Poll: Should We Have A Referendum On Same-Sex Marriage?

[punked]

Or we could not want them practicing Sharia Law because it's horribly oppressive and discriminatory.

Yeah but then you'd be robbing a minority of his freedom to practice religion.

Or we could just not allow muslims into Canada and these issues won't be an issue any longer.

--

Shariah Law quote:

"As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat her."

Q: Under Sharia law, how would you punish someone who criticised Islam or the Prophet?

A: "To the people who insult the Prophet, they should be first corrected. If the person is a Muslim, he or she should be given advice, so that they'll ask forgiveness. Otherwise he will be considered an apostate, and in Islam he should be sentenced to death if he doesn't ask forgiveness and insults the Prophet."

This is my 'vision' of Canada.

Here is Arar's wife:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/03/10/..._ndp040310.html

Ummmm no are we talking Hanfi school? Shafi school? Maliki school? You do know there is no such thing as Sharia law right? You need to pick a school than you can make broad based generalist statements that aren't true ok?

[mikedavid00]

I think elecion time comes around we should be allowed to vote every new law we can that is democracy. SSM would still hold so whatever.

I agree. That's the right attitude to have. The country belongs to us the citizens.

[bradco]

Im usually against referendums, except for important things, and SSM is not an important issue at all. Only a select minority of Canadians who loathe the values of their country want to keep this on the agenda. That being said maybe we should just have the referendum and shut up the religious right once and for all. Make them realize that they are in fact the minority, although they whine about the liberal, leftist elite minority dictating beliefs to them and maintaining a secular society as opposed to an intolerant religious society they would prefer.

Note: I dont want to brand all religious people as nuts, I know many who are not. A lot are able to adopt tolerance, a love for freedom and rights while still practising their religion and honoring their god. Unfortunatly too many, of all brands, are unable to do so.

[betsy]

I think the majority does not want to have the issue revisited....but not for the reasons some proponents of SSM would like us to believe. They just want to move on.

But if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

[normanchateau]

But if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

Great idea Betsy. I think Harper should propose this question as part of his platform in the next election.

I'll bet Harper's strategists haven't even considered it.

What I especially like about your referendum question is that you've left out the lesbians. I guess even Harper agrees that lesbians should marry, just not those gay perverts. Maybe he views lesbian sexual acts as less perverted. It's difficult to know how some religious extremists think.

[betsy]

But if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

Great idea Betsy. I think Harper should propose this question as part of his platform in the next election.

I'll bet Harper's strategists haven't even considered it.

What I especially like about your referendum question is that you've left out the lesbians. I guess even Harper agrees that lesbians should marry, just not those gay perverts. Maybe he views lesbian sexual acts as less perverted. It's difficult to know how some religious extremists think.

Well it's understandable that gay includes Lesbians. You failed to mention the bisexuals and transgenders! In your views they're not allowed to marry? It's difficult to know when some are just plain nit-picking....

One thing sure, you know they're grabbing desperately into thin air when labels start flying!

[normanchateau]

But if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

Great idea Betsy. I think Harper should propose this question as part of his platform in the next election.

I'll bet Harper's strategists haven't even considered it.

What I especially like about your referendum question is that you've left out the lesbians. I guess even Harper agrees that lesbians should marry, just not those gay perverts. Maybe he views lesbian sexual acts as less perverted. It's difficult to know how some religious extremists think.

You failed to mention the bisexuals and transgenders! In your views they're not allowed to marry?

Bisexuals and transgendered people could marry BEFORE the same sex legislation was passed. Homosexuals (gays and lesbians) could not.

[betsy]

Bisexuals and transgendered people could marry BEFORE the same sex legislation was passed. Homosexuals (gays and lesbians) could not.

A bisexual man cannot marry a man BEFORE the same sex legislation was passed. He can only marry the woman!

[normanchateau]

Bisexuals and transgendered people could marry BEFORE the same sex legislation was passed. Homosexuals (gays and lesbians) could not.

A bisexual man cannot marry a man BEFORE the same sex legislation was passed. He can only marry the woman!

That's right. Before the legislation, half the bisexual population lived in sin!

[MightyAC]

I think the majority does not want to have the issue revisited....but not for the reasons some proponents of SSM would like us to believe. They just want to move on.

But if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

What if at some time in the past we had a referendum on race equality. The question could have been:

"Now that slavery has been abolished and blacks are free to exist in society we believe that blacks should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

Choice #1 We should allow blacks into 'our' schools, restaurants, etc.

Choice #2 Blacks can have their own schools, restaurants, etc which will be the counterparts of the traditional white establisments."

I think choice #2 would have won overwhelmingly in the past as well...good thing we don't hold referendum on human rights issues.

Seggregation isn't the answer Betsy. Canada has chosen equality and tolerance...good on us.

[normanchateau]

I think the majority does not want to have the issue revisited....but not for the reasons some proponents of SSM would like us to believe. They just want to move on.

But if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

What if at some time in the past we had a referendum on race equality. The question could have been:

"Now that slavery has been abolished and blacks are free to exist in society we believe that blacks should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

Choice #1 We should allow blacks into 'our' schools, restaurants, etc.

Choice #2 Blacks can have their own schools, restaurants, etc which will be the counterparts of the traditional white establisments."

I think choice #2 would have won overwhelmingly in the past as well...good thing we don't hold referendum on human rights issues.

Seggregation isn't the answer Betsy. Canada has chosen equality and tolerance...good on us.

Unfortunately there will always be Canadians who look to the US as a model of how to function.

[mikedavid00]

Note: I dont want to brand all religious people as nuts, I know many who are not. A lot are able to adopt tolerance, a love for freedom and rights while still practising their religion and honoring their god. Unfortunatly too many, of all brands, are unable to do so.

Of course that's only for Christians. The other minoritty Canadian religions have absolutely no stance on SSM?

Look at the people in the Liberal party who voted against SSM last week.

[mikedavid00]

Unfortunately there will always be Canadians who look to the US as a model of how to function.

Yeah the Americans have no clue what they are doing.

Canadians got it right. We know how to function..

(forget about our own citizens dying on medical waiting lists).

Vive le Canada!

[mikedavid00]

I think the majority does not want to have the issue revisited....but not for the reasons some proponents of SSM would like us to believe. They just want to move on.

But if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

Yeah but everyone has to agree on how the questionis asked.

The idea is that websites and media would get an in depth on the issue and Canadians could take part and weight the pro's and con's.

I would choice #2 and I feel that if it was put to a referedum, people might be suprised at the outcome.

[Melanie_]

What exactly is "traditional" marriage? At one point, traditional marriage meant that wives were their husbands property; they could be abused, had no property rights, had no custody rights to their children, etc. "Traditional" marriage could also be interpreted to ban interracial marriages. "Traditional" marriages could be interpreted to promote polygamy - that's what the Mormons would like us to think, anyway. Just because something is "traditional" doesn't make it the best possible option - nothing should be left to stagnate simply because it is the way it has always been done.

[normanchateau]

Unfortunately there will always be Canadians who look to the US as a model of how to function.

Yeah the Americans have no clue what they are doing.

Canadians got it right. We know how to function..

Vive le Canada

Yeah, let's steal ideas from the US. Let's see, 8.7 trillion dollars, the largest national debt in this history of the world. More people in jail per capita for drug possession than any other country in the world.

But then again, perhaps you view their successful invasion of Iraq as a model of how to function...

[uOttawaMan]

Nope it's over.

The right decision was made.

Why waste tons of money getting the same results anyway??

[Figleaf]

... if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

What ridiculous orwellian doublespeak! The preamble about 'same protections and benefits' is in direct opposition to choice #2.

[geoffrey]

... if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

What ridiculous orwellian doublespeak! The preamble about 'same protections and benefits' is in direct opposition to choice #2.

Care to explain how? Equal rights are equal rights.

[guyser]

Note: I dont want to brand all religious people as nuts, I know many who are not. A lot are able to adopt tolerance, a love for freedom and rights while still practising their religion and honoring their god. Unfortunatly too many, of all brands, are unable to do so.

Of course that's only for Christians. The other minoritty Canadian religions have absolutely no stance on SSM?

Look at the people in the Liberal party who voted against SSM last week.

Religion should NOT have any say in this debate period.

Religion is a personal choice.

There is a reason only 17 % of Canucks go to church. We are enlightened and see it for what it is.

And a devout church going MP should suspend all religious thought when he votes.

But I am a realist too, and that might be a stretch for an MP.

[gc1765]

... if a referendum is done, with this question:

"We believe that Gays should have the same protections and benefits enjoyed by everyone. Do you think....

choice #1 Traditional meaning of marriage be changed that it does not limit it to union of one man and one woman.

choice#2 Gays can have their own union, which will be the counterpart of the traditional definition of marriage. "

I think, put that way...choice #2 will win overwhelmingly!

What ridiculous orwellian doublespeak! The preamble about 'same protections and benefits' is in direct opposition to choice #2.

Care to explain how? Equal rights are equal rights.

Will it still be called "marriage"? It may seem trivial whether you call it a civil union or marriage, but how would you feel if we decided that blacks couldn't marry but could only get a civil union? I imagine most of the country would still be outraged, even if it may seem trivial. Or to put it another way, how would you feel if heterosexuals could only get a civil union with the same rights as homosexuals who are allowed to marry? Would you be OK with that?

It comes down to separation of church and state. Is "marriage" a term owned by religions? I would argue no, in which case the government should be able to use this term for anyone they wish and it would not infringe on the rights of Christianity or any other religion. But even if you want to make the claim that "marriage" is owned by one religion, why not have the government give EVERYONE a civil union with equal rights. Then, if you are a religious person and you want to get "married" you can do so, but it would be up to the church/religion to decide who they want to marry or not. The government would not, and should not, be able to tell the church who they can and can't marry (so long as everyone has their civil unions, and they are equal in rights and in name for both homosexuals and heterosexuals). This would not only keep religion out of the government, it would keep the government out of religion. Someone please explain to me what is wrong with this arrangement?

[mikedavid00]

Religion should NOT have any say in this debate period.

I feel guilty that I don't go to Church.

But isn't this all the reason to let citizens vote for some of our own laws?

[guyser]

Religion should NOT have any say in this debate period.

I feel guilty that I don't go to Church.

But isn't this all the reason to let citizens vote for some of our own laws?

NO elections copst us enough already and most people wont get informed. If we put SSM to a vote, the religious would come out of the woodwork and vote it down.

Womens rights and slavery would never have been voted down.

Its been decided and it s over.

[Melanie_]

It comes down to separation of church and state. Is "marriage" a term owned by religions? I would argue no, in which case the government should be able to use this term for anyone they wish and it would not infringe on the rights of Christianity or any other religion. But even if you want to make the claim that "marriage" is owned by one religion, why not have the government give EVERYONE a civil union with equal rights. Then, if you are a religious person and you want to get "married" you can do so, but it would be up to the church/religion to decide who they want to marry or not. The government would not, and should not, be able to tell the church who they can and can't marry (so long as everyone has their civil unions, and they are equal in rights and in name for both homosexuals and heterosexuals). This would not only keep religion out of the government, it would keep the government out of religion. Someone please explain to me what is wrong with this arrangement?

Many people would object to giving the power to determine who is and isn't married solely to religion. Marriage isn't about religion, it is about two people committing to one another. If some want to do so with a religious ceremony, fine, but others, homosexual or heterosexual, may choose to make their vows in a nonreligious ceremony. They shouldn't be barred from using the word "marriage" based on their rejection of religion.

As it is, even with SSM, churches can refuse to marry anyone who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs. This has always been the case - you can't get married by a Catholic priest unless you are Catholic. But that doesn't mean you can't get married by someone else who also is authorized to perform an equivalent ceremony.

[betsy]

A Jewish guy who represents a group that wants an extensive study done BEFORE ANY LEGISLATIONS are made was guest on CPAC Sound Off last Sunday, along with the rep from the proponents of SSM.

He was not there as a theologian. But he has an important point. We should not just simply legislate just to accomodate a special group....without knowing how this legislation will affect society. Its effects will not be visible to us for years.

Effects need not be all negative. Studies could probably even show some positive effects on us. But the way things are going right now....this thing had been simply rushed through the door! Yes, some of us who oppose it could say we are driven by our religious beliefs....but truth is, this concern is not all about plain religion!