|
Conservatives lead Liberals by 12% nationally (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| simms327 |
haha, here is my friends voting theory
"I'm liberal...i like to party....therefore, liberal party!"
haha, i love it |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by simms327
haha, here is my friends voting theory
"I'm liberal...i like to party....therefore, liberal party!"
haha, i love it |
people like that shouldnt be allowed to vote :wtf: :wtf: |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
the point is that Church and state are separate. anything to do with a legal status is NOT the business of the Church...just as anything to do with the Church's principles, teachings and sacraments is not the business of the state.
"same, but different" in a legal sense is a relevant issue. "same, but different" in a legal status vs. a religious status is not.
i.e. we all have a right to equality under the law. we also all have a right to practice our religion. what we do NOT have is a right to have our religious sacrament remain the same as a legal status. it was never the same anyway, except in name.
what you "care about" regarding marriage is also irrelevant. THE FACT is that a marriage is a legal status in this country...whether you care or not if your Church-granted marriage is legal or recognized by the state is also irrelvant.
I'm not attacking your views...I'm pointing out that what you're saying is not logically relevant to this debate.
this is a debate about extending a legal status to gays. it has nothing to do with the Church, other than the Church is seeking to protect it's rights to stick to it's teaching and principles (which includes not granting or recognizing same-sex marriage).
I would, just as much as you, fiercely defend the Church's rights in this regard...I do not support a religious agenda that seeks to define a LEGAL STATUS, as the Church has no business in that sphere. |
Ah. But the state can intervene in Church's business by imposing laws.
For example, if a white supremist church start to spout off as a religious doctrine, the state can try to stop it. |
|
|
| MarkT |
There is no recognized "white supremist" Chruch though, is there?
And "hate literature" (depending on your definition) already is tolerated, to an extent, from religious organizations.
The freedom of religion is not absolute...just as every other freedom and right we possess is not absolute. You have a right to liberty...but not if you commit a crime and are jailed. You have a right to religious freedom, but not if your religion advocates killing others in the name of god, etc.
so yes, of course that state can (and will) intervene.
I don't think there would be any signficant support for an argument that forcing the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages is a reasonable limit on their freedom. No parliament would pass that law...no court would uphold it in the face of a challenge if parliament did pass one. |
|
|
| MarkT |
btw...anyone notice that Harper is now explicitly telling Quebec voters that a vote for the Bloq is a waste?
amazing that the Liberals are ripped when they suggest the same thing about an NDP vote. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
btw...anyone notice that Harper is now explicitly telling Quebec voters that a vote for the Bloq is a waste?
amazing that the Liberals are ripped when they suggest the same thing about an NDP vote. |
however the NDP still has a remote chance at forming a government. The bloc will never be able to do this. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
however the NDP still has a remote chance at forming a government. The bloc will never be able to do this. |
:wtf: you're kidding right. That is not a justification by any means. Forming government is not the only reason to vote for a person or party. The Bloc does a good job of representing Quebec's interests..... if you're a Quebecer then having the Bloc hold a great deal of seats is good for you..... especially in a minority situation. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
however the NDP still has a remote chance at forming a government. The bloc will never be able to do this. |
so what? why is that the standard by which it's "ok" or not?
yeah, in theory the NDP could...yet the Bloq holds nearly 3x as many seats as the NDP...so while "in theory" the NDP could form a gov't, they won't...and everyone involved, including Layton, knows it. Further, because they hold more seats, the CPC is actually trying to lure away MORE votes than Martin was by appealing to the NDP!
for the purposes of THIS election, Harper is doing the *exact* same thing as Martin.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong...but let's all criticize him the same way as we do Martin.
you're the 'double standard' hater, right? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I'm not saying it's right or wrong...but let's all criticize him the same way as we do Martin.
you're the 'double standard' hater, right? |
:stongue:
Mark, you know that simply won't happen. For the time being the Conservatives can do no wrong. He'll justify it somehow. Now, I predict that after 4 years of a majority conservative government Jay will have the same stance regarding them as he currently has with the Liberals. |
|
|
| MarkT |
it's quite the priveleged position for Harper, isn't it? :D
no matter what he does, the Liberals have done the same or worse...so he's almost exempt from criticism.
all parties do the same ...and you're right, in 4 years everyone will realize this (assuming a CPC win).
While this many years of Liberal gov't has made them complacent and arrogant, and pissed people off, it's also resulted in people forgetting that EVERY party does the same ;) |
|
|
| simms327 |
we will likely get a majority conservative govt - they will be in for 1, 2 terms, who cares - after a while they will be plauged with scandal, and have done this wrong and this wrong, and my god the fresh new liberals are so amazing.. blah blah...
the never ending circle of political life.. |
|
|
|
|
