|
Conservatives lead Liberals by 12% nationally (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
I guess the issue with me is that I view a marriage from a Christian perspective... |
I read your whole post...but really it stops here, doesn't it?
Until a marriage license is issued by the state, it's only a "marriage" in the eyes of those involved. If you get married in the Church and don't get a license, it's NOT a legal marriage.
So long as marriage is also a legal status, the Church has no business preventing gays from marrying (civil marriage).
The argument you seem to be putting forth, and many (myself included) would support it, is for a separate legal term for civil marriage FOR ALL PEOPLE, not just gays. Let the Church keep marriage as a sacrament...but then ALL civil "marriages" would be termed something else (unions, for eg). What can't be done is to have civil marriage remain "marriage" for hetero couples, but be "unions" for gay ones.
"Same, but different" doesn't cut it.
Imagine if immigrants seeking and qualifying for Canadian citizenship were told "well, you won't be called a "citizen", we're going to call you something else...but don't worry, it's the same thing". that wouldn't fly either.
what's worse here is that it's Christian morality that's at the root of this dispute...speaking of which, I posted this in another thread from yesterday's Toronto Star:
| quote: | Tory evasive over comments
Jan. 12, 2006. 11:16 PM
KEVIN MCGRAN
STAFF REPORTER
Conservative candidate Rondo Thomas refused to answer questions yesterday about his comments that describe same-sex marriage issues as a battle between “righteousness” and “immorality.”
“Show some respect,” Thomas said as he drove away from a Star reporter and photographer, refusing to say whether he stood by the comments captured on video last February, and whether he’d been ordered by Conservative party headquarters to remain tight-lipped.
Thomas, an evangelical minister, missed two all-candidates debates this week in Ajax-Pickering just as Liberal incumbent Mark Holland posted Thomas’s video on his campaign website. On the video, Thomas says: “There is going to be a clash of morality views between those who believe in righteousness and those who believe in immorality and when we collide there is going to be conflict.” |
so it is "fear mongering" to suggest that there is an element in the CPC that is pushing morality? |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| I suppose we could argue that there are some in Liberal party that is pushing their brand of morality. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
u are a professional dj right? |
A professional?
It's just a hobby for me. Music is something I will enjoy regardless of who gets elected. It is not a long term thing for me - nor is living in Toronto, for that matter!
In any case - assuming that because someone enjoys clubbing or DJing, clubbing is their only political priority is totally ridiculous. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
A professional?
It's just a hobby for me. Music is something I will enjoy regardless of who gets elected.
Assuming that because someone enjoys clubbing or DJing, clubbing is their only political priority is totally ridiculous. |
shouldnt be your only, but youd think there would be an interest in protecting it. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| There is, but my interests in other areas - areas where NDP appeals to me and conservative does not - outweigh that interest. c'est la vie. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
There is, but my interests in other areas - areas where NDP appeals to me and conservative does not - outweigh that interest. c'est la vie. |
im not saying vote conservative.... just dont vote for chow. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| How about you don't tell me how to vote whatsoever? |
|
|
| Wyndham |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
There is, but my interests in other areas - areas where NDP appeals to me and conservative does not - outweigh that interest. c'est la vie. |
i haven't seen many people on here support the ndp...why do you prefer them over the liberals/conservatives? I could never see myself voting for them, they support way too many social programs i think are a waste of money, espically since the money usually comes from the middle/high income earners. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
How about you don't tell me how to vote whatsoever? |
well hey its your nightlife too thats affected... so whatever. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Thank you!!!!!
I know he said it was divulged during the English debate but I wasn't sure where...
*bookmark* |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
There is, but my interests in other areas - areas where NDP appeals to me and conservative does not - outweigh that interest. c'est la vie. |
please tell me how your beloved jack layton can explain being against private health care yet it has come out today that he had surgery at a private clinic in the 90s.
Hypocrisy perhaps?
hmmmmmmm |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I read your whole post...but really it stops here, doesn't it?
Until a marriage license is issued by the state, it's only a "marriage" in the eyes of those involved. If you get married in the Church and don't get a license, it's NOT a legal marriage.
So long as marriage is also a legal status, the Church has no business preventing gays from marrying (civil marriage).
The argument you seem to be putting forth, and many (myself included) would support it, is for a separate legal term for civil marriage FOR ALL PEOPLE, not just gays. Let the Church keep marriage as a sacrament...but then ALL civil "marriages" would be termed something else (unions, for eg). What can't be done is to have civil marriage remain "marriage" for hetero couples, but be "unions" for gay ones.
"Same, but different" doesn't cut it.
Imagine if immigrants seeking and qualifying for Canadian citizenship were told "well, you won't be called a "citizen", we're going to call you something else...but don't worry, it's the same thing". that wouldn't fly either.
what's worse here is that it's Christian morality that's at the root of this dispute... |
It depends on how you view 'Marriage'.
If one believes it's just a cut and dry thing with nothing to do with God then I can understand this arguement, however, it's not.
While there are destinct legal advantages for being 'married' that's not the reason I got marriaged at all but that's what this is all about.
To me (and LOT of other people) marriage is the combining of a man and woman before God.
Now before you go off on a rant on that point, I have NOTHING AGAINST GAYS WANTING TO BE TOGETHER so lets just cut that arguement out right here and now.
What I AM against is the redefining of the tradional word, 'marriage' to make it fit something that it clearly isn't.
I say, give them what they want, that's fine, but let's not let the courts/government decide what is clearly a church function.
If there needs to be clear definations then lets make some; hell I'm all for it.
But trying to fit square peg in a round hole is just making this thing worse.
It's a hyprocitical of liberals (not Liberals) to be telling the rest of us that the Church and State don't mix but then do a 180 telling us that the State has the right to redefine the Church. |
|
|
|
|
