Paul Martin a Bigot?

[Argus]

The United Church is pretty damn accepting of gay rights... of course they are now emroiled in their own internal battle over the issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The United Church is not a religion.

I'm not even sure you could say the United Church is religious

They're more of a social club for bleeding heart liberals.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Could you tell me one (or more) religions that actively support SSM? I'm actually curious (forgive my ignorance) - not trying to argue against you as I suspect we agree on the issue.

The United church. Most non judeo-christian religions. Actually, a whole lot of Christians that are more concerned with the teachings of Jesus than the teachings of the churches.

[I Miss Trudeau]

The United Church is not a religion.

I'm not even sure you could say the United Church is religious

They're more of a social club for bleeding heart liberals.

A social club for people that have bothered to read their holy scripture, you mean?

[I Miss Trudeau]

I wouldn't mind hearing of what "cultures" support SSM either. I'm unaware of any of our ethnic groups which are particularly enthusiastic about the concept. Except perhaps Quebecois, who rarely get married themselves and don't think of it as very important.

Not all cultural groups are ethnic groups. Also, just because you have nothing but disdain for French Canadians doesn't mean that their opinions don't matter in Canadian policy.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I wouldn't mind hearing of what "cultures" support SSM either. I'm unaware of any of our ethnic groups which are particularly enthusiastic about the concept. Except perhaps Quebecois, who rarely get married themselves and don't think of it as very important.

Not all cultural groups are ethnic groups. Also, just because you have nothing but disdain for French Canadians doesn't mean that their opinions don't matter in Canadian policy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Harper's point moreso is that the Bloc shouldn't have a say in the long term decisions this country makes because they don't want to be a part of this country long term.

It's like asking the GM of the Montreal Canadiens to decide who should coach the Maple Leafs!

[kimmy]

Could you tell me one (or more) religions that actively support SSM? I'm actually curious (forgive my ignorance) - not trying to argue against you as I suspect we agree on the issue.

The United church. Most non judeo-christian religions. Actually, a whole lot of Christians that are more concerned with the teachings of Jesus than the teachings of the churches.

Which non Judeo-Christian religions specifically? I know for sure that the Muslims and Sikhs (Canada's largest non-Christian faiths, I believe) are not open-minded on the subject. I don't believe the Hindus are either. Buddhists, perhaps? Who else... the Bahai? The Movementarians?

I wouldn't mind hearing of what "cultures" support SSM either. I'm unaware of any of our ethnic groups which are particularly enthusiastic about the concept. Except perhaps Quebecois, who rarely get married themselves and don't think of it as very important.

Not all cultural groups are ethnic groups.

So... by "cultural groups", you're referring to those that call a "small" a "tall" and a "large" a "vente", yes?

-k

[I Miss Trudeau]

I think Harper's point moreso is that the Bloc shouldn't have a say in the long term decisions this country makes because they don't want to be a part of this country long term.

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

[TheHonorableJordanDent]

I don't mean to be rude, but why don't you offer up a poll with answers that don't all support one side of the debate? I just read that "new party" post you had and that was a really well put together post, but this is just pure garbage and I won't support it any further than this post.

[Argus]

Could you tell me one (or more) religions that actively support SSM? I'm actually curious (forgive my ignorance) - not trying to argue against you as I suspect we agree on the issue.

The United church. Most non judeo-christian religions.

Like which ones? The Muslims? I don't bloody think so. And the Muslims and Catholics together make up half the planet. The Hindus? Nope. There goes another billion people who oppose SSM. Sikhs? Nope. Jews? Nope. Protistant groups? Nope. Maybe you could name which religious groups can be said to support SSM

Actually, a whole lot of Christians that are more concerned with the teachings of Jesus than the teachings of the churches.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or the Bible. Right. Sure.

[TheHonorableJordanDent]

Unitarians support Same sex Marriage.

and I don't agree with your point that "Over half the world" are those religions, does that mean that the will of the majority should trump the rights of the minority?

[Argus]

The United Church is not a religion.

I'm not even sure you could say the United Church is religious

They're more of a social club for bleeding heart liberals.

A social club for people that have bothered to read their holy scripture, you mean?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, a social club where you don't actually have to believe in anything which makes you uncomfortable, or makes you go out of your way to do anything, you know, religious. A place where you can exchange gardening tips on a Sunday morning, and put money into the pot for poor people so you can go home feeling good about yourself.

I'm reminded of a Yes, Prime Minister episode once where the PM had to approve Bishops to the Church of England (the United Church), and as they were going over various loony candidates, they came to one who actually believed in God, not to mention Jesus and Mary and Joseph. They were all astonished. How did HE get in there?!

The UC is a church of dilettantes

[TheHonorableJordanDent]

That's the thing I'm finding more and more prevelant with my fellow Christians that disturbs me, there seems to be more and more of this "It's our way or the highway, to Hell" type of an argument. I'm more of a laid back person, I believe what I choose to believe, everyone else can do the same, you leave me alone I'll leave you alone type of a thing. When did it become our mandate to police the rest of society?

[Argus]

Unitarians support Same sex Marriage.

and I don't agree with your point that "Over half the world" are those religions, does that mean that the will of the majority should trump the rights of the minority?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

And yes, numbers count, obviously, or we wouldn't even be talking about gay mariage. If polls showed ninety percent disapproved Paul Martin would be out there defending traditional marriage.

As for the numbers, there are about one and a half billion Catholics, and slightly less Muslims. Do the math.

[Riverwind]

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

And yes, numbers count, obviously, or we wouldn't even be talking about gay mariage. If polls showed ninety percent disapproved Paul Martin would be out there defending traditional marriage.

Most Catholics I know have no problem with SSM, Birth Control, Abortion, Female Clergy. I would argue that the Martin better represents the the views of Catholics in this country than the Pope.

[TheHonorableJordanDent]

Unitarians support Same sex Marriage.

and I don't agree with your point that "Over half the world" are those religions, does that mean that the will of the majority should trump the rights of the minority?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

And yes, numbers count, obviously, or we wouldn't even be talking about gay mariage. If polls showed ninety percent disapproved Paul Martin would be out there defending traditional marriage.

As for the numbers, there are about one and a half billion Catholics, and slightly less Muslims. Do the math.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I respectfully disagree, I'm not going to get into the whole "Martin flip flopped" thing, but on the numbers thing I really think you're wrong, of course numbers matter as far as public perception, but what I was saying was in a group of 100 people the 99 who believe one thing have no right to tell the 1 what he can/cannot believe.

[Black Dog]

cybercoma:

Conservatives across Canada want equal benefits and rights for same-sex couples, they just refuse to force people to call it "marriage" when there are many different cultures and religions in the country that are morally against it. Let's face it, what we're really talking about is equal rights and benefits under the law anyway. Why must the title marriage be usurped from religions that totally oppose this? Call it "civil unions" call it whatever the heck you want...leave the term marriage alone so those people in our society that hold religious and family values close are not ostracized for not recognizing same sex marriages.

The word "marriage" in the conext of this debate is a legal term. It's Parliment's prerogative to redefine legal terms in order to adapt to social changes. (Don't make me bust out the 1929 Persons case again.)

Argus:

I wouldn't mind hearing of what "cultures" support SSM either. I'm unaware of any of our ethnic groups which are particularly enthusiastic about the concept.

Whle I recognize this was in response to another poster's false assertion, I still have to give this point a big "SFW?"

Either we're getting into argumentum ad populum territory, or Argus is just being fatuous.

Or perhaps he's changed his tune and decided to make moral equivilance with folks who's society and culture (he has said) "reinforces ancient attitudes" and who's "cultural value system (is) sunk in the sixth century." *

[I miss Reagan]

I don't think this comment from Martin can be emphasised enough.

"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."

Today:

We are a nation of minorities," Martin said.

And in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry pick rights. A right is a right and that is what this vote tonight is all about.

Cherry Picker!

[JerrySeinfeld]

Paul Martin is a disgusting hypocrite of a politician: the worst of the breed for flip flopping on everything to please the voter's current mood.

1. 1999 voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. "We will never change the definition of marriage" said the Libs. Today, it's his greatest rallying cry in the defense of "human rights" -- what a joke.

2. In his tenure as fiinance minister, he slashed federal health transfers in HALF. The in 2004 his election campaign paints himself as the "saviour of health care -- a fix for a generation". FIX? Fix what, Paul? The mess you created!

3. ADSCAM. In 2004 Paul Martin calleed a snap election before he had even CALLED the Gomery commission. He reasoned: "I want to know what happened as much as anybody does, but lets have an election FIRST" Then he calls Gomery AFTER the election and less than a year later asks the Canadian public for a 10 month extension before the next election because "we need all the information first before we have an election" HUH? You called an election one year ago before we had ANY information, now you want to wait until after ALL the information comes out? Which is it, PAUL? Or does your election timing have everything to do with clinging to power? This is the most blatant example as to why we should have FIXED election dates in this country.

4. National Unity. The Liberals and their cash-filled envelopes are the SOLE reason sovereignty has ANY life at all in Quebec. Then Martin turns around in the budget vote and accuses the CPC of "jeopardizing federalism" by voting with the Bloc against the budget. What a JOKE.

5. Intergrity in Office. Paul Martin's CHIEF of STAFF is caught on tape speaking at length for over two hours dangling senate and cabinet posts in front of a CPC backbencher in exchange for his vote (or for abstaining). Everyone who has an assistant KNOWS they don't enter into those kinds of conversations without the knowledge of their BOSS. Paul Martin attempted to bribe MPs (and perhaps actually did it: Belinda), once again, to cling to power for a few measly months.

This guy is a complete SNAKE with NO integrity at all.

Guess what? He's our Prime Minister. And the worst of it is, the morons in Ontario are going to re-elect him.

I am absolutely disgusteed at the state of affairs in this country.

[cybercoma]

Most Catholics I know have no problem with SSM, Birth Control, Abortion, Female Clergy. I would argue that the Martin better represents the the views of Catholics in this country than the Pope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And most Catholics would be wrong. The Pope is infallible and the Bible is the holy truth. I'm an agnostic myself, a recovering Catholic if you will. If the majority of Catholics decided that murder was ok, would that make them right? Of course not, only God through the Pope makes rules. 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.

[Riverwind]

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

[newbie]

[I Miss Trudeau]

So... by "cultural groups", you're referring to those that call a "small" a "tall" and a "large" a "vente", yes?

Do you see a good reason to limit the term "cultural groups" to religious and racial groupings?

[I Miss Trudeau]

No, a social club where you don't actually have to believe in anything which makes you uncomfortable, or makes you go out of your way to do anything, you know, religious.

You mean like pursuing a "live and let live", "no harm, no foul," "love thy neighbour" type lifestlye? Given the apparent inability of the christian right to do any of this, I suspect that it is in fact rather difficult.

It forces people to be accepting, compassionate and, ultimatly, to strive to be Jesus like. Your disdain for these dominations is telling.

What isn't difficult is pursuing a "my way or the hellway", "hate thy neighbour" lifestyle rampant with most of the groups that you deem sufficiently christian.

A place where you can exchange gardening tips on a Sunday morning, and put money into the pot for poor people so you can go home feeling good about yourself.

Yeah. A community coming together in a postive and life affirming way is just a horrible thing to behold.

I'm reminded of a Yes, Prime Minister episode once where the PM had to approve Bishops to the Church of England (the United Church), and as they were going over various loony candidates, they came to one who actually believed in God, not to mention Jesus and Mary and Joseph. They were all astonished. How did HE get in there?!

You know, I would be totally, utterly and completely shocked if those in the top echelons of the Roman Catholic church had anywhere near the same level of faith (or much at all) as the average church going catholic. It is impossible to believe that after seeing the level of politics that goes into those divine edicts from the Pope, not to mention the election of the Pope, that one could be left with anything other than cynicism.

I imagine the United Church isn't much different.

[kimmy]

So... by "cultural groups", you're referring to those that call a "small" a "tall" and a "large" a "vente", yes?

Do you see a good reason to limit the term "cultural groups" to religious and racial groupings?

I will give a two-part answer.

First, I am not comfortable in the first place that some peoples' views deserve special consideration because they have swarthier pigmentation than me, or worship in an oddly-shaped building on specific days of the week. So for the purposes of discussing social issues, I honestly don't care who qualifies as a "cultural group".

Having said that, it's not up to me. There seem to be many people in Canada that do believe in recognizing cultural groups. We do, after all, bill ourselves as a multicultural country. 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". Those can't be considered cultural groups... not unless you want to completely destroy any meaning the term "cultural group" has by making it so vague and non-specific that it could describe anyone.

-kimmy

{sort of reminds me of an author who went under-cover to write about sorority girls. She asked about diversity. "Diversity? Oh, we're very diverse! We have blondes, brunettes, and red-heads!"}

[cybercoma]

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}>

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.