normanchateau Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 And further, there are plenty of people including a sizable gay community who oppose SSM who aren't social conservatives. And those gays and other fine people who oppose SSM are what? Freedom fighters? Neanderthals? What about Harper's parliamentary vote against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals, i.e. C-250? I suppose you also think that those like Harper who oppose C-250 are not social conservatives. They're merely religious freedom fighters. And Harper's desire to incarcerate young people for possession of trace quantities of marijuana, if not socially conservative, is what? Part of his war on plants? An attempt to promote government sales of alcohol? If these were the 1920's when alcohol was illegal and marijuana was legal, do you suppose "nonsocon" Harper would have opposed the 1920's status quo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 My understanding of C-250 was that it was unneccesary as all the crimes it listed were currently already on the books. There was no law on the books prior to C-250 which said it was a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their sexual orientation. There was a law that said it was a hate crime to kill someone because of their sexual orientation. The new law made it a hate crime to also "promote or advocate..." The new law was parallel to other laws, which Harper supported, to make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on race, religion, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 There was no law on the books prior to C-250 which said it was a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their sexual orientation. There was a law that said it was a hate crime to kill someone because of their sexual orientation. The new law made it a hate crime to also "promote or advocate..." The new law was parallel to other laws, which Harper supported, to make it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on race, religion, etc. But there was law that said it was a crime to promote or advocate killing so the new law is redundant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 The law doesn't specifically say Homosexuals, but sexual orientation. It could theoreticall y be used by a spouce who kills their partner over a sexual affair. Sexual orientation refers to the gender of those to whom one is attracted. If one is attracted to someone of the same sex, one's sexual orientation is homosexual. If one is attracted to someone of the opposite sex, one's sexual orientation is heterosexual. Did you not know this? If you doubt what I'm saying, google sexual orientation. Given that your idea of sexual orientation seems to be something completely different than the conventional view, I now suspect that you also have an especially unique view of social conservatism. No wonder you fail to acknowledge visible evidence of social conservatism in Stephen Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 But there was law that said it was a crime to promote or advocate killing so the new law is redundant. So why does Stephen Harper support making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their religion? Why is it only redundant when gays and lesbians are concerned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 And those gays and other fine people who oppose SSM are what? Freedom fighters? Neanderthals? I believe they call themselves separtists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 So why does Stephen Harper support making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their religion? Why is it only redundant when gays and lesbians are concerned? Good question. I don't know for sure so any answer from me would be a guess. So guessing I would say that history has shown that there is more danger targetting a religion or a race than someone who claims that god hates fags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 I believe they call themselves separtists. So Stephen Harper is not a social conservative, he's a separatist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Sexual orientation refers to the gender of those to whom one is attracted. I don't think that is correct. It could alos encompass fetishes or pedophiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 So Stephen Harper is not a social conservative, he's a separatist. Only if he is gay and does not want to be coopted by the patriarchal straight world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Good question. I don't know for sure so any answer from me would be a guess. But you do know for sure that Stephen Harper doesn't have a socially conservative bone in his body, right? And that's because he's what? A separatist? A libertarian? A liberal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 I don't think that is correct. It could alos encompass fetishes or pedophiles. By whose definition of sexual orientation? Stephen Harper's? I must admit that I am amused to hear that Harper voted against C-250 because he didn't know what sexual orientation is. No doubt if he had known what sexual orientation is, he would have voted for C-250. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 But you do know for sure that Stephen Harper doesn't have a socially conservative bone in his body, right? And that's because he's what? A separatist? A libertarian? A liberal? He may have dozens....are your sure that the opposition don't have a few dozen stupid bones in their body? The question is, has he tried to advance a social conservative agenda and I say no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 By whose definition of sexual orientation? Stephen Harper's? I must admit that I am amused to hear that Harper voted against C-250 because he didn't know what sexual orientation is. No doubt if he had known what sexual orientation is, he would have voted for C-250. Right? Who said he didn't know? I think he voted against it becaus the bill was unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Who said he didn't know? I think he voted against it becaus the bill was unnecessary. He thought it was unnecessary because he's a social conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 The question is, has he tried to advance a social conservative agenda and I say no. The question is "Is he a social conservative?" and I say yes. Re-visiting SSM as Prime Minister after mounting a strong opposition to SSM as Opposition Leader, and speaking at anti-SSM rallies, is part of a social conservative agenda. The fact that he has failed so far in that agenda is because he doesn't have the numbers in parliament. It's not because he now rejects those anti-SSM views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 The question is "Is he a social conservative?" and I say yes.Re-visiting SSM as Prime Minister after mounting a strong opposition to SSM as Opposition Leader, and speaking at anti-SSM rallies, is part of a social conservative agenda. The fact that he has failed so far in that agenda is because he doesn't have the numbers in parliament. It's not because he now rejects those anti-SSM views. The fact that he failed is because he wanted to fail. If anything he used the Socons and cast them aside like a cheap whore once he was done with them. Like I said, you don't have to be a Social conservative to be opposed to SSM. Plenty of catholics who are quite liberal in regards to social policy, who tend to vote Liberal or NDP are opposed to SSM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 What does all this have to do with resources and the dollar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hayward Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 What does all this have to do with resources and the dollar? This is by far the most off topic discussion I've ever seen, on this forum or elsewhere. A debate over the Canadian dollar and natural resources somehow became a debate over same-sex marriage, hate speech and Stephen Harper's definition of sexual orientation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 The fact that he failed is because he wanted to fail. And the proof is...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 If anything he used the Socons and cast them aside like a cheap whore once he was done with them. Here's some evidence to support your statement: http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?cat=15 It appears that Harper intends to veto any socon Conservative candidate other than himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 And the proof is...? ...you posted it. For a socon, Harper isn't giving them much more than the time of day. In my opinion the dreams of the socons having Harper lead them are dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 For a socon, Harper isn't giving them much more than the time of day. In my opinion the dreams of the socons having Harper lead them are dead. Purging other socon candidates is an attempt at getting a majority government in the next election. It's not evidence that Harper is not a socon. Purging socon candidates is a safe strategy for Harper. Who else will the socons vote for? Other than the Christian Heritage Party and various lunatic groups, there is no Canadian political party to the right of the Harper Conservatives. Even in the last federal election when socon Harper won a tenuous minority, approximately 64% of Canadians voted for the Liberals, BQ, NDP and Greens, parties not noted for their appeal to socons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.