Same-Sex Marriage

[Black Dog]

So I guess PMs lose their right to religious expression when they're elected?

Since when is "religious expression" and legislating according to religious beliefs the same thing?

Like I said, he can pray, go to chruch, do whatever it is that his religion demands. But I don't think those personal beliefs should inform government policy.

Aren't people naturally going to hold their own religious beliefs above those of others? So as long as I defer to the beliefs of other people before my own I am not a bigot? Is that what you are getting at?

Maybe bigotry is part of the human condition, I dunno. Hell, I would admit that I am a bigot in certain matters like, for example, religion's role in the public discourse.

[CCGirl]

To add - nor does one have to be religious to want tradition maintained which does not in any way take away anyone's "so-called" rights.

Equality is a "so-called" right? Since when?

[Hicksey]

To add - nor does one have to be religious to want tradition maintained which does not in any way take away anyone's "so-called" rights.

Equality is a "so-called" right? Since when?

We're not arguing over whether gays deserve the same rights in a relationship, rather over whether 2000 years need to be disregarded to make that happen.

[tml12]

To add - nor does one have to be religious to want tradition maintained which does not in any way take away anyone's "so-called" rights.

Equality is a "so-called" right? Since when?

We're not arguing over whether gays deserve the same rights in a relationship, rather over whether 2000 years need to be disregarded to make that happen.

Well put Hicksey.

The left--especially the libertarian left--would like to think we can redefine the social code that our society has been living with for years. And they have, on social issues, overstepped their bounds by redefining their position on marriage and telling us they have the right to define marriage.

Well I am sorry. My values do not change overnight and I cannot accept the argument that our elected officials overstep their bounds in endorsing such a proposal.

[Black Dog]

We're not arguing over whether gays deserve the same rights in a relationship, rather over whether 2000 years need to be disregarded to make that happen.

Why 2,000 years? Seems a bit arbitrary to me, given that marriage has existed in various forms in various societies long before that. Of course, that would give lie to your claim that marriage is soley a religius institution...

The left--especially the libertarian left--would like to think we can redefine the social code that our society has been living with for years. And they have, on social issues, overstepped their bounds by redefining their position on marriage and telling us they have the right to define marriage.

Well I am sorry. My values do not change overnight and I cannot accept the argument that our elected officials overstep their bounds in endorsing such a proposal.

According to the law, the federal goverment has teh right to define the civil, legal instiution known as marriage. If you don't want to call equal marriages "mariages" that's your perogative. But at the end of the day, what other people choose to call their relationships has sweet F.A. to do with you and your relationship. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to imagine any gay couples being overly concerned with whether or not you approve of their union or recognioze it as "marriage". The only recognition that matters is legal recognition.

[tml12]

We're not arguing over whether gays deserve the same rights in a relationship, rather over whether 2000 years need to be disregarded to make that happen.

Why 2,000 years? Seems a bit arbitrary to me, given that marriage has existed in various forms in various societies long before that. Of course, that would give lie to your claim that marriage is soley a religius institution...

The left--especially the libertarian left--would like to think we can redefine the social code that our society has been living with for years. And they have, on social issues, overstepped their bounds by redefining their position on marriage and telling us they have the right to define marriage.

Well I am sorry. My values do not change overnight and I cannot accept the argument that our elected officials overstep their bounds in endorsing such a proposal.

According to the law, the federal goverment has teh right to define the civil, legal instiution known as marriage. If you don't want to call equal marriages "mariages" that's your perogative. But at the end of the day, what other people choose to call their relationships has sweet F.A. to do with you and your relationship. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to imagine any gay couples being overly concerned with whether or not you approve of their union or recognioze it as "marriage". The only recognition that matters is legal recognition.

You're right BD, absolutely right. Doesn't make IT right.

[fellowtraveller]

I wonder if normanchateau is ever going to explain why former PM Martin voted twice against same sex marriage?

[I miss Reagan]

I wonder if normanchateau is ever going to explain why former PM Martin voted twice against same sex marriage?

That's because you're allowed to change your opinions at politically when it is politically expedient even if it is within 5 years... unless you are conservative then statements you made 30 years ago will be brought up again, and again, and again by the leftist media...

[tml12]

I wonder if normanchateau is ever going to explain why former PM Martin voted twice against same sex marriage?

He's not quite over the "shock" of it yet...

[YankAbroad]

The reality is that people who are "opposed to gay marriage" for whatever reason are motivated more or less by homophobia. There's no other rational explanation.

I believe they've got a right to be homophobic if they want -- I despise "hate speech" laws -- but they don't have a right to institutionalise their homophobia in the form of laws which violate the rights of others.

People are entitled to their opinions. To label others with an emotionally charged slur just because they don't agree with you is every bit the bigotry to pretend to oppose.

Labelling someone, accurately, as homophobic isn't a slur, nor emotionally charged. If it walks, quacks, etc., duck.

why former PM Martin voted twice against same sex marriage

Because he wasn't in favour of it until the SCC boxed him (and the conservatives) in by noting this little inconvenient thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Incidentally, he'd probably have been an implacable foe of gay marriage had Dubya come out for it!

[scribblet]

I wonder if normanchateau is ever going to explain why former PM Martin voted twice against same sex marriage?

He's not quite over the "shock" of it yet...

Bet we are back to Grewal tomorrow

[YankAbroad]

Since when is "religious expression" and legislating according to religious beliefs the same thing?

You have to understand the nomenclature of religious politics. Here's a primer.

"witnessing to lost souls" = abusing the shit out of people I don't like and ceaselessly demanding they stop being who or what they are in order to meet my religious beliefs

"oppression" = disagreeing with me

"anti-religious" = disagreeing with me

"hateful" = disagreeing with me

"righteous indignation" = when I do oppressive things to and say hateful things about people I don't like

"traditional values" = whatever values from my holy book which match how I live today, especially if I can use them to bash people over the head (i.e. Leviticus on gays)

"irrelevant" = whatever values from my holy book which condemn how I live today, especially if they make me look hypocritical (i.e. Leviticus on eating cheeseburgers, getting one's hair cut, lending money out at interest; Jesus's commandments on giving away one's money to the poor and not divorcing, etc.)

"truth in love" = hate speech which is motivated by my religion

"hate speech" = any words you say which disagree with my condemnation of an entire group of people

"just and proper" = laws which force you and your religion to operate along my religious or spiritual beliefs

"unprecedented violation of religious freedom" = laws which force me and my religion to operate along your religious or spiritual beliefs

"deeply held beliefs" = silly, irrational and bigoted notions which would be laughed out of any normal discussion, except that I can call them religious and then demand you respect them

"selfish" = people who were raped by the church and seek economic recompense for their suffering

"spiritual leaders" = the church leaders who aided and abetted the systemic rape and are moving to block compensation of rape victims

"moral authority" = what I have because I say so

"immoral" = what you are because I say so

"religious freedom" = legislating my religion and only my religion as the one true way

"diversity of religious communities" = a few variants of my Christian belief who agree with me on 90% of what's said

"satanic" = Muslims, Quakers, Jews, atheists, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs or any other group whose religious traditions are different from my own

"broader faith community" = satanic people who happen to agree with me and my religious corporation on how things should be on a given issue, who I will grudgingly ally myself with until the issue is settled and then will turn around and bash again

"let the people decide" = what I will say when Parliament or a court makes a decision based on established law with which I disagree

"exercising profound leadership" = what I will say when Parliament or a court makes a lousy decision based on politics with which I agree

"moral decline" = what society is going through when they let the people decide and the decision doesn't go my way

That's a basic start

[BubberMiley]

unless you are conservative then statements you made 30 years ago will be brought up again, and again, and again by the leftist media...

What are you referring to?

[tml12]

Since when is "religious expression" and legislating according to religious beliefs the same thing?

You have to understand the nomenclature of religious politics. Here's a primer.

"witnessing to lost souls" = abusing the shit out of people I don't like and ceaselessly demanding they stop being who or what they are in order to meet my religious beliefs

"oppression" = disagreeing with me

"anti-religious" = disagreeing with me

"hateful" = disagreeing with me

"righteous indignation" = when I do oppressive things to and say hateful things about people I don't like

"traditional values" = whatever values from my holy book which match how I live today, especially if I can use them to bash people over the head (i.e. Leviticus on gays)

"irrelevant" = whatever values from my holy book which condemn how I live today, especially if they make me look hypocritical (i.e. Leviticus on eating cheeseburgers, getting one's hair cut, lending money out at interest; Jesus's commandments on giving away one's money to the poor and not divorcing, etc.)

"truth in love" = hate speech which is motivated by my religion

"hate speech" = any words you say which disagree with my condemnation of an entire group of people

"just and proper" = laws which force you and your religion to operate along my religious or spiritual beliefs

"unprecedented violation of religious freedom" = laws which force me and my religion to operate along your religious or spiritual beliefs

"deeply held beliefs" = silly, irrational and bigoted notions which would be laughed out of any normal discussion, except that I can call them religious and then demand you respect them

"selfish" = people who were raped by the church and seek economic recompense for their suffering

"spiritual leaders" = the church leaders who aided and abetted the systemic rape and are moving to block compensation of rape victims

"moral authority" = what I have because I say so

"immoral" = what you are because I say so

"religious freedom" = legislating my religion and only my religion as the one true way

"diversity of religious communities" = a few variants of my Christian belief who agree with me on 90% of what's said

"satanic" = Muslims, Quakers, Jews, atheists, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs or any other group whose religious traditions are different from my own

"broader faith community" = satanic people who happen to agree with me and my religious corporation on how things should be on a given issue, who I will grudgingly ally myself with until the issue is settled and then will turn around and bash again

"let the people decide" = what I will say when Parliament or a court makes a decision based on established law with which I disagree

"exercising profound leadership" = what I will say when Parliament or a court makes a lousy decision based on politics with which I agree

"moral decline" = what society is going through when they let the people decide and the decision doesn't go my way

That's a basic start

YankAbroad,

That is going in my political-science encyclopedia (it's really non-partisan...I make fun of and credit both sides).

Damn, what thoroughness...here is to symbolically buying you a beer

[YankAbroad]

Well TML, next time I'm in Montreal, perhaps you can buy me a real beer!

[tml12]

Well TML, next time I'm in Montreal, perhaps you can buy me a real beer!

It would be my pleasure...

[YankAbroad]

The same offer is outstanding from me should you ever visit London (the original one).

[normanchateau]

Norman, why did former Prime Minister Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet vote against

same sex marriage - twice?

I don't know the answer to your question but Chretien was Prime Minster at the time and I suspect he required that the Liberal Cabinet voted as he wanted them to. Once Martin became Prime Minister, the Liberal Cabinet voted differently. Perhaps Chretien was homophobic.

Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet did vote for C-250, the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. Harper and most of his party voted against C-250. Even Chretien supported C-250. You'd have to be remarkably intolerant not to.

[geoffrey]

Norman, why did former Prime Minister Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet vote against same sex marriage - twice?

I don't know the answer to your question but Chretien was Prime Minster at the time and I suspect he required that the Liberal Cabinet voted as he wanted them to. Once Martin became Prime Minister, the Liberal Cabinet voted differently. Perhaps Chretien was homophobic.

Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet did vote for C-250, the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. Harper and most of his party voted against C-250. Even Chretien supported C-250. You'd have to be remarkably intolerant not to.

That's not what C-250 was about and you know it.

[scribblet]

Norman, why did former Prime Minister Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet vote against same sex marriage - twice?

I don't know the answer to your question but Chretien was Prime Minster at the time and I suspect he required that the Liberal Cabinet voted as he wanted them to. Once Martin became Prime Minister, the Liberal Cabinet voted differently. Perhaps Chretien was homophobic.

Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet did vote for C-250, the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. Harper and most of his party voted against C-250. Even Chretien supported C-250. You'd have to be remarkably intolerant not to.

That's not what C-250 was about and you know it.

Its been explained over and over again, guess he isn't reading or chooses to ignore what 250 is really aboutl

[tml12]

Norman, why did former Prime Minister Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet vote against same sex marriage - twice?

I don't know the answer to your question but Chretien was Prime Minster at the time and I suspect he required that the Liberal Cabinet voted as he wanted them to. Once Martin became Prime Minister, the Liberal Cabinet voted differently. Perhaps Chretien was homophobic.

Martin and the entire Liberal Cabinet did vote for C-250, the bill to make gay bashing a hate crime. Harper and most of his party voted against C-250. Even Chretien supported C-250. You'd have to be remarkably intolerant not to.

That's not what C-250 was about and you know it.

Its been explained over and over again, guess he isn't reading or chooses to ignore what 250 is really aboutl

Hopefully this will help people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250

[YankAbroad]

I'm a gay man and I don't support that bill, if the Wikipedia article is accurate (something which is often in doubt with me when it comes to Wiki in general).

Of course, I also don't support the bill it's amending. I oppose all "hate speech" laws or other laws which abridge the freedom to communicate any point of view, no matter how unpopular it may be.

[tml12]

I'm a gay man and I don't support that bill, if the Wikipedia article is accurate (something which is often in doubt with me when it comes to Wiki in general).

Of course, I also don't support the bill it's amending. I oppose all "hate speech" laws or other laws which abridge the freedom to communicate any point of view, no matter how unpopular it may be.

That is, I would argue, a very respectable position.

[YankAbroad]

Part of it is just simple self-interest.

A similar law in Britain stopped by the House of Lords would have made it illegal to criticise religious groups. So a Muslim cleric could stand up and say "Allah declares that all homosexuals are disgusting, diseased and worthy of death" and he'd be OK -- but if you said "that's superstitious bullshit," you could end up in prison for "religious hatred."

Besides, I'm rather sure that I'm right. I don't need the government to force people to agree with me (or at least not disagree) -- I'm willing to accept that some people just never will agree with me, and that reasonable people will give me and my ideas a fair shake. If they don't, that's fine too -- there's someone out there who will want to profit from an affiliation with me and my ideas, I'll find that person sooner or later.

I think such a view is highly empowering -- I wish more people in Western society had it. We spend so much of our time convinced that we're "trapped" and giving away our most important civil rights for meaningless "rights" like the "right not to be offended," and "the right to feel secure." The second one, in particular, I view simply as the right to deceive oneself!

[tml12]

Part of it is just simple self-interest.

A similar law in Britain stopped by the House of Lords would have made it illegal to criticise religious groups. So a Muslim cleric could stand up and say "Allah declares that all homosexuals are disgusting, diseased and worthy of death" and he'd be OK -- but if you said "that's superstitious bullshit," you could end up in prison for "religious hatred."

Besides, I'm rather sure that I'm right. I don't need the government to force people to agree with me (or at least not disagree) -- I'm willing to accept that some people just never will agree with me, and that reasonable people will give me and my ideas a fair shake. If they don't, that's fine too -- there's someone out there who will want to profit from an affiliation with me and my ideas, I'll find that person sooner or later.

I think such a view is highly empowering -- I wish more people in Western society had it. We spend so much of our time convinced that we're "trapped" and giving away our most important civil rights for meaningless "rights" like the "right not to be offended," and "the right to feel secure." The second one, in particular, I view simply as the right to deceive oneself!

I had no idea that the Labour government was getting so politically correct over there. That is unbelievable.

I think you are right. We live in such a diverse world...how can we expect people to respect every decision we make and every opinion we have. I often encourage people who disagree with to criticize me and change my mind. It doesn't often work but I like my views and my opinion on the world to be challenged by others.

Constructive criticism is important, preventing people from uttering racial slurs is also important. The obvious problem with a "right not to be offended" is that it draws no distinction between the two. As for, "the right to feel secure," that often is a right (read: responsbility) we need to take upon ourselves.