G
garden of evil
Guest
this reminds me of the "moron" comment. There was a lot of talk about that too.... and she was blasted in the media. why shouldnt the Alliance MP?
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
GeekyBoyTO
Guest
Harper is a hypocrite of the first order - firing the MP just because the media is out for some blood, while soliciting the votes from the Christian right, who probably shares exactly the same sentiments. And it's the party that is supposedly on the high road for "ethics"? Gimme a break.
GB
GB
C
cacruden
Guest
>As a red Tory this just confirms my fears that the merger (actually takeover IMHO)
>is going to mean the Liberals will rule for a very long time. The Alliance has more
>yahoo's like this so I won't be voting for the merged "Conservative" party
The Liberals will likely rule for another 10 years before there is any chance of
another party leading Canada. Without a merged party there will be no chance.
The Conservative Party has to build a "big tent" approach to governing, and not
focus on devisive issues.
>this reminds me of the "moron" comment. There was a lot of talk about that too....
>and she was blasted in the media. why shouldnt the Alliance MP?
The difference here is that the leadership defended said comment by first not
requiring an appology, and then trying to protect her from her own stupidity.
Not to mention that PM Chretien had previously lead by example by making comments
early on about Bush's lack of intelligence. I don't see us dealing with any other
so unprofessionaly, and I do not expect it when dealing with the US (whatever
your personal views are about Bush).
>Harper is a hypocrite of the first order - firing the MP just because the media is
>out for some blood, while soliciting the votes from the Christian right, who probably
>shares exactly the same sentiments. And it's the party that is supposedly on the high
>road for "ethics"? Gimme a break.
Why should Harper not solicit votes from the Christian right? They have the same rights
as any of us..... should we also take away their right to vote? Sharing the same
belief that gay marriage should not be legalized is not the same as sharing the
same sentiments.
>is going to mean the Liberals will rule for a very long time. The Alliance has more
>yahoo's like this so I won't be voting for the merged "Conservative" party
The Liberals will likely rule for another 10 years before there is any chance of
another party leading Canada. Without a merged party there will be no chance.
The Conservative Party has to build a "big tent" approach to governing, and not
focus on devisive issues.
>this reminds me of the "moron" comment. There was a lot of talk about that too....
>and she was blasted in the media. why shouldnt the Alliance MP?
The difference here is that the leadership defended said comment by first not
requiring an appology, and then trying to protect her from her own stupidity.
Not to mention that PM Chretien had previously lead by example by making comments
early on about Bush's lack of intelligence. I don't see us dealing with any other
so unprofessionaly, and I do not expect it when dealing with the US (whatever
your personal views are about Bush).
>Harper is a hypocrite of the first order - firing the MP just because the media is
>out for some blood, while soliciting the votes from the Christian right, who probably
>shares exactly the same sentiments. And it's the party that is supposedly on the high
>road for "ethics"? Gimme a break.
Why should Harper not solicit votes from the Christian right? They have the same rights
as any of us..... should we also take away their right to vote? Sharing the same
belief that gay marriage should not be legalized is not the same as sharing the
same sentiments.
A
afransen TO
Guest
That does raise an interesting question: with the legalization of gay marriage, how long can other so-called "alternative lifestyles" such as incest or polygamy remain prohibited? I mean, what is the difference? You can say that its morally reprehensible, but to some, the same is true of homosexual relationships. There is also the issue of birth defects/malformities caused through incest, but that's only an issue if the couple were to have children, which isn't a given.
Its rather disturbing to think about. This is a slippery slope.
Its rather disturbing to think about. This is a slippery slope.
N
nicetommy2002
Guest
Incest and Polygamy are both criminal offences in Canada. Homosexuality isn't, and has not been a criminal offence since 1969 when Trudeau decriminalized it. Considering that 35 years have passed since that date, with neither incest nor polygamy having followed suit in being decriminalized, I don't think that the legalization of gay marriage will have any bearing on those 2 activities becoming legal.
The slippery slope argument may have had merit back in 1969, when many people feared that the decriminalization of homosexuality would result in incest, polygamy and a host of other activities to also be decriminalized. History however, proved the fearmongers wrong.
The slippery slope argument may have had merit back in 1969, when many people feared that the decriminalization of homosexuality would result in incest, polygamy and a host of other activities to also be decriminalized. History however, proved the fearmongers wrong.
B
building babel
Guest
Still, it's only be a question of time before the first gay polygamist will be unmasked....
A
afransen TO
Guest
The argument will come up more and more undoubtedly. Perhaps the social stigma associated with these activities will be enough to prevent them becoming accepted.
C
cacruden
Guest
I don't know why polygamy should not be recognized. It is only a "different" family structure. As long as all members enter into the "marriage contract" of legal age and of sound mind, then by the same logic it should be legalized.
Incest (although it is an abhorant thought), why should the government get between the sheets of the bedroom (as long as the two are consenting adults of sound mind). If there are "defective children" that result, they can always be politicians.
Incest (although it is an abhorant thought), why should the government get between the sheets of the bedroom (as long as the two are consenting adults of sound mind). If there are "defective children" that result, they can always be politicians.
G
garden of evil
Guest
cacruden: you got it exactly - this is all about the separation of church and state. If the government never got involved in registering marriages, then we wouldnt be having this debate - there would be gay marriages. There are churches who perform marriage ceremonies right now, and have been doing so for a long time. Since it is not illegal to be gay, and we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protecting all people, no matter what their sexuality, they have to grant gay marriages. I dont understand why people dont get it. I also dont get it when the comparisons are made with incest and poligamy to gay marriages. If you get gay people get married, you will have to eventually let people marry their dog. Hmm... use this logic on straight people - if you allow them to marry, eventually you are going to have to let gay people get married.
A
afransen TO
Guest
Marrying animals is different because only humans are "persons", and marriage is an agreement between two "persons". Therefore, really, there is no real legal reason for incest to be prohibited other than for cultural reasons, which obviously isn't enough.
Polygamy is a bit different because, by definition, it is marriage between more than two people. But, if two people are allowed to marry, why not three, as long as they all are willing and in a capacity to enter into the marriage conscious of the ramifications?
Polygamy is a bit different because, by definition, it is marriage between more than two people. But, if two people are allowed to marry, why not three, as long as they all are willing and in a capacity to enter into the marriage conscious of the ramifications?
C
cacruden
Guest
Yep, marrying your dog is not possible since it cannot enter freely into a contract. First you have to make sure that the dog understands the contract, and that it is of sound mind (i.e. competant). I think legally speaking we are a little far away from that. Just imagine, our prisons full of bad dogs. Dogs getting 25 years to life (oops thats right, they don't live that long).
A
Are Be
Guest
There might be some socially sound reasons for banning Incest don't you think?
Polygamy will make marriage break down and support freaking' complicated!
Polygamy will make marriage break down and support freaking' complicated!
A
afransen TO
Guest
Which socially sound reasons?
C
cacruden
Guest
garden of evil: "you got it exactly - this is all about the separation of church and state. "
Of course seperation of church and state is more of an "American idea" and a fairly new idea to Canada.... According to the laws of succession, the head of state cannot be catholic... in fact our head of state is also the head of a religious organization -- Church of England.
When I was younger we were still saying the lords prayer and hearing that god was saving the queen (Ironic since Charles needs more saving than Elizabeth)
Of course seperation of church and state is more of an "American idea" and a fairly new idea to Canada.... According to the laws of succession, the head of state cannot be catholic... in fact our head of state is also the head of a religious organization -- Church of England.
When I was younger we were still saying the lords prayer and hearing that god was saving the queen (Ironic since Charles needs more saving than Elizabeth)
A
andreapalladio
Guest
Why is it that The Prince of Wales has greater need of God's salvation than The Queen?