Littlefinger

Let me ask you something. Why is is that you never hear liberals complain about media bias? Is it because liberal ideology lacks bias. Come on. Give me a break. Don't tell me you didn't hear about liberals complaining about the conservative media bias in Canada during the time Conrad Black ran all our newspapers. Here's a quote from today's National Post, hardly your standard pinko leftist rag: Some of the e-mails I receive threatening to cancel their subscriptions because we sound like the ''Liberal Newsletter'' (the Toronto Star) would presumably prefer we didn't report on how the Tories are in danger of penning their own suicide note. But we are not paid to tell it like it isn't. http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/sto...BC-79139932AD22 When the Post, formerly known as the Canadian Alliance newsletter, is reporting how badly Eves' campaign is doing, try to realize that it is no longer bias. It is the reality of how the campaign is going so far.

Of course it's more than just religious dogma. I was just using that argument to show that it is not politically incorrect to oppose same-sex marriage; hence, there is no reason to believe that the results of the Environics survey are inaccurate.

Is it politically incorrect to oppose same-sex marriage? Just under half of Canadians do. I see no evidence that people feel pressured by society to say they support same-sex marriage. I don't think one can safely say that either position is more politically correct than the other. One appeals to equality and the other appeals to religious morals, both of which have their adherents in society. It is much more likely that these poll results are accurate and social conservatives are in a state of denial.

http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?i...79-C768C810232F Environics survey of 2,018 Canadians between June 12 and July 6 : Fifty-seven per cent of Catholics support same-sex marriages, while 40 per cent are opposed. Among Protestants, only 38 per cent support the concept and 58 per cent are opposed. Among all Canadians, the poll found a slim majority, 53 per cent, support same-sex marriage, while 43 per cent are opposed and three per cent are undecided. Other results: 58% of women support 49% of men support 18-29 year olds: 65% in favour, 33% opposed Over 60: 33% in favour, 64% opposed Alberta: 37% in favour, 59% opposed BC: 64% in favour, including 72% of Vancouverites Liberal supporters: 61% in favour, 36% opposed CA supporters: 29% in favour, 68% opposed PC supporters: 43% in favour, 52% opposed NDP supporters: 65% in favour, 32% opposed Bloc supporters: 75% in favour, 25% opposed

Well, that is the view of the Church, certainly. However, for those who believe that homosexuals should be afforded equal protection under the law, the Church's statement is in effect tantamount to asking them to choose between Church or country. For people who feel this way, choosing both is therefore impossible. Given that MPs are elected to represent Canada as a whole, there can be no question that they should choose their country over their Church.

Neal, Certainly, the Church can preach what it believes. However, merely proclaiming that it is opposed to same-sex marriage is one thing. Asking MPs to choose between religion or country is quite another. The Church is free to preach but not to impose.

Pellaken, I disagree with your last statement. Catholic Members of Parliament are accountable to the people of Canada, not to the Church. The Pope and his bishops are free to dictate how Catholic MPs should conduct their own private lives but they should not be allowed to impose their conceptions of Catholic morality on others. As legislators, MPs must take on a wider perspective that encompasses the views of all Canadians and the laws of the land, not simply the views of the religious and the decrees of the Vatican.

I think the legislature will pass it, even though only 3 yrs ago they voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. I don't know what's happened in the last 3 - 8 yrs that's been so drastic. Don't forget, that judgement was a 5-4 ruling. It was not a clear cut judgement, not by a long shot. since the politicians know that the Supreme Court isn't stupid or forgetful enough to overturn that which they themselves decided just a short time ago. As I say, there are different justices on the Supreme Court now. Courts are free to change their minds, and they often do when old justices retire and replacements are appointed. In answer to Ronda's last question, I have difficulty with any religion that attempts to impose its morality on society, whether it be Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, whatever. How would you feel if an imam insinuated that Muslim politicians must vote to revoke a woman's right to vote or face eternal damnation because it is against sharia law? (I have no idea whether this is actually specified in original sharia law, but given its general views on women, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a more contemporary addition). then the top appeal courts of the provinces will eventually apply that standard of discrimination to religious institutions I really have no idea, but freedom of religion is a fundamental right that is protected by the Charter. I guess it would be up to the courts to determine whether permitting civil same-sex marriages sufficiently satisfies a homosexual's equality rights. My own suspicion is that the federal government's proposed legislation will mirror the guidelines set down by the Supreme Court, namely that religious institutions will retain the right to prohibit same-sex marriages.