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

[cybercoma]

Let me make one other thing clear, I don't believe religious freedom should go unquestioned. Any institution that demands unquestioning belief in ideas and convictions that inspire bigotry, oppression and segregation need to be fully examined. These institutions need to be questioned and they deserve the public's contempt. Unfortunately, we're years (probably decades) away from this.

[geoffrey]

Let me make one other thing clear, I don't believe religious freedom should go unquestioned. Any institution that demands unquestioning belief in ideas and convictions that inspire bigotry, oppression and segregation need to be fully examined. These institutions need to be questioned and they deserve the public's contempt. Unfortunately, we're years (probably decades) away from this.

So the politically incorrect in society need to be silenced, and one view only will be allowed.

Yikes.

[mikedavid00]

I don't see what the horribly oppressive dogmas of religion have to do with the discussion of polygamy. Not all polygamists are Islamic (hell, not all Muslims are polygamists).

Well muslims all over the world practice polygamy. Mostly it's done through purchases of wives, but none the less it's polygamy with the Quaran endorses. Bangladesh is a huge exporter of wives. Many get them at 13 years old. This is how it's done in these countries. My best friend growing up had his step brother come from Samolia with this woman. They lived together. Then a year later, he said 'my mother's coming too'. Then there were 4 people in the house, all collecting cheques, one had a baby. Then when I was older my mother told me that the other woman was really his second wife (my mom was friendly with that family).

He was muslim and would pray towards mecca 3 times a day. for 30 min each session. It was his right as a minority to marry many wives but he had to keep it hush hush becasue it's against the law here.

And what's your point about it being illegal? Homosexuality is illegal in some States in the US.

THe 'act' of sadamy is illegal, not being in a male/make relationship. Marriage is different.

The laws aren't always correct.

Of course they aren't. It's my body and my right to take diet pills to lose weight. However the Dr. wont let me despite the fact that I qualify. The laws are not protecting my induvidual rights.

But there's no country where the laws are perfect. Honestly, the closest you'll get is probably the US to the ideal personal laws and freedoms. That's what makes the US what it is.

What the majority wants is NOT the answer.

And neither is the minority. I feel there is no perfect answer, but it's best left out of the hands of politicians and into the hands of the voter. This is the fundemental difference between your Canadian style viewpoint where you want an intellectual elite controlling you, and a US viewpoint like mine that beleives the countries path is in the hands of its citizens - not judges and elites. (all they've done is ruin our security, economy, and healthcare).

Protecting the freedoms of consenting adults who mind to themselves is.

I agree. So lets let muslims have the freedom to practice their religion and marry as many wives as they want in their personal lives. They can sponsor into Canada an unilimted amount of women for their households and have children with each.

Also FWIW, there were 10 children living in this house when we bought it. The owner was Palistinian and I noticed these two women there. One looked to be the wife, adn the other was possibly an older daughter but looked to close to age to the husband. It also looked to be another wife.

With the 10 children and wives, we estimed well over $6000 in social assistance they were getting each month. (we got some letters from the social services).

Unfortunately, sometimes the politicians don't do this, sometimes the courts don't do this and sometimes the majority of people don't do this. So, it's up to people who've had their consciousness raised to be vocal. It's unfortunate that when these values aren't held by the majority of people because that's when they cry that the minority is trying to rule the majority.

I don't know about that. When it comes to rights and feedoms there is always hypocracy at play. There is no true thing as absolute rights or freedoms.

Well lets just say that in Nevada, they almost won legalization of pot by a thin vote. They said that they could have one if the people that actually used pot went out and voted. It was actually the majority protecting the rights of the minority.

I personally would vote against SSM if it meant that it could be used as an immigration loophool. There are already phony marriages of family members even with fake wedding photos. So allowing men in the country wouldn't be too good.

However I do support gay Canadian men marrying each other if that's what they want to do.

But more, I support the descision to come from Canadians. You might be suprised how they vote.

Our freedom as a nation is dependant on how free our minority groups feel against the majority.

Wow! I saved this quote too. This is truly what makes a Canadian.

Not myself. I don't beleive in putting people into groups and seperating them. People are Canadian or not. Each person shall get treated as an induvidual and will take part in making large decisions for the country.

[M.Dancer]

If there were to be a referendum, only people affected by any new legislation should be allowed to vote. Currently only gays are affected by the present laws, so in effect, a referendum would be redundant.

[Shakeyhands]

Someone had noted the vote that happened in the House was not all democratic since the NDP had whipped their members.

The issue of whipping members is one between the party and it's members. If the New DEMOCRATIC Party or the Bloc thinks this is a proper way to represent the constituents then I would suggest that the opposition to those parties make it an issue in the next election.Vote for a member who will vote as the constituents wish, or don't bitch about the outcome.

Garth Turner.

[Figleaf]

The issue of whipping members is one between the party and it's members.

Totally correct. The issue of free votes is only relevant in relation to the government party and whether it continues to have the 'confidence' of the majority of the house. Formally, members of opposition parties are always free to vote any way the want. If in truth they bow to their party's wishes when they personally want to do otherwise, all that means is they are showing how co-opted they personally are. It has no parliamentary significance.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I mean, its not like the NDP even have enough seats to have made the difference!

But they DID make the difference!

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...eb-e9df66b7910c

Excerpt:

"On an issue as contentious as this one is, the Conservative government -- and many Canadians -- felt that an open and fair debate followed by a vote in which members of Parliament were free to vote their conscience was appropriate.

It is a credit to the current Liberal leadership that it understood this and freed their party members to vote as they wished.

Regrettably, despite pleas from their colleagues, both the Bloc and the NDP ignored the request to allow a fair and democratic process to occur and required their members to vote the party line.

Amongst those members of Parliament who were free to vote their conscience (the Liberals and Conservatives), the vote on the motion to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage carried 56% to 40%, with 4% undecided.

Only the "whipped" vote of the Bloc and NDP (131 against; none in favour) moved the "no" vote into a majority.

Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe should be ashamed of themselves for their failure to respect the democratic process on this important social issue.

Dec. 7 was a sad day for democracy.

Bob Brook, Toronto."

[Figleaf]

BTW, no, we should not have a referendum on this issue.

This nonsense has blighted the public discourse for months now, and it's been through all our formal decisionmaking processes quite thoroughly.

At no time in any of all of that did the opponents of SSM offer any sensible argument to sustain their objections. People who continue to pursue this issue now that any real public policy making element to it has long passed must be seen to be engaged in mere bigotry.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Allthough voted no to the question, by all means go ahead and have the freaking vote. Only then please respect the decision of the majority. You can kiss the rights of minorities goodbye through this means. I think that would be a tragic loss myself, but the right wing and religious folk seem determined, well then so be it.

In my view only a fool would seek to involve themselves in the sexual interests of the free citizens of this nation. Its none of the governments business, and not a matter of public concern. This entire debate in Parliment is a waste of public expense.

A citizen should have the right to act in any manner they chosse to provided that those actions do not conflict with the well being of other citizens.

[Leafless]

People who continue to pursue this issue now that any real public policy making element to it has long passed must be seen to be engaged in mere bigotry.

Now that kind of statement makes you a bigot. Yes?

Point is, if you believe in the separation of church and state, maybe you should ask yourself why government is unilaterally dictating in the way of law, something that is derived from morals that is strongly associated with religions and its traditions throughout the world.

Canadian society was taken advantage of and denied their right to decide this question by national referendum.

Morals are part of the social fabric of all Canadians, NOT goverrnment.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I think that would be a tragic loss myself,

What's in a name? That which we call marriage, by any other name would smell as sweet.

[Figleaf]

People who continue to pursue this issue now that any real public policy making element to it has long passed must be seen to be engaged in mere bigotry.

Now that kind of statement makes you a bigot. Yes?

No. Or at least I don't see how.

Point is, if you believe in the separation of church and state, maybe you should ask yourself why government is unilaterally dictating in the way of law, something that is derived from morals that is strongly associated with religions and its traditions throughout the world.

Law is enacted through the formal structures provided by the social contract. In Canada, those structures are Parliament and the Legislatures.

[mikedavid00]

Allthough voted no to the question, by all means go ahead and have the freaking vote. Only then please respect the decision of the majority. You can kiss the rights of minorities goodbye through this means. I think that would be a tragic loss myself, but the right wing and religious folk seem determined, well then so be it.

In my view only a fool would seek to involve themselves in the sexual interests of the free citizens of this nation. Its none of the governments business, and not a matter of public concern. This entire debate in Parliment is a waste of public expense.

A citizen should have the right to act in any manner they chosse to provided that those actions do not conflict with the well being of other citizens.

I disagree. They can act in a manner, but the status of 'marriage' is a whole other ballgame. Citizens have a right to base the climate of their country off religious beliefs if that's what the majority would like to do.

When you give power to minorities, then you are suggesting that the country be shaped after what a minority of people want.

For instance, mulsims are a minority in Canada and many would like to have Shariah law in our legal code. I don't not want this happening in my country. Why? No reason. I just don't want it as a citizen.

I should have a say in this. Not the minority of people.

You have been so used to being professed and dictated to that you think protecting minotities is somehow democratic and right wing. It's not. It's brainwashing from a political party.

[mikedavid00]

Canadian society was taken advantage of and denied their right to decide this question by national referendum.

Morals are part of the social fabric of all Canadians, NOT goverrnment.

I 100% agree. Finally someone understands.

Voting on propositions in the US is just a way of life there.

The only argument against this being: "average Canadians are too stupid to vote". Maybe for once Canadians would become engaged in our country and politics if they got a say for once in their lives.

I've said this a million times - we have an elite run, dictatorship style of gov't where the people have no say.

[Leafless]

People who continue to pursue this issue now that any real public policy making element to it has long passed must be seen to be engaged in mere bigotry.

Now that kind of statement makes you a bigot. Yes?

No. Or at least I don't see how.

Point is, if you believe in the separation of church and state, maybe you should ask yourself why government is unilaterally dictating in the way of law, something that is derived from morals that is strongly associated with religions and its traditions throughout the world.

Law is enacted through the formal structures provided by the social contract. In Canada, those structures are Parliament and the Legislatures.

It seems you are intolerant of Canadians to continue to pursue the SSM issue.

This would make you a bigot, especially when you consider the following:

"Laws of Canada

The making of federal laws entails many steps: from legal drafting to tabling and discussion in Parliament, to enactment and then to the drafting of regulations which define their application and enforcement."

There was inadequate DISCUSSION in parliament concerning SSM.

It was previously noted by parliamentarians that to debate this SSM issue would take months or perhaps years and nobody was really interested, so basically the law slipped through with inadequate discussion.

If this was the case would it not be in the better interest of Canadian society for government to implement a national referendum to properly decode what Canadians really believe pertaining to SSM and base laws on the result of that national referendum.

It is my view, that a lazy, undemocratic, neglectful parliament improperly contributed to a law that had no business being declared a law and contributed improperly against moralistic Canadians and their moral social fabric because of the lack of will of parliamentarians to properly address the issue.

[jdobbin]

I doubt that same sex opponents would stop trying to get another vote even if they lost a referendum.

In any event, Harper is denying your wishes. Same sex opponents have already said there is nothing on this planet that will make them vote anything else but Conservative. So...suck it up.

[Figleaf]

People who continue to pursue this issue now that any real public policy making element to it has long passed must be seen to be engaged in mere bigotry.

Now that kind of statement makes you a bigot. Yes?

No. Or at least I don't see how.

Point is, if you believe in the separation of church and state, maybe you should ask yourself why government is unilaterally dictating in the way of law, something that is derived from morals that is strongly associated with religions and its traditions throughout the world.

Law is enacted through the formal structures provided by the social contract. In Canada, those structures are Parliament and the Legislatures.

It seems you are intolerant of Canadians to continue to pursue the SSM issue.

I tolerate them. But I also oppose what they want, and why they want it.

There was inadequate DISCUSSION in parliament concerning SSM.

Parliament can pass legislation with NO discussion, as long as it follows it's defined process.

If this was the case would it not be in the better interest of Canadian society for government to implement a national referendum to properly decode what Canadians really believe pertaining to SSM and base laws on the result of that national referendum.

Interesting choice of words: "properly decode". Let's try a little. During the national debate that has proceeded on this topic for some time now, SSM opponents have been invited, asked, challenged, and pleaded with to give a single shred of reason for sustaining their view. Never, not once, was any single valid objection advanced. So, in the absense of any reason for a policy of marriage-apartheid, what explanation is there for pursuing it? If it isn't a judicious choice, mustn't it be a prejudicious choice?

[MightyAC]

I know the matter had been setteld in the House. However, there are several callers on CPAC who would like to see a referendum on the matter.

Someone had noted the vote that happened in the House was not all democratic since the NDP had whipped their members. And as a caller had sarcastically stated with a laugh, the MPs are there for their careers...not for their constituents.

Should we have had a referendum on slavery and womens rights? At one time the majority thought those blacks and upity bitches didn't deserve any rights...they were property. A referendum would have kept the status quo around longer.

In time the idiots that currently oppose equality for homosexuals will see the light too...or at least the ignorant mofos will be worm food and the next generation will be more tolerant.

[normanchateau]

At no time in any of all of that did the opponents of SSM offer any sensible argument to sustain their objections.

Are you saying that religious mumbo jumbo and fundamentalist judgmentalism are nonsense?

[cybercoma]

For instance, mulsims are a minority in Canada and many would like to have Shariah law in our legal code. I don't not want this happening in my country. Why? No reason. I just don't want it as a citizen.

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

Kind of like hating homosexuals, believing they're terribly evil and that they will suffer for eternity after death because they don't love the gender you think they should.

[cybercoma]

Should we have had a referendum on slavery and womens rights? At one time the majority thought those blacks and upity bitches didn't deserve any rights...they were property. A referendum would have kept the status quo around longer.

In time the idiots that currently oppose equality for homosexuals will see the light too...or at least the ignorant mofos will be worm food and the next generation will be more tolerant.

But we need religion for morality!

It would seem to me that morality advances in spite of religion and you gave the perfect examples: the treatment of women, the treatment of african americans, the treatment of people of different religions (Jews specifically and in due time we'll learn to treat Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus equally--hopefully, they'll eventually do the same), and now the treatment of homosexuals.

Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and equality and it has been religion that has dragged its heels on these issues. Not any one group is 'superior' to the others as religion would have you believe and the sooner people begin realizing that and truly living that belief, the better off we'll be.

Every religion thinks it's the right path and the rest are bound for eternal suffering in the afterlife. Every religion thinks all the rest are completely wrong and its followers are "sinners". Hopefully society will raise it's consciousness of the incompatibility of religions and abandon these "classes" that segregate our society.

[normanchateau]

Every religion thinks it's the right path and the rest are bound for eternal suffering in the afterlife. Every religion thinks all the rest are completely wrong and its followers are "sinners".

But many people have the psychological need to feel superior to others and religious mumbo jumbo fills that need admirably.

[mikedavid00]

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

[madmax]

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

I have noticed a trend that you provide links that do little to advance your arguments or the comments that appear to be attributed to the links you provide.

This is about the 3rd or 4th time, I follow one of your links and find nothing of importance attached

[punked]

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.