same sex marriage circus

[JerrySeinfeld]

Here is a great quote...from the Liberal GOVERNMENT read in parlaiment in 1999:

"Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners. I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

[Leader Circle]

Here is a great quote...from the Liberal GOVERNMENT read in parlaiment in 1999:

"Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners. I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The definition of Irony!! ^^^^^^^

[JerrySeinfeld]

Here is a great quote...from the Liberal GOVERNMENT read in parlaiment in 1999. Oh and by the tway: Prime Minister Paul Martin voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage in 1999.

NOW LIBS: READ THIS AND COME BACK TO ME WITH A STRAIGHT FACE AND TELL ME THAT THE LIBS ARE NOT ONLY BIGOTS, BUT POLITICAL OPPORTUNISTIC BIGOTS __ THE WORST KIND!!

Here is a quote from the LIBERALS:

"Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners. I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

[Black Dog]

. Nothing is stopping incestuous people or polygamists from making a case, but it opens the door by setting a precedent for them. They will have another ruling to follow. It gives strength to many other minority causes.

That was all I was saying.

Maybe, maybe not. But there's nothing saying that, once we open the door to SSM, we cannot shut it again for other practices.

It does seem inevitable that this will become law, I just see a major backlash from the religious right and from John Q Canadian when it actually does make law. If the Conservatives become the gov't in the next election, I think they will be pressured to appeal this and we'll be back into the debate again! I wonder if the homsexuals in Canada enjoy this attention or are they just fighting for their cause? They really seem to enjoy being debated!!!

I'd like to see how the Conservatives will pull off invalidating all the current gay marriages and still try to present themselves as the party of small government.

[Riverwind]

I hate to say it), in a round about way. Nothing is stopping incestuous people or polygamists from making a case, but it opens the door by setting a precedent for them. They will have another ruling to follow. It gives strength to many other minority causes.

This is such a complete and total red herring. Homosexuality is not illegal between concenting adults. Polygamy and incest are illegal. Before anyone could seek to allow these types of 'marriages' they would have to be made legal first. The chances of that happening are next to zero. Therefore, there is no slippery slope.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Nothing is stopping incestuous people or polygamists from making a case, but it opens the door by setting a precedent for them. They will have another ruling to follow. It gives strength to many other minority causes.

Passing the SSM bill will have absolutely no effect on the outcome of a charter challenge regarding incest or polygamy.

I wonder if the homsexuals in Canada enjoy this attention or are they just fighting for their cause? They really seem to enjoy being debated!!!

Actually, most homosexuals just want to be able to do what other Canadians already take for granted. It seems to be the religious right who insist on debating social policy as a sort of sport. By the way, I found this part of your post to be truly entertaining:

It does seem inevitable that this will become law, I just see a major backlash from the religious right and from John Q Canadian when it actually does make law. If the Conservatives become the gov't in the next election, I think they will be pressured to appeal this and we'll be back into the debate again! I wonder if the homsexuals in Canada enjoy this attention or are they just fighting for their cause? They really seem to enjoy being debated!!!

So, if I've got your argument clear, even if the SSM bill passes, those on the religious right are going to demand that it be "appealed" [sic] and force it to be, yet again, debated ad nauseum. But, according to you, its the homosexuals that are just itching for a debate.

[Sir Chauncy]

The poll is hardly scientific.

_________________

It asks our view and we gave our view, just like any poll doess.

So what you are saying is that all polls are crap.

I agree with you.

But I still think gays should have every right heteros have, including marraige rites.

Owl

[Leader Circle]

Nothing is stopping incestuous people or polygamists from making a case, but it opens the door by setting a precedent for them. They will have another ruling to follow. It gives strength to many other minority causes.

Passing the SSM bill will have absolutely no effect on the outcome of a charter challenge regarding incest or polygamy.

I wonder if the homsexuals in Canada enjoy this attention or are they just fighting for their cause? They really seem to enjoy being debated!!!

Actually, most homosexuals just want to be able to do what other Canadians already take for granted. It seems to be the religious right who insist on debating social policy as a sort of sport. By the way, I found this part of your post to be truly entertaining:

It does seem inevitable that this will become law, I just see a major backlash from the religious right and from John Q Canadian when it actually does make law. If the Conservatives become the gov't in the next election, I think they will be pressured to appeal this and we'll be back into the debate again! I wonder if the homsexuals in Canada enjoy this attention or are they just fighting for their cause? They really seem to enjoy being debated!!!

So, if I've got your argument clear, even if the SSM bill passes, those on the religious right are going to demand that it be "appealed" [sic] and force it to be, yet again, debated ad nauseum. But, according to you, its the homosexuals that are just itching for a debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you suppose the religious right like to debate it? Maybe because of their morals?

If they didn't enjoy the press, why have the gay pride parade? They make themselves seen to the public knowing full well most God fearing people are appalled by them. They find a way to be as lewd as possible to throw it in the face of average Joe.

"The parade showcased everything from bronzed, scantily-clad dancers gyrating on floats to pounding dance music" (quote from below)

If the average public wanted to see gyrating dancers of the heterosexual persuasion, they would have to go to a strip joint.

The now don't even follow the same rules that most people adhere to. When they do something it always seems to be as public as possible and as graphic as possible. Yet, they try to compare themselves to average family values????? Explain this?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

As far as the ssm leading to other things... I stated this before, but here it is:

"How long ago was it that homsexuality was a crime? I think anal sex is against the law in Georgia still. So the case will stand for polygamists & incest supporters, eventually in a country like Canada(pushovers) it won't be long. Incest is a stretch, but Polygamy isn't. I think the BC polygamists are starting to gain recognition.

I guess you could say incest is wrong because the offspring is very handicapped & deformed, but what offspring can homsexuals produce??? And if that incestuous relationship is loving & consentual, why is it hurting the institution of marriage???

I am strongly against all of this, but ssm is opening the door!"

Maybe it never will.....but what cause is next? Next thing they are going to tell straights is their public shows of affection offend them and infringe on their human rights. If these people have no cause, they won't get any press & they won't be happy. It is a never ending story.

Most of these gays are cause driven people, they have been fighting oppression their whole life(or so they will tell you) and when they win this battle, you think they will go on and live their lives in private? NO WAY! Something else will bust loose and they'll be in the newspapers again!!

[I Miss Trudeau]

Why do you suppose the religious right like to debate it? Maybe because of their morals?

I'm sorry that you don't appreciate the irony.

If they didn't enjoy the press, why have the gay pride parade?

Partly to raise awareness, and partly as a message that says "We're not going to live by your moralistic, repressive, and often bigoted views."

They make themselves seen to the public knowing full well most God fearing people are appalled by them. They find a way to be as lewd as possible to throw it in the face of average Joe.

Funny, I feel the same about a lot of God fearing people.

"The parade showcased everything from bronzed, scantily-clad dancers gyrating on floats to pounding dance music" (quote from below)

My experience with the crusade to rid the city of raves here in Edmonton leads me to suspect that the religious right is probably more horrified by the dance music than the gyrating bronze homosexuals.

If the average public wanted to see gyrating dancers of the heterosexual persuasion, they would have to go to a strip joint.

Or a football game, or a bar, or a cheerleading competition, or Whyte ave on a friday or saturday night, or ........

The now don't even follow the same rules that most people adhere to.

A lot of the "rules" they don't adhere to are idiotic and repressive.

When they do something it always seems to be as public as possible and as graphic as possible. Yet, they try to compare themselves to average family values?????

Well, because they're making a public statement. If you wanted to make a statement, would you close the curtains over the basement window, get on your soapbox, and whisper at the concrete wall?

As far as the ssm leading to other things... I stated this before, but here it is:

And you're still wrong, but at least you can take comfort in the knowledge that some things never change.

[Leader Circle]

As far as the ssm leading to other things... I stated this before, but here it is:

And you're still wrong, but at least you can take comfort in the knowledge that some things never change.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess my being wrong would be your opinion right?

I have a different one!

[Shakeyhands]

my guess is after Mr Harpers assinine comments attempting to tie the seperatists to the SSM issue that this will be what finishes him... what an arse. What is this guy thinking??? Or is he even doing that?

Stephen Harper says any gay marriage law will be stamped with illegitimacy because it will owe its passage to Quebec separatists.

Same-sex marriage legislation, which is expected to become law later this week with the votes of the Bloc Quebecois, would have been thwarted if only federalists MPs were casting ballots, the Conservative leader said today.

“Because it’s being passed with the support of the Bloc, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians,” Harper told CBC Newsworld.

“The truth is, most federalist MPs oppose this.”

Conservative justice critic Vic Toews went further.

“The federalist MPs in Canada, the majority of them, would oppose (gay marriage) on a free vote. So what we are seeing now is simply an agreement by this government with the separatist Bloc — who have no long-term interest in staying in Canada.”

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...72154&t=TS_Home

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why do you suppose the religious right like to debate it? Maybe because of their morals?

Because of their self-righteous busybody moralism.

But so what? Their morals don't matter one damn bit in public polic questions.

They make themselves seen to the public knowing full well most God fearing people are appalled by them.

Ain't that just too bad.

They find a way to be as lewd as possible to throw it in the face of average Joe.

People who find it unpleasant don't need to observe it.

"The parade showcased everything from bronzed, scantily-clad dancers gyrating on floats to pounding dance music"

My God! Not ... dance music!

[JerrySeinfeld]

my guess is after Mr Harpers assinine comments attempting to tie the seperatists to the SSM issue that this will be what finishes him... what an arse.  What is this guy thinking??? Or is he even doing that?

Stephen Harper says any gay marriage law will be stamped with illegitimacy because it will owe its passage to Quebec separatists.

Same-sex marriage legislation, which is expected to become law later this week with the votes of the Bloc Quebecois, would have been thwarted if only federalists MPs were casting ballots, the Conservative leader said today.

“Because it’s being passed with the support of the Bloc, I think it will lack legitimacy with most Canadians,” Harper told CBC Newsworld.

“The truth is, most federalist MPs oppose this.”

Conservative justice critic Vic Toews went further.

“The federalist MPs in Canada, the majority of them, would oppose (gay marriage) on a free vote. So what we are seeing now is simply an agreement by this government with the separatist Bloc — who have no long-term interest in staying in Canada.”

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...72154&t=TS_Home

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HA! He is so intelligent I don't think most Canadians will even GET what he is doing here. It might not be good politics because he's never been accused of good politics, but academically it's a brilliant move but only for those who understand it:

You see just a few weeks ago Belinda and the Libs were criticizing the Cons for voting with the Bloc (I don't see how anyone in favor of keeping this country together can ally themselves with the Bloc)...conveniently now the Libs are doing just that

[cybercoma]

HA!  He is so intelligent I don't think most Canadians will even GET what he is doing here.  It might not be good politics because he's never been accused of good politics, but academically it's a brilliant move but only for those who understand it:

You see just a few weeks ago Belinda and the Libs were criticizing the Cons for voting with the Bloc (I don't see how anyone in favor of keeping this country together can ally themselves with the Bloc)...conveniently now the Libs are doing just that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps Belinda Stronach will now defect BACK to the Conservatives. hahaha

[I Miss Trudeau]

HA!  He is so intelligent I don't think most Canadians will even GET what he is doing here.  It might not be good politics because he's never been accused of good politics, but academically it's a brilliant move but only for those who understand it:

Its not brilliant nor is it good politics.

You see just a few weeks ago Belinda and the Libs were criticizing the Cons for voting with the Bloc (I don't see how anyone in favor of keeping this country together can ally themselves with the Bloc)...conveniently now the Libs are doing just that

The important difference is that the Cons were allied with the Bloc to bring down the government and force an election that wouldn't benefit anyone but the Bloc. On top of that, a huge majority of Canadians didn't want an election.

Martin allies with the Bloc to provide something that virtually every Canadian wanted; namely, for the government to get on with the business of governing and actually accomplish something. The budget gets passed, the SSM bill will pass (which at least half of the population supports anyway). Unfortunatly for Mr. Harper, Canadians see through his "clever" little ruse and realize that Harper has been the only leader that has done absolutely nothing but try to obstruct the functioning of government. Poor, poor, Stevie.

Martin: 3679, Harper: 0

[cybercoma]

The only thing that has obstructed this minority liberal government from functioning is the scandals they're involved with.

[I Miss Trudeau]

The only thing that has obstructed this minority liberal government from functioning is the scandals they're involved with.

Like the one that smiley-happy-burger-flipping-Stevie couldn't wait to see investigated because it might interfere with his opportunistic interpretation of the polls? The scandal that even had the nerve to bring forth a non-confidence motion in parliament?!

[TheHonorableJordanDent]

I have to vote for full marriage, I'm Christian (not hard core, I rarely attend Church) but I believe in seperation of Church and State because imagine if I lived in a country where Christianity was in the minority I wouldn't want some other religion's ideas of what is right and wrong forced on me. So it doesn't really matter to me, if my religion is right and they are wrong God will punish them by banishing them to Hell and not allowing them to ever feel the divine presence. It's not up to me to tell people how to live their lives.