tml12

So if happen to not have a religion, does that mean I can't get married? In my opinion that is correct, you can't. Why would you want to? You can get Civil Unionised. The word shouldn't matter if it carries no religious meaning. Seperation of Church and State remember, apparently thats a one way road in Canada, this can't continue. You got it..

That would be a better argument if the institution of marriage did not pre-date Christianity. Babylon had purely civil mariage concerned entirely with property rights long before Christianity emerged, so why is that definition not the "traditional definition of marriage"? As a technical matter in most Western countries, the state extends its right of legal association to churches only so far as they can perform ceremonies. Licensing is always handled by the state. In the Netherlands, the religious ceremony has no legal standing, so people have a civil ceremony and only a religious one if they choose. While people may claim they are married under God, Netherlands wants to see your signature on a binding legal document before they start doling out any marriage benefits I don't care whether you think my argument is good or not. Surely you should simply allow me to have the opinion that I have based on my beliefs and value systems. I don't care what the Netherlands does. You have whorehouses and who knows what else on every block. Does that make it right? No, overall your value structure defines who you are. I was not raised where such things wers acceptable. I should edit this to add that I have nothing against different people, I am just asking that they do not impose their values on mine. I can't think of a weaker argument than "they're doing it anyway, why not just accept it?" Just because people decide to break the rules we've set for society doesn't mean we just ignore it or legalize it. Was that directed at me? Because I am not sure what quote of mine you are referring to.

Does it matter? Either you accept that as Canadians we believe all citizens are equal under the Charter or you don't. It doesn't matter how many there are or whether we like them or even whether we approve. A quick example for you. In the 1800's it was common practice for both british and french immigrants in canada to marry First Nations women. After awhile, both the Anglican and Catholic churches decided they didn't like this so they nullified all marriages saying that since the women were not baptized Christains early enough (they had to make it that way because most of them had converted to Christianity before or at the time of their marriage) the marriages were not valid. Many women were abandoned by their spouses. So, would you accept this restriction to the Charter? Can a religion say, sorry we don't like you savages so we'll nullify your sacrements, the ones we performed? There is an old saying "First they came for the gypsies but I wasn't a gypsey so I didn't care. Then they came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew so I didn't care. Then they came for the homosexuals but I wasn't a homosexual so I didn't care. Then they came for me but there was nobody left to care." That last quote is actually resentful to those who do not agree with gay marriage. You are supposing that if we don't agree with gay marriage the state will take gays to a concentration camp. Not a fair argument. I have argued that we are no different and should be treated equally. You are arguing that, if I as a Catholic, define marriage as my religion does that I am being racist. No I do not think you are being fair. You may define marriage as you wish. That is fine. But don't think you can impose your *opinions* on the rest of us...

That would be a better argument if the institution of marriage did not pre-date Christianity. Babylon had purely civil mariage concerned entirely with property rights long before Christianity emerged, so why is that definition not the "traditional definition of marriage"? As a technical matter in most Western countries, the state extends its right of legal association to churches only so far as they can perform ceremonies. Licensing is always handled by the state. In the Netherlands, the religious ceremony has no legal standing, so people have a civil ceremony and only a religious one if they choose. While people may claim they are married under God, Netherlands wants to see your signature on a binding legal document before they start doling out any marriage benefits I don't care whether you think my argument is good or not. Surely you should simply allow me to have the opinion that I have based on my beliefs and value systems. I don't care what the Netherlands does. You have whorehouses and who knows what else on every block. Does that make it right? No, overall your value structure defines who you are. I was not raised where such things wers acceptable. I should edit this to add that I have nothing against different people, I am just asking that they do not impose their values on mine.

Uh huh. Some of them still do. In fact I saw a comment on the Guardian today saying "Move over, Tony! Georgie's got a new rent boy." Oh come on, surely the left needs to laugh too. I was referring to the comments from "The Economist" magazine.

If Harper doesn't cross the thin line of alienating the West while appeasing soft Quebec nationalists then you may be right...

Good for you, I'm glad to see you engaged and passionate. Can you tell me how much it costs to join the Liberal Party? I definitely want to vote in their leadership race, though I will struggle mightily to choose between Belinda and Sheila. Maybe if it is only $10 or so I could just join twice. Good idea. And your 20 bucks would help the Liberals get out of debt, although if Belinda makes leader, their money problems may solve themselves. I suggest we start a Belinda Beleader movement. Belinda may just run for it yet...not in the next 8 years though.

I agree, it sometimes get silly, and people, even French people, can get very pissed off by some of the policies de l'Office de la Langue Française. But where do you draw the line? What do you decide is a big deal and what is a little deal? French was declining in Quebec. Bill 101 seems to be helping slow this decline, and even sometimes reverse it. Immigrants now sometimes learn French before Enlgish. It is serving it's purpose. How else would you have done it? I would need to do a lot of research...especially in the context of the 1970s before I was coherent...before I could answer that. I certainly would not have been as discriminatory as the PQ was towards the anglophone community here.

I never disliked Paul Martin and I still don't. But to have a REAL conservative in power is best of all.

What corrupt MPs ran again? Well, the 7 unnamed Quebec MPs who got the kickback money added to their election campaigns. The Liberals still ahven't named them, right? Tony Valeri lost in Hamilton. That means the Ng family paid him $250,000 and got nothing in return - unless, of course, the payment was for services already rendered. And the Liberals still can't figure out why after Gomery they're still called corrupt ... Fools...they'll have some time in the Opposition to think about it...

LMAO (almost literally). And tml12, you haven't really got a scoop on the NDP. A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away the NDP actually used to campaign as a socialist party. When I was very young they would have Marxist professors of economics, Teamsters and other assorted dangers to society running for the NDP . . . and some of them even got elected! They were a lot more interesting then. When they finally get their Tony Blair, then I'll vote for them... The UK Labour used to call themselves "socialists" too.

Drea, It is not that simple. When he doesn't talk about Canada, Carlson makes a lot of very interesting points that many of us here on the Canadian right relate to.

TRUDEAU ENTHUSIAST!!! You have asked me a question and I would be most obliged to respond. I am not denying any people the right to marry. I am not a member of any clergy so I do not have the power to marry anyone. If your issue is that your Christian (you say Anglican) institution or my Christian (I am Catholic) refuses to marry gays then your issue is with them, not with me. After all, their organizations have the power to marry anyone according to their laws. My argument is the STATE should not be in the business of marrying people. If we accept the separation of church and state, then we accept the state is not a religious institution that can impose religious laws, then we should accept that the state cannot marry people. I hope this helps...if you have other issues with my opinion I would be happy to respond...

My views on religion have nothing to do with my economic views. A lot of very religious people are very left wing (some of them even the self-righteous kind) and I know at least one atheist libertarian CPCer. But I think pretty much everyone is nuts, especially including me, so don't take it too terribly serious if I talk about religious nuts (unless I mean balls). OK then...all is forgiven...

I have read "The Communist Manifesto" many times and have posted links from this forum where you could read about how the NDP borrows a lot from Marx and Engels suggestions. Have you ever read Marx???

Are you so left-wing that everyone who is religious is a nut??? :angry:

If Ralph Klein ran here, I'd vote for him... (Especially if he cut the TPS and deregulated the SAQ!!!)

Agreed.

I understand. You are a victim of racism, of petty acts of vandalism, something anybody should be angry about. I am certain most people in Quebec, as well as most Canadians, are repelled by such behavior on any cultural minority - I know I am. English have dominated the rest of the world for so long it is hard to beleive when they get bullied in their turn. And they don't like being thought of as a cultural minority, something which historically they are not accustomed to. But I know it is true and it happens in Montreal - things don't always go smoothly. But for the most part, English people in Montreal are treated with the respect they deserve, and their unilingualism is very well accomodated. Such incidents as you describe are very rare. Most francophones are very polite to me when I go to very francophone parts of the city. I used to also have a place on Rue Beaubien near the Beaubien Metro. No doubt that is a very francophone area. But when I was over there people were very respectful to me. I explained that I was learning French for the first time in CEGEP because before that my primary education was in English, etc. and most people understood. My only issue is government policy. Is it really a big deal for "corner store" to be painted out in favour of depanneur? Does the French really need to be 2/3 time as big? I mean, Blackguard, I don't know whether or not you are francophone, etc. but surely you must admit parts of this can get silly.

Have you ever met one of those university-campus far left-wingers who say "marxism is misunderstood" and that China is not Marxist, etc.

"I don't know if other provinces should enforce bilingual laws, but I think the question is meaningless. Ontario deos, in the Ottawa area, because the percentage of French citizens is pretty high, and it is just across the river from Quebec, so the demographics justify it. The rest of Canada does not enforce any kind of bilingualism." Quebec does not enforce bilingualism. Quebec has a lot of bilingual areas (the island of Montreal and the Eastern Townships just to name a few) and still successive Quebec government impose French language on us. I live off Sherbrooke St. W in Westmount near NDG. This area was once entirely English and are still mostly anglophone. You can still find English-only "STOP" signs. You can also find street signs where "Ave." has been crossed out and corner stores where "corner store" has been spray-painted out in favour of depanneur. What is that? Francophones "reclaiming" their province? Guess what...the PQ may have imposed this on us but our community is strong. Even if this province separates in 2009 I will stay here and fight for anglophone rights. I completely support francophone rights for self-determination and I acknowledge that we anglos were not pleasant 50 years ago and supported crackdowns on French. Francophones had the right to complain then...why do they not listen to our complaints now? Instead they oppress us. It is not right and it is not fair. And I do not support it and I cannot condone it.

Yes when I hear left-wing neo-commies talk about things like "we don't need an army" and "marxism is misunderstood" I start thinking maybe "brilliance isn't a good quality in a leader." Practicality is.

The people in POWER have serious ties to the Carlyle Group. So I guess you are happy the Liberals lost because they appointed this American ambassador who had ties to the Carlyle Group and I suppose you also want our new Prime Minister Harper to replace him... I am not "happy" that the Liberals lost, but I do believe in the expression absolute power corrupts absolutely. This was a necessary loss, they need to get their house in order. However, I am under no illusion about Harper either. We will have to wait and see what happens when the muzzles come off the lunatic fringe of the party Hey, I live in one of the most corrupt provinces of the country! Fair enough CCGirl. I do not know about Alberta corruption...I have never been to Alberta. What I do know is that I have confidence in the Harper government!!!

The people in POWER have serious ties to the Carlyle Group. So I guess you are happy the Liberals lost because they appointed this American ambassador who had ties to the Carlyle Group and I suppose you also want our new Prime Minister Harper to replace him...

Are you insinuating the USA loves the Carlyle Group because I have never met one American who does...