We Must Protect ALL Minorities

[SamStranger]

Today (Thursday, October 5th) during question period- MP Belinda Stronach stood up and said a very bold, and offence thing: " The prime minister needs to stop caterting to his social conservative base and start doing what the MAJORITY of Canadians want him to do- by not opening the same-sex marriage debate" (My words, not 100% accurate) How can you protect the rights of Gays and lesbians, but not the rights of people who appose their way of life? How can you protect certain Minoritys but not other Minoritys?? Belinda must be muzzled, and kicked out of parliment. This recent remark is almost as bad as her remark on women: "Women who DO NOT support Abortion and SSM ARE NOT Real Women, and should not get support for their kids"... is this the kind of fillth the Liberals support?? The Liberals are the so called "champions of minoritys" but they are putting down Social Conservatives everywhere- includig Albertans who voted in all Conservatives in the last election, and gave the tories 70% of the Popular vote. Do the Liberals and Belinda speak for all canadians?? They certaintly don't speak for Albertans- who the majority are social conservatives. Mabye they speak for the socialists in quebec, they should merger with the Bloc

I am sick of being put down for my political views as a Social Conservative. Am I not entitled to my opinion?? Do I not need my rights protected!???

The Alliance was open with their Social Conservative views, and I think this new Conservative government should be too. I their should be a referendum on Same-Sex Marriage, so real canadians can have their voices heard- so theirs no more question if Canadians support it or not, because right now it is unclear.

[M.Dancer]

How can you protect the rights of Gays and lesbians, but not the rights of people who appose their way of life?

People who oppose the rights of Gay and lesbians are not in danger of having their rights diminished....so your question isn't valid. There is no need to protect from non existant dangers.

[Leader Circle]

How can you protect the rights of Gays and lesbians, but not the rights of people who appose their way of life?

People who oppose the rights of Gay and lesbians are not in danger of having their rights diminished....so your question isn't valid. There is no need to protect from non existant dangers.

As for christian people and opposing gay rights, you are in danger.

You soon will be punished by saying it's wrong(ssm) or ministers refusing to marry a same sex couple.

If you say that is not likely, you are so full of shit, your eyes must be brown!!!

If you are looking for an example, try the KoC hall in BC that got sued by two lesbians over renting their hall, the 2 lesbians won that battle, I believe. So, how long before ministers are getting sued? or Justice of the peace?

Won't be long.

[M.Dancer]

Well lets see.....

The catholic church has refused to marry divorced couple for years...and not a hint of outrage over their right to not marry divorced couples....for that matter, the catholic church will make a never married couple bend over backwards if one happens to be protestant.......

As far the the KoC....they rent out their hall as a business venture. The KoC is not a holy order. As a business they entered into a contractual agreement, then broke the contract. As a business they are in brach of contract and are liable for damages.....

....being religious is not a get out of jail free card

As to the rest of your post...I would say they are just irrational fears, as in Canada, we have free speah, you are welcome to voice your opinion concerning SSM and Priests are protected by the Charter.

[Higgly]

Aside from the Gay rights issue, we have the idea of revisiting matters already decided by Parliament. And over something that is IMHO pretty inconsequential to the core functionality of the nation. What happens one fine day when the Conservatives lose the reigns of power? Does the next government come in and do it all over again? Same thing with Kyoto. We don't have a Parliament that is moving forward, we have one that is doing the bloody turkey trot.

[scribblet]

Canada does not have the same freedom of speech amendment rights as the U.S. We have more limits on freedom of speech, we also have Bill C-250 which severely limits the right to free speech.

I believe the case of the K and C went before the human rights court, not a civil court, which means they didn't have a good enough case to go before a court. People can take a case to the Human rights 'courts' when they think their case is not good enough for a civil court.

[Ricki Bobbi]

People who oppose the rights of Gay and lesbians are not in danger of having their rights diminished....so your question isn't valid. There is no need to protect from non existant dangers.

Uhh, we are talking about freedom of speech.

Constitution Act, 1982.

2. Everyone ha the following fundamental freedoms:

B - freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression...

that is the freedom SSM opponents are afraid might be trampled on.

[Leader Circle]

Well lets see.....

The catholic church has refused to marry divorced couple for years...and not a hint of outrage over their right to not marry divorced couples....for that matter, the catholic church will make a never married couple bend over backwards if one happens to be protestant.......

As far the the KoC....they rent out their hall as a business venture. The KoC is not a holy order. As a business they entered into a contractual agreement, then broke the contract. As a business they are in brach of contract and are liable for damages.....

....being religious is not a get out of jail free card

As to the rest of your post...I would say they are just irrational fears, as in Canada, we have free speah, you are welcome to voice your opinion concerning SSM and Priests are protected by the Charter.

You whole arguement does not make any sense. If the Catholic church does not want to marry divorced people or protestants, then that is their right, big deal.

The KoC is OWNED by the Catholic church, so yeah, they can decide who uses THEIR hall!

Irrational fears?? WTF?

How about a kid bringing a bible to church??? 20 years ago that was okay, not anymore!!!!

Yet, bring your gay marriage books to school, no problem...even in throw it in the curriculum!!!

So tell me how these are irrational fears?

I am not welcome to say how I feel about ssm, that is the thing, if I say it is wrong, I am branded a bigot!!

How is that for free speech?

Welcome to the new Canada, where you can marry a fag, you just can't smoke one(cigarette)!!!!!!!

[jbg]

People who oppose the rights of Gay and lesbians are not in danger of having their rights diminished....so your question isn't valid. There is no need to protect from non existant dangers.

Uhh, we are talking about freedom of speech.

Constitution Act, 1982.

2. Everyone ha the following fundamental freedoms:

B - freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression...

that is the freedom SSM opponents are afraid might be trampled on.

Especially since the Charter of Wrongs, No Rights and Special Privileges makes those rights "subject to such restrictions" as can be imposed in a "democratic society".

[gc1765]

The 'simple' answer is to have the government give equal rights to anyone, same-sex or opposite sex. You can call it a marriage, or call it a civil union, but it should the the exact same regardless of sexuality. Then, if you want to be married in a church, let the church decide who they want to marry so they still have the freedom of religion.

Anyone opposed to this idea? If so, why?

[sharkman]

The 'simple' answer is to have the government give equal rights to anyone, same-sex or opposite sex. You can call it a marriage, or call it a civil union, but it should the the exact same regardless of sexuality. Then, if you want to be married in a church, let the church decide who they want to marry so they still have the freedom of religion.

Anyone opposed to this idea? If so, why?

It sounds reasonable enough to me, but I know for a fact that gays will find this homophobic. No church should be allowed to judge them they will say. And it must be called a marriage just like traditional marriage or it's bigoted by judgemental homophobes. You might want to underline homophobes.

No compromise will do. I've had this discussion on other forums, and the militant views are discouraging.

[gc1765]

It sounds reasonable enough to me, but I know for a fact that gays will find this homophobic. No church should be allowed to judge them they will say. And it must be called a marriage just like traditional marriage or it's bigoted by judgemental homophobes. You might want to underline homophobes.

No compromise will do. I've had this discussion on other forums, and the militant views are discouraging.

If one church does not agree with their lifestyle, they can find a new church. If no church will marry them (which is very unlikely) they can start a new church or give up on religion. I know that if I were gay and a church did not accept me for who I was, I wouldn't want to be a part of that church anyways.

I think we should call same-sex unions and opposite sex unions by the same name, since they should be the same. I don't care if people want to call that a civil union or a marriage, makes no difference to me.

[sharkman]

It sounds reasonable enough to me, but I know for a fact that gays will find this homophobic. No church should be allowed to judge them they will say. And it must be called a marriage just like traditional marriage or it's bigoted by judgemental homophobes. You might want to underline homophobes.

No compromise will do. I've had this discussion on other forums, and the militant views are discouraging.

If one church does not agree with their lifestyle, they can find a new church. If no church will marry them (which is very unlikely) they can start a new church or give up on religion. I know that if I were gay and a church did not accept me for who I was, I wouldn't want to be a part of that church anyways.

I think we should call same-sex unions and opposite sex unions by the same name, since they should be the same. I don't care if people want to call that a civil union or a marriage, makes no difference to me.

If one church does not want to marry them and others will, they will picket the one church rather than go to the ones that will, holding vigils and so on because this one church is homophobic. I guarantee this would be the response.

And I am one of the ones who thinks traditional marriage should be called something different than whatever gay marriage would be called. Many religious people feel the same.

[Hicksey]

We must protect all Canadians equally. We should not being picking and choosing who should and should not be protected.

[M.Dancer]

How about a kid bringing a bible to church??? 20 years ago that was okay, not anymore!!!!

There really should be an urban legends forum

[watching&waiting]

This has gotten way too much out of hand. I do not believe that we have to protect minorities at all. But we must stop persecution of them, and that is where it should end. This whole thing about protecting in law each minority, is stupid. Just a simple law where you can not use the minority as an excuse for behaviour, is all that should be granted and then leave it at that. When you have two minorities at opposite due to religion then each has the right to the belivefs of that religion. This whole thing about gays being a minority and need protedtion is stupid. They are gay because they want to be gay, and that is no different then jpoining a club. If left to their own devices the gay question will settle itslef in one generation, as gays do not get pregnant or reproduce. So if they were a majority the world would be hard pressed to go on now would n't they. I am more then sick and tired of the minority card being used and there should be some sort of retribition for those who use it fraudulently. But that is another topic for another time

[M.Dancer]

They are gay because they want to be gay, and that is no different then jpoining a club.

...and you are straignt becasue you want to be straight?

.....Why then are there so many who kill themselves becasue they can't cope with their membership in their gay club?

If left to their own devices the gay question will settle itslef in one generation, as gays do not get pregnant .....

This has already been shown a few times this week as being without merit. Much like the rest of the post.

[watching&waiting]

They are gay because they want to be gay, and that is no different then jpoining a club.

...and you are straignt becasue you want to be straight?

Am I stright? Maybe I am into sheep. who would know, that is why we keep our sex lives secret. But No I do not like animals

.....Why then are there so many who kill themselves becasue they can't cope with their membership in their gay club?

So then you are saying that being gay is reason for some to be suicidal? Then I would have to say they are in need of mental help. But id being gay makes then feel so guilty, then maybe it would be time to seek transgender.

If left to their own devices the gay question will settle itslef in one generation, as gays do not get pregnant .....

This has already been shown a few times this week as being without merit. Much like the rest of the post.

If we cuddle the gay movement, there will be more people who then will seek to find out more about gay lifestyle and then maybe more gays. But I will bet you there are way more suicide from people who sought the gay lifestyle in curiosity, and then were stricken with guilt and then suicide then there are of the ones mentioned above. So maybe to hyou it is without merit, but to others it just may fit their thinking. Which is what we do here now isn't it.

[M.Dancer]

If we cuddle the gay movement, there will be more people who then will seek to find out more about gay lifestyle and then maybe more gays. But I will bet you there are way more suicide from people who sought the gay lifestyle in curiosity, and then were stricken with guilt and then suicide then there are of the ones mentioned above. So maybe to hyou it is without merit, but to others it just may fit their thinking. Which is what we do here now isn't it.

Uh huh....so you are saying you are curious because there are gays but it is guilt that is keeping you back?

“How tedious is a guilty conscience!”

[Leader Circle]

If we cuddle the gay movement, there will be more people who then will seek to find out more about gay lifestyle and then maybe more gays. But I will bet you there are way more suicide from people who sought the gay lifestyle in curiosity, and then were stricken with guilt and then suicide then there are of the ones mentioned above. So maybe to hyou it is without merit, but to others it just may fit their thinking. Which is what we do here now isn't it.

Uh huh....so you are saying you are curious because there are gays but it is guilt that is keeping you back?

“How tedious is a guilty conscience!”

Quit baiting him, he does not speak for us all, but I see his point.

It is frustrating to see how much the "minority" card is being used.

As a white, english speaking, straight male, we are destined to be punished for the sins of our forefathers!!

Yes, I said "punished" and I mean it, because we are being punished by watching how a lifestyle we strongly disagree with is being exalted to the point of them teaching it in schools! We are not welcome to apply for government jobs, because we are not a visible minority. If we only speak english, we are punished in many ways, by being intolerant to the french language. I call it the demise of western civilization, because the "weak" not the "meek" are inheriting the earth!

If this offends you, it is too bad, because it is not meant to offend, it is truly how I feel!

[M.Dancer]

If we cuddle the gay movement, there will be more people who then will seek to find out more about gay lifestyle and then maybe more gays. But I will bet you there are way more suicide from people who sought the gay lifestyle in curiosity, and then were stricken with guilt and then suicide then there are of the ones mentioned above. So maybe to hyou it is without merit, but to others it just may fit their thinking. Which is what we do here now isn't it.

Uh huh....so you are saying you are curious because there are gays but it is guilt that is keeping you back?

“How tedious is a guilty conscience!”

Quit baiting him, he does not speak for us all, but I see his point.

It is frustrating to see how much the "minority" card is being used.

As a white, english speaking, straight male, we are destined to be punished for the sins of our forefathers!!

Yes, I said "punished" and I mean it, because we are being punished by watching how a lifestyle we strongly disagree with is being exalted to the point of them teaching it in schools! We are not welcome to apply for government jobs, because we are not a visible minority. If we only speak english, we are punished in many ways, by being intolerant to the french language. I call it the demise of western civilization, because the "weak" not the "meek" are inheriting the earth!

If this offends you, it is too bad, because it is not meant to offend, it is truly how I feel!

Offended? no...Amused? Absolutely. Any white male who feels hard done by has a inferiority problem and nothing more. No mate, it ain't your race keeping you back, we rule...the problem must lie within yourself.

[watching&waiting]

Dancer you asked if I was gay curious and the answer is no. But at a very early age I was introduced to same sex touching by a boy a few years older then myself, and I can say that it never made me want to be gay and I did not get the feelings and arousal this kid did. So yes I had a moment of curiosity and that only confirmed my beliefs.

Now you answer my the same questions? Are you gay and when did you know this? To me if what I knew now was available to back then, I never would have even allowed this person to the touching or anything else. It does seem though that woman have a more open view of same sex touching etc, and it seems to be more socially acceptable. I do not see why it should be though

[Gord]

Hey I got an idea. If there is no church that will marry Gay's and Lesbians then they should do like King Henry Vlll and start a new church. Worked for him when the catholic church would not support his divorce and subsequent remarriage.

On another note the cost of freedom is allowing people who's concepts are diametrically opposed to yours the freedom to practice their belief's.

[Hicksey]

If we cuddle the gay movement, there will be more people who then will seek to find out more about gay lifestyle and then maybe more gays. But I will bet you there are way more suicide from people who sought the gay lifestyle in curiosity, and then were stricken with guilt and then suicide then there are of the ones mentioned above. So maybe to hyou it is without merit, but to others it just may fit their thinking. Which is what we do here now isn't it.

Uh huh....so you are saying you are curious because there are gays but it is guilt that is keeping you back?

“How tedious is a guilty conscience!”

Quit baiting him, he does not speak for us all, but I see his point.

It is frustrating to see how much the "minority" card is being used.

As a white, english speaking, straight male, we are destined to be punished for the sins of our forefathers!!

Yes, I said "punished" and I mean it, because we are being punished by watching how a lifestyle we strongly disagree with is being exalted to the point of them teaching it in schools! We are not welcome to apply for government jobs, because we are not a visible minority. If we only speak english, we are punished in many ways, by being intolerant to the french language. I call it the demise of western civilization, because the "weak" not the "meek" are inheriting the earth!

If this offends you, it is too bad, because it is not meant to offend, it is truly how I feel!

Offended? no...Amused? Absolutely. Any white male who feels hard done by has a inferiority problem and nothing more. No mate, it ain't your race keeping you back, we rule...the problem must lie within yourself.

The problem isn't that we are being held back or don't rule. The problem is that a bunch of guilty liberals want not just to give equality (which I am for), but make them more equal. And that I disagree with. I seek to make everyone equal before the law.

If we all have equal oppotunity to make something of ourselves, and some people don't then that is their problem. Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. If you are not willing to put in what it takes to pull out what you want, then you don't deserve it -- and IMO that should apply to white, black, gay, muslim or any other racial or religious identifier you can dream up.

[SamStranger]

I love the answer that Kenney (Parlimentary Secretary to the prime minister) gives when Liberals try to paint the Conservatives as "mean spirited" and that they don't hold Canadian values. He replied "The Liberal party thinks they hold a monopoly on Canadian values- well Mr.Speaker they don't. Canadians share Conservative values aswell, and lets not forget what Conservatives have done. We brought in the Bill of Rights, we voted against the Chinese Head Tax, and against torture when the Liberals were supporting it".

The Liberals are in denial of their history. They introduced some of the most raccist ("White Canada Forever" Campaign) and descriminatory things in Canadian history, but ovcourse they will deny it because Trudea "made all things clean" as paul martin once said.