WWWTT Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Gay marriage its seems,has become a hot topic! And the unlikely knight in shining armour defending the rights of gays has become the conservative party. The conservative party? Wow who would have thought the party that wanted to ban gay marriage just a few years ago has now become the most vocal in defending gay rights?!?! I thought this party drew much support from people whom opposed alternative lifestyle? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Shady Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I'm a conservative voter, and this topic gets a great big meh from me. Quote
Tilter Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I'm a conservative voter, and this topic gets a great big meh from me. I guess when you're an NDPeeper and the shit has already hit the popularity fan you can grasp at any straw floating around in the political eddy in the hope that it will sway opinion. Quote
dre Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I'm a conservative voter, and this topic gets a great big meh from me. I thought you and Phil would be happy! Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
CPCFTW Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) I don't think I have to say that I'm a conservative voter and I am very happy about this. So much for that "hidden agenda". Harper should get even more centrist votes next election. Looking forward to 7 more years of Harper's Canada. Edited January 14, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
scribblet Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Indeed but I don't get the title, it doesn't fit. I mean heck, the Tories just rained on the left's perfectly good bout of paranoia and hysteria on Friday. LOL Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
punked Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Maybe the PC wing of the party is really grabbing the power. When do we see the new Reform or Social Credit party rise? They can call it the Wild Rose if they want. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I took this whole issue as a signal to the faithful that they are still not comfortable with same sex marriage. Whether the leadership actually cares about the issue or not is another question. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Scotty Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I took this whole issue as a signal to the faithful that they are still not comfortable with same sex marriage. Whether the leadership actually cares about the issue or not is another question. You took the 'issue' of a government lawyer stating settled law with long precedence behind it as some sort of political message to conservatives? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 You took the 'issue' of a government lawyer stating settled law with long precedence behind it as some sort of political message to conservatives? The whole issue flared up this week like a bad firecracker and was dead within a day or so. It seems like stagecraft to me. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Ok. Now that I have read Coyne's piece in the Globe I'm not so sure what may have happened behind the scenes. It seems that the couple's lawyer may have gone to the court of public opinion, which sparked the controversy but his piece is vague on how they landed in court in the first place. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Scotty Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Ok. Now that I have read Coyne's piece in the Globe I'm not so sure what may have happened behind the scenes. It seems that the couple's lawyer may have gone to the court of public opinion, which sparked the controversy but his piece is vague on how they landed in court in the first place. It strikes me as akin to the Black man fired for incompetence crying racism. She knew she couldn't win in court, so she went to the media "they're being homophobes!". And the Globe was eager to buy it and start this whole phony controversy. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Michael Hardner Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 It strikes me as akin to the Black man fired for incompetence crying racism. She knew she couldn't win in court, so she went to the media "they're being homophobes!". And the Globe was eager to buy it and start this whole phony controversy. That seems likely, but professional politics is also like professional wrestling in that the match is fixed beforehand with both sides. We don't get to see what's going on behind the curtains. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
punked Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I just want to point out, out of 10,000 foreign gay marriages done in Canada over the last 5 years or so only 1 couple wants a divorce? That is a great track record, maybe we should only have gay marriage because they seem like the only ones that stay together. That or the government drummed up this controversy. Quote
Wild Bill Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) I thought this party drew much support from people whom opposed alternative lifestyle? WWWTT "Much support"? That was always an assumption! If you were less willing to label people you might not get such surprises. The classic evangelical Christian who thought Ned Flanders from the Simpsons was the ultimate role model and who wanted to enact law to FORCE people to be that way was always a straw man spread by the left. In all my years with Reform I don't think I met ANY other member who fit that description. Maybe there are a few small communities of such in the hills near the Rockies. I've never been there so I can't say. Of course, there was Stockwell Day but he was an aberration in the extreme, not representative of the party as a whole at all. Look how fast he was turfed when he tried to act as if believing evangelical Christian tenets were mainstream! I think you are so hidebound that you won't believe me but I have actually met a few gay Reformers! What's more, when Reform was at its peak as the Official Opposition the cameras during Question Period could not help but show that there were FAR more visible minority faces on the Reform side than in all other parties combined! I still remember Preston Manning being interviewed on CBC NewsWorld by some sweet young thing, who was trying her damnedest to make the party out to be a bigoted bunch of white bread. Preston kept smiling and finally pointed out the fact of how there were more visible minorities in his party. "Aha!" the sweet young thing pounced on him. "Just exactly how many?" Preston just sadly shook his head and replied "I really don't know. We don't believe in counting them!" That to me summed up the biggest difference between Reform and its critics! The fact that nobody was counting them like some kind of tokens was probably a lot of the reason so many visible minorities were willing to run as MPs for Reform! Edited January 14, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) I just want to point out, out of 10,000 foreign gay marriages done in Canada over the last 5 years or so only 1 couple wants a divorce?Maybe its because most gay couples like the legal non-status when it comes to divorce because they are free to divide their assets the way they see fit without government interference. Add to this is the fact that the overwhelming majority of gay marriages do not include children which means there is usually not one partner who feels they need to be compensated for 'staying home with the kids'. Edited January 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
dre Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 Maybe its because most gay couples like the legal non-status when it comes to divorce because they are free to divide their assets the way they see fit without government interference. Add to this is the fact that the overwhelming majority of gay marriages do not include children which means there is usually not one partner who feels they need to be compensated for 'staying home with the kids'. Maybe its because most gay couples like the legal non-status when it comes to divorce because they are free to divide their assets the way they see fit without government interference. Legaly married people are free to do that too. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Legaly married people are free to do that too.No they are not. The state imposes a 50/50 division of assets unless there is a prenupt and even then prenups can be overruled by the court. Then you get the issue of court ordered spousal support which has no connection with the receiving spouses needs and all about ensuring the receiving spouse can continue to enjoy the standard of living that comes with being married to a richer person without actually being married. Claiming that people "volunteer" for such arrangements with the threat of a court ordered procedings is like saying someone that hands his wallet to a mugger at gunpoint "volunteered" to give up the wallet. Edited January 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
dre Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) No they are not. The state imposes a 50/50 division of assets unless there is a prenupt and even then prenups can be overruled by the court. Then you get the issue of court ordered spousal support which has no connection with the receiving spouses needs and all about ensuring the receiving spouse can continue to enjoy the standard of living that comes with being married to a richer person without actually being married. Claiming that people "volunteer" for such arrangements with the threat of a court ordered procedings is like saying someone that hands his wallet to a mugger at gunpoint "volunteered" to give up the wallet. No they are not. The state imposes a 50/50 division of assets unless there is a prenupt and even then prenups can be overruled by the court. Absolutely false. That only happens if the parties cannot come to agreement on their own. They are still very much free to because they are free to "divide their assets the way they see fit without government interference". Uncontested and joint divorces to not even require a court date. Edited January 15, 2012 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest Peeves Posted January 14, 2012 Report Posted January 14, 2012 I just want to point out, out of 10,000 foreign gay marriages done in Canada over the last 5 years or so only 1 couple wants a divorce? That is a great track record, maybe we should only have gay marriage because they seem like the only ones that stay together. That or the government drummed up this controversy. That's quite a jump. Who can show that others simply walked away from their partner. I sincerely doubt a gay union would last any longer than a straight couple married or not. Where did you get the 10,000 number from? You need a year residency in Canada to get a divorce. Quote
TimG Posted January 15, 2012 Report Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Absolutely false. That only happens if the parties cannot come to agreement on their own.As I pointed out with my anology to a mugging: agreements made in the context of state imposed rules are not voluntary. Most people facing are divorce are simply told they have no case unless they agree to a 50/50 division and to settle. Most do. Just like most victims of mugging "volunteer" to hand over their wallet rather than get shot. http://www.divorceincanada.ca/equalization.htm the general rule is that the value of any property that you acquired during your marriage and that you still have when you separate must be divided equally, 50-50. Property that you brought with you into your marriage is yours to keep if your marriage ends. Any increase in the value of this property during your marriage must be shared. When it comes to gays in juristictions that dont recognize the marriage there would be no rules and no legal way to compel an equal division of assets. I am sure that 50% of divorcing gays prefer it this way. Edited January 15, 2012 by TimG Quote
huh Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 That seems likely, but professional politics is also like professional wrestling in that the match is fixed beforehand with both sides. We don't get to see what's going on behind the curtains. Oh sure, it is completely reasonable to assume this was all an act without any evidence to support this belief, amazing. Quote
August1991 Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Gay marriage its seems,has become a hot topic!And the unlikely knight in shining armour defending the rights of gays has become the conservative party. The conservative party? Wow who would have thought the party that wanted to ban gay marriage just a few years ago has now become the most vocal in defending gay rights?!?! I thought this party drew much support from people whom opposed alternative lifestyle? WWWTT Gays (and North American Anglo Leftists/Progressives) are Drama Queens.They'll enjoy the moment, and then find life boring. From Vegas to dePape, they're a mob. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 Oh sure, it is completely reasonable to assume this was all an act without any evidence to support this belief, amazing. Well there's the National Post link... and one presumes the government side as well. I don't think they were navigating this blindly. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
jacee Posted January 16, 2012 Report Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Oops! Bad post. Edited January 16, 2012 by jacee Quote
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.