Paul Martin a Bigot?

[Left for life]

People change their opinions all the time. Heck 4 years ago I was a fundamentalist christian that didn't support gay marriage and now I am a weak atheist that supports gay marriage. It's a good thing when someone is able to change, but in this case it sounds like maybe martin just wanted to keep his cabinet post so he voted with his party, I have no problems with him doing that at all.

[I miss Reagan]

People change their opinions all the time. Heck 4 years ago I was a fundamentalist christian that didn't support gay marriage and now I am a weak atheist that supports gay marriage. It's a good thing when someone is able to change, but in this case it sounds like maybe martin just wanted to keep his cabinet post so he voted with his party, I have no problems with him doing that at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes people often change their views as they get older or gradually over long periods of time. The problem with Martin is he is so obviously 'changing his mind' for the purpose of holding on to power. The problem is his statements were very black and white only a few years ago. They lead the people to believe he was solid and resolute in his stance on SSM. Now only a few years later he is solid and resolute on the total opposite side of the issue. It's dithering in it's purest form. The man has no principles.

[Left for life]

People change their opinions all the time. Heck 4 years ago I was a fundamentalist christian that didn't support gay marriage and now I am a weak atheist that supports gay marriage. It's a good thing when someone is able to change, but in this case it sounds like maybe martin just wanted to keep his cabinet post so he voted with his party, I have no problems with him doing that at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes people often change their views as they get older or gradually over long periods of time. The problem with Martin is he is so obviously 'changing his mind' for the purpose of holding on to power. The problem is his statements were very black and white only a few years ago. They lead the people to believe he was solid and resolute in his stance on SSM. Now only a few years later he is solid and resolute on the total opposite side of the issue. It's dithering in it's purest form. The man has no principles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well you cannot assume that, especially since it was quit a few years ago, and obviously he voted with the party to keep his position. Half of politics is about ignoring personal convictions and following the party line. It's a sad but neccessary part of politics sometimes.

I don't agree that he has no principles, that is just silly to say that a person has no principles that they don't believe in Anything. Who cares if Harper believes that gay marriage is wrong and isn't a afraid to force that on everyone? That isn't an admirable trait IMO. 70% of Canadians don't have a problem with gay marriage in recent polls, so Harper is going to go not only against the constitution if he gets elected, but he will go against a majority of Canadians and against the provinces as well? And all of this just because he doesn't support gay marriage? The conservatives need to get rid of harper and pick a leader who is socially liberal and economically conservative, instead of the George Bush wannabe.

[Argus]

If you're going to be Catholic, you have to play by the rules, otherwise you're a fairweather believer and have no right practising the religion at all.

You really have no right to judge the faith of another person. Many Catholics I know have thought about leaving the church because of their beliefs but stay and try to work for change from within. There is a good book about this topic: "Why I am a Catholic" http://www.powells.com/review/2002_08_15.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can certainly stay, but if you are going to call yourself a Catholic you need to abide by the dictates of the Catholic Church. I mean, people who call themselves Catholic but ignore church dictates on moral issues are just lying to themselves - or in Paul Martin's case, to everyone else.

[Black Dog]

The UC is a church of dilettantes

I'm glad you cleared that up Argus. Now, I hope you can answer this other question that's been really bugging me for a while: which is the One True Faith?

There are probably more Catholics in Ottawa than Unitarians on planet earth.

Depending on how church size is defined, the United Church of Canada is either the largest or next to largest Protestant denomination. About 3.1 million Canadians identify themselves with the United Church of Canada. The church reports 684,000 confirmed members. Fewer (about 2.2 million) Canadians identify themselves as Anglicans, However, the church reports 737,000 confirmed members -- more than the United Church.

So, the United Church is either the largest or second-largest protestant denomination in Canada.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I'm not judging the faith of anyone.  I'm certain they're all well intentioned, but the Catholic Church has rules and teachings that one is to follow if they are going to have faith in it.  If you don't agree with, or don't want to follow the teachings of the Church, then you're not a Catholic.  You can't pick and choose what parts of the faith you want to believe in.

By your criteria, I suspect that there are more homosexuals in Canada than there are Catholics in the world.

[I Miss Trudeau]

For discussion of cultures within Canada to have any meaning, the term has to be more specific than "urban hipsters" or "me and my friends" or "people who share my political views". 

"Urban hipster" conveys far more cultural information than "french canadian," "native american," or "christian."

[kimmy]

For discussion of cultures within Canada to have any meaning, the term has to be more specific than "urban hipsters" or "me and my friends" or "people who share my political views". 

"Urban hipster" conveys far more cultural information than "french canadian," "native american," or "christian."

Cool. I'll watch for your pavillion at Heritage Days.

-k

[I Miss Trudeau]

Cool. I'll watch for your pavillion at Heritage Days. rolleyes.gif

Do you ever even try to address the points raised in posts that you reply to? Or do you simply settle for inane and sarcastic remarks?

If you disagree with my comment, say why.

[kimmy]

Cool. I'll watch for your pavillion at Heritage Days. rolleyes.gif

Do you ever even try to address the points raised in posts that you reply to? Or do you simply settle for inane and sarcastic remarks?

If you disagree with my comment, say why.

Well, I thought it was tremendously amusing, yet quite topical. The idea of an "Urban Hipster" pavillion at Heritage Days certainly tickled my fancy. Since you apparently don't share my sense of whimsy, I'll give you the more prosaic, less entertaining version.

That "urban hipster" might be a more descriptive term than "French Canadian" doesn't make "urban hipster" a cultural group. It might give somebody an idea of who you hang out with or what you do in your spare time or whatever. However, I don't think this sort of ... temporal ... description is sufficient to qualify you as a cultural group.

I think one important part of what we consider a "cultural group" is something that runs along the lines of lineage, heritage, legacy, continuity. I think we're talking about identifyable and non-subjective characteristics. And not something as fluid or temporary as your recreational habits, favorite music, or style of clothes.

You might be able to call "urban hipsters" a subculture or something, just like "skateboarders" or "fat pimply Dungeons + Dragons kids". But not a cultural group, not in the sense that we mean when we talk about Canada as a multicultural country.

-k

[Argus]

Cool. I'll watch for your pavillion at Heritage Days. rolleyes.gif

Do you ever even try to address the points raised in posts that you reply to? Or do you simply settle for inane and sarcastic remarks?

If you disagree with my comment, say why.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably because it was an idiotic comment.

That's just a guess, though.

[mcqueen625]

And many different cultures and religions that are morally supportive of it. I'm sorry, but just because you scream the loudest doesn't mean that you get your way.

Name the many different cultures and religions that support same sex marriages. I can think of one religion in Canada that has endorsed same-sex marriage and that is the United Church. The United Church where I grew up, was one of the oldest United Churches in Canada, Centenary Queen Square United Church, in Saint John, NB. It virtually no longer exists since a gay wedding was performed there a few year's ago. Over 95% of the congregation walked away and joined St. Anne's & St. David United Church, a Parish that does not perform such services. The Parisioners of what is left of Centenary Queen Square now meets in a small room in what used to be a paper-bag factory.

As for cultures that support same-sex marriages I believe there are only two others, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and most other cultures shun this lifestyle choice, as being exactly what it is unnatural.

[Riverwind]

As for cultures that support same-sex marriages I believe there are only two others, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and most other cultures do nat accept this lifestyle choice.

Add Spain to that list. What SSM opponents don't seem to get is there is a culture shift going on. In the 60s-70s, people argued quite strenously that allowing women to be equal to men would destroy the family. Today such arguments are considered absurd. In 10-20 years, the SSM marriage debate will be forgotten as the opponents fade away.

[mcqueen625]

Anyway, the state can't seriously permit battered wives to divorce their husbands, can they? Think of the children!

Well in the case of same-sex marriages we certainly don't need to worry about children, now do we, because that is not biologically possible. Thank you God for the natural order of things.

[Riverwind]

Anyway, the state can't seriously permit battered wives to divorce their husbands, can they? Think of the children!

Well in the case of same-sex marriages we certainly don't need to worry about children, now do we, because that is not biologically possible. Thank you God for the natural order of things.

Not true, gay woman can still have children and often do. People sometimes have children in straight relationships before they realize they are gay.

[mcqueen625]

But he is happy to ally himself with them to acheive his short and long term goals? Mmmhmmm.

And Martin is any different? Martin is a hypocrit. He put himself out there as the saviour of a one tier healthcare system and the champion of Medicare while demonizing Harper, and while he is acting so self-righteous, he and him family are attened to at a private, for-profit clinic in Montreal. Now that a man with convictions. My hero, NOT!

[Black Dog]

As for cultures that support same-sex marriages I believe there are only two others, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and most other cultures shun this lifestyle choice, as being exactly what it is unnatural.

Your whole post is an example of an ad populum fallacy. Just because other cultures (would that also include the ones where women are stoned to death if they get raped?) don't support gay marriage, that doesn't not make it the wrong thing to do.

What's more, gay relationships are legally recognized in most industrial nations in some way. If they felt it was "unnatural" (as you claim) why would they recognize these relationships at all?

Gay marriage around the globe

Well in the case of same-sex marriages we certainly don't need to worry about children, now do we, because that is not biologically possible. Thank you God for the natural order of things.

Of course if we disqualify gays from marrying on the basis of not be able to produce children (well, males, anyway) we should also disqualify the infertile,the post-menopausal, the willingly childless etc etc.

[mcqueen625]

does that mean that the will of the majority should trump the rights of the minority?

Maybe not, but at the same time it shouldn't give our government the right to change the meaning of a term recognized the world over as having the meaning of a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This is a term that was being used with this same meaning the world over long before Canada was even a nation. Martin hold same-sex marriage out as a human right and even our Charter does not state that, and neither does the United Nation's Human Right's Code hold that Same-sex marriage is a human right or a right at all.

Martin would like Canadian's to move forward from this issue, but this issue is so hot, that it will become an election issue, and I would bet that Martin will pay dearly for this legislation during the nexzt trip to the ballot box. This boil has only begun to fester. As for Party standings in the polls that are being conducted, they really mean nothing, because it all depends on who gets asked, and more to the point, who is paying to have the poll conducted. Mostly these polls are coming out of the Ottawa Press Gallery, who have been bought and paid for by the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Black Dog]

Maybe not, but at the same time it shouldn't give our government the right to change the meaning of a term recognized the world over as having the meaning of a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Uh...why not? Canada's lawmakers deal with Canada's law, which they are free to change. What the rest of the world does is irrelevant.

Martin would like Canadian's to move forward from this issue, but this issue is so hot, that it will become an election issue, and I would bet that Martin will pay dearly for this legislation during the nexzt trip to the ballot box.

I read somewhere (can't find the reference now) that only 3 per cent of Canadians think SSM is an election issue.

In any case, even if it were, what's to be done about it? The only way a federal government of any stripe would be able to get around it is by using the notwithstanding clause.

[Riverwind]

Martin would like Canadian's to move forward from this issue, but this issue is so hot, that it will become an election issue, and I would bet that Martin will pay dearly for this legislation during the nexzt trip to the ballot box.

Canadians are split 50-50 on this issue and the majority of urban voters are in favour. In other words, this issue will only outrage voters in places where the Liberals had no chance anyways. That said, I could see it making a difference in some atlantic ridings where there was a close race between a lib and a conservative in the last election.

[cybercoma]

Not true, gay woman can still have children and often do. People sometimes have children in straight relationships before they realize they are gay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but could you explain to me how gay women in a marriage can have a child? I'm a bit confused here.

[Riverwind]

Not true, gay woman can still have children and often do. People sometimes have children in straight relationships before they realize they are gay.

Sorry, but could you explain to me how gay women in a marriage can have a child? I'm a bit confused here.

Artificial insemination - straight women do it all of the time when their partner has issues.

This is my pet peeve about anti-SSM people is they don't realize the main reason a SSM couple wants to adopt children is because they want to become the legal guardian of their partner's genetic child.

[cybercoma]

Artificial insemination - straight women do it all of the time when their partner has issues.

This is my pet peeve about anti-SSM people is they don't realize the main reason a SSM couple wants to adopt children is because they want to become the legal guardian of their partner's genetic child.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, that still doesn't explain to me how two eggs create a zygote.

[Argus]

As for cultures that support same-sex marriages I believe there are only two others, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and most other cultures do nat accept this lifestyle choice.

Add Spain to that list.

I wouldn't think anyone in their right mind would want to use the Spanish as an example of anything except how far the mighty can fall.

What SSM opponents don't seem to get is there is a culture shift going on. In the 60s-70s, people argued quite strenously that allowing women to be equal to men would destroy the family. Today such arguments are considered absurd.

You're simplifying the argument of the time. It was not a question of "making women equal" it was a question of what changing gender roles would do to the family. And yes, it has seriously damaged the family as an institution. And it has helped lead to a culture which is, let's face it, dying. Canadians aren't reproducing themselves, in large measure because women are too busy working (though that too is a simplification). Putting millions of women into the workforce has helped lower the value of worker labour to the point that it is a rare family today that can be supported by one working family. A couple of generations ago couples routinely had 5-8 children, and such families were fairly easily supported by a husband who had a decent paying job. Hell, my grandfather supported eight kids with a messenger job at the House of Commons. They were poor, of course, but they never lacked food, shelter or warm clothing.

Now the families I know who have just one kid are struggling to make ends meet even with both parents working decent jobs. The value of labour has been hugely diminished. My uncle was an armored car guard, and he raised three kids and supported a wife who never worked. They bought a house, and a car, and never really had any major money problems. Try doing that on an armoured car guard's salary today!

Not that we need worry about that. Very few Canadian families have three kids. Huge numbers of Canadians have no kids, or at best, just the one. We have to import foreigners whose cultures do not subscribe to our new belief in gender equality. And those cultures are slowly transforming ours. The culture we thought of as Canadian in the seventies won't be recognizable in a few dozen years. It will be a mixture of Asian, east indian and middle eastern.

In 10-20 years, the SSM marriage debate will be forgotten as the opponents fade away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In 10-20 years Whites will be a minority in a number of cities, and most of the non-whites were born outside of Canada, or raised in foreign enclaves within Canada. The growing size of the Muslim, Hindu and Sikh populations will ensure that anything to do with homosexuality will continue to be highly charged. For that matter none of the foreign cultures are very welcoming to homosexuality, and while some of their members do become Canadianised with time, their numbers are so great that these enclaves are largely self-sustaining now. You can grow up withina Chinese enclave in Ontario and BC and ever see a non-white face, never learn English, never watch TV that doesn't come over a satellite dish from "home".

The majority of the kindergarten students in BC's lower mainland schools are in ESL classes - even though they were born and raised in "Canada".