you is "sticking his foot down his throat"? When he actually said almost nothing about it, just repeated his position that hes been stating for months.
keep reading those star headlines. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| I'm voting for Belinda Stronach... plain and simple, no better choice in my region. No matter which party she's with, like it or not. |
|
|
|
|
