|
Conservatives lead Liberals by 12% nationally (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
Harper has said that he has specific views on such matters but would let parliament decide their fate. Even though he is prime minister he is but one vote in the house of commons. Since he plans on holding free votes (something the liberals rarely do), the outcome of such votes will be essentially what the people want. And apparently most people want same sex marriage etc which is why even if it were to come to a vote in the house, i doubt it would be struck down. The conservatives realize that to do so would be political suicide.
I respect a man who even in the face of strong public opposition, manages to maintain what he believes in (even if i dont agree with some of them) despite the polls. That he doesnt flip flop in the wind like most politicians would shows a lot of integrity. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Harper has said that he has specific views on such matters but would let parliament decide their fate. Even though he is prime minister he is but one vote in the house of commons. Since he plans on holding free votes (something the liberals rarely do), the outcome of such votes will be essentially what the people want. And apparently most people want same sex marriage etc which is why even if it were to come to a vote in the house, i doubt it would be struck down. The conservatives realize that to do so would be political suicide.
I respect a man who even in the face of strong public opposition, manages to maintain what he believes in (even if i dont agree with some of them) despite the polls. That he doesnt flip flop in the wind like most politicians would shows a lot of integrity. |
Martin held the gay-marriage vote just to garner the gay vote anyway, not because he actually cared about homosexual's rights. The fact that anyone believes otherwise is laughable, oh, and he originally was against the idea was he not? Until public surveys showed that most people would support the idea... what a man of integrity *rolls eyes*. Typical flip-flopping liberals, they'll SAY anything to get elected, then sit on their asses doing nothing until there's an emergency (like trying to turn a minority gov. into a majority). It's struck me as odd that the only time we've seen policies with NOTICEABLE results, they've come from Conservatives (most recently, free-trade, and Mike Harris's 'common sense' revolution). Liberals sure SAY they do a lot, but I NEVER see the RESULTS (excepting the ridiculous Charter, which is another subject entirely, you can't legislate morality, and the right to live free of discrimination is an impossible right to uphold, because it requires that people stop discriminating against eachother, which is based on their morals, which, as I've said, can not be legislated). At least when the Conservatives say they'll do something, we can be confident that it will be done!
In any case, the gay marriage debate should be held to a referendum, a bunch of politicians making a decision like that just doesn't sit right with me, too many ulterior motives to consider with each MPs vote. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Harper has said that he has specific views on such matters but would let parliament decide their fate. Even though he is prime minister he is but one vote in the house of commons. Since he plans on holding free votes (something the liberals rarely do), the outcome of such votes will be essentially what the people want. And apparently most people want same sex marriage etc which is why even if it were to come to a vote in the house, i doubt it would be struck down. The conservatives realize that to do so would be political suicide.
I respect a man who even in the face of strong public opposition, manages to maintain what he believes in (even if i dont agree with some of them) despite the polls. That he doesnt flip flop in the wind like most politicians would shows a lot of integrity. |
Sure...and Buzz Hargrove, as leader of the CAW, has but one vote (does he even vote?). His opinion carries much sway among the union members...just as Harper's personal opinion, even if it's a "free" vote, will matter to some extent. It may not sway the masses, but it's far from irrelevant.
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Martin held the gay-marriage vote just to garner the gay vote anyway, not because he actually cared about homosexual's rights. ... |
so what? I don't care what *he* thinks...I care what he does...whether what he does is as a result of what he thinks or in spite of what he thinks is not really the point, IMHO.
Chretien was a devout Catholic, but quite clearly voiced his support for abortion. That support is what mattered, given his position as PM...not that he was a Catholic.
Harper said that, in a free vote, he will vote for a return to the traditional definiton of marriage, despite the Supreme Court ruling that definiton unconstitutional. Why? |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | | Originally posted by MarkT Harper said that, in a free vote, he will vote for a return to the traditional definiton of marriage, despite the Supreme Court ruling that definiton unconstitutional. Why? |
I guess the issue with me is that I view a marriage from a Christian perspective. In my mind, deeming that a WORD (as marriage IS a word) is unconstitutional is laughable. Sure the 'legal' definition can be, but it's based on a word in the English language that is defined as being a union between one man, and one woman. I've no problem with gay people taking it upon themselves to get 'married', but in my mind, whether they are or not, they simply are not, because for a marriage to actually BE a marriage, it must be recognized by God. Then again, who am *I* to say what makes a marriage one that is recognized by God (after all, I am not God). However, I think the BIble makes it pretty clear that members of the same gender are not to partake in sexual acts together.
I guess the point is, in the grand scheme of things, even though homosexuals can SAY they are 'married', they're really just part of a civil union that is recognized by the Government as a 'marriage' for the sake of gaining a few votes. And, being that it's more a matter of semantics than the actual right to be recognized by the Government as being 'married', the issue isn't all that important to me. However, when electing someone to be the Prime Minister of my country, I prefer that the man have a backbone, be able to stand up for what he believes in, and not sway to public pressure over a matter that he holds close to his heart (in other words, I like a man of integrity to be in office). Paul Martin has swayed with the breeze on every issue from Gay marriage, to crime prevention, depending on which way the political wind is blowing at the time. This is not reminiscent of a man of integrity. In fact, it clearly stands out in my mind as a PROBLEM with the man himself, since he flip-flops so regularly, it's hard to say whether his promise today, will be the same promise he keeps 6 months from now. At least Harper stands by comments he made in the past, or admits to changing his mind for one reason or another, which Paul Martin has never done, according to him, everything he's changed his mind on, he's ALWAYS felt that way about (RE: Not Withstanding Clause).
In other words, whereby I'm willing to give an untested Harper the benefit of the doubt and believe that he is a man of integrity who has good character until he PROVES otherwise. Martin has ALREADY proven to me that he is neither, and that translates right down the ranks of his party.
I think that intent is VERY important behind a decision like granting a right. I want to know WHY a politician believes what he is doing is right. Politicians NEVER have to defend their beliefs anymore, maybe it's because no one wants to offend eachother, which is sad... if no one was ever willing to offend others, we'd never have discovered that the Earth was round, we'd never have created democracy, we'd never have discovered that the Earth ISN'T the center of the universe and etc. etc. It seems every time a politician has a new idea, it's struck down as being 'Un-Canadian', as if we have a culture to call our own in the first-place!!! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Martin held the gay-marriage vote just to garner the gay vote anyway, not because he actually cared about homosexual's rights. The fact that anyone believes otherwise is laughable, oh, and he originally was against the idea was he not? |
If I recall he was against the idea until the courts ruled that it was unconstitutional to prevent homosexuals from getting married. It would seem to me that he's simply protecting the constitution..... oddly enough that's what he has been sworn to do. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| Given the recent polls, I hope that people in my riding don't start voting liberal strategically. Trinity-Spadina doesn't have a conservative candidate, and with the liberals losing, they might switch their NDP vote to liberal in hope of swaying a left vs. right majority...Olivia Chow really deserves to win. |
|
|
| Floorwhore |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Olivia Chow really deserves to win. |
she's got my vote. |
|
|
| simms327 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Martin held the gay-marriage vote just to garner the gay vote anyway, not because he actually cared about homosexual's rights. |
thats amusing because the opposite is true in the US. One of the reasons Bush won was because he made gay marriage an election issue. Him being against it, he captured the vote of many poor african americans who would normally vote democrat - but because the large majority of them are very religious, they voted republican. |
|
|
| simms327 |
| if harper would divuldge his election contributors list, i would SERIOUSLY consider voting conservative. all his talk of transparent govt doesnt ring true when he's obviously hiding somthing he doesnt want people to know. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| Reason # 589614520 why I am glad I dont live in the US. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by simms327
if harper would divuldge his election contributors list, i would SERIOUSLY consider voting conservative. all his talk of transparent govt doesnt ring true when he's obviously hiding somthing he doesnt want people to know. |
he has... all doners over $200 have always been revealed. |
|
|
|
|
