Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Are White, English speaking Catholics forcing the federal government to make constitutional changes or force federal intervention to accommodate their views?

Are you looking for a particular contemporary example or are all the past examples allowed? (hint, check out the forced public tax funding for Catholic separate schools).

Jews have, Muslims have, Francophone's have, Aboriginals have, Blacks have etc. etc. etc.

Have what?

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Are you looking for a particular contemporary example or are all the past examples allowed? (hint, check out the forced public tax funding for Catholic separate schools).

This is a constitutional matter, but I would like to see it eliminated.

Posted
Jews have, Muslims have, Francophone's have, Aboriginals have, Blacks have etc. etc. etc.

Have what?

They either have special Charter status or have received federal government intervention to attend to their specific issues.

Is this not what the rest of my post implied?

Posted

It seems the only group that does not have an identity, are White Catholics, who are forced to take a back seat and pay the bills for all other dominating groups.

Give us an example, or indeed any other sort of support for that assertion, if you can.

Are White, English speaking Catholics forcing the federal government to make constitutional changes or force federal intervention to accommodate their views?

That is not support for your assertation they are footing bills for everyone.

Jews have, Muslims have, Francophone's have, Aboriginals have, Blacks have etc. etc. etc.

That would be because the laws favoured white males in the first place.

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre

Posted
In 1983, at the age of 18 I got married.

At 21 I went off the pill as "we -- his whole friggin' family" decided it was time for us to have children.

At 21 I looked at myself in the mirror and asked "Are you ready for this? Are you old enough to have children? Is this what you really want?"

My answer was a resounding "no!"

So I left. At age 21 I enrolled in college. I partied, worked and studied throughout my entire 20's. What a blast I had! What great fun experiences!

Had I been stuck in my traditional marriage with no means of escape (divorce) I would have been miserable -- a miserable wife and mother.

No thanks.

I now live with an awesome man (now that I am old enough to make a committment :) ) and one day we will publicly and legally decry our love and committment for one another in a ceremony.

Thats awesome, good for you.

I gotta ask though, you say" one day we will publicly and legally decry our love and committment for one another in a ceremony" ..... how would it be possibel to illegaly decry your love and commitment? What does the conception of law have to do with your love for another person? What does the public matter in this? If you are happy right now, do you think you will be any happier after a marriage ceremony?

Andrew

Posted
Traditional marriage is failing---WHY?

Feminism.

Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)

Posted

Traditional marriage is failing---WHY?

Feminism.

I always took you for more of a Liberal minded person, anyway that's a ballsy post. Good luck defending yourself...

"Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary

"Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary

Economic Left/Right: 4.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77

Posted

If you're against gay marriage....simple......don't get one!

No gays have ever tried to restrict who I marry, why should I do the same to them?

" Influence is far more powerful than control"

Posted

So women seeking equality has spelled the demise of "traditional" marriage?

Ergo, "traditional" marriage is an unequal partnership contract favouring males.

So, males decrying the loss of traditional marriage are then decrying the loss of an institution that gave them unfair advantage over women.

Oh my, that is so too bad, eh?!

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre

Posted

Catchme you soooo nailed it. :)

... but I still believe in marriage.

Andrew,

Legal in the eyes of the law. As he and I would sign a legal contract of marriage as recognized by the government.

And yes, I want to have the ceremony to publicly promise our love to one another. For us and our friends to say "yahhhh we finally did it!" *picture cheering happy people*.

And yes, marriage gives the sense of permanence to the relationship.

No, I do not expect to be "happier" (or sadder for that matter) after the ceremony.

Being married also makes other things easier... banking, credit, life insurance, rrsps, taxes... all are less complicated with a married couple (as compared to a co-habitating couple).

But really, I love the man. That's it. That's enough.

...jealous much?

Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee

Posted

How would women seeking equality lead to the end of traditional marriage. Once again I think their are quite a few reason's we have seen the family decline over the years, and many of them are economic. However I doubt that gay marriage, or feminism, has had that much of an impact of marriage.

"Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist

Posted

It seems the only group that does not have an identity, are White Catholics, who are forced to take a back seat and pay the bills for all other dominating groups.

Give us an example, or indeed any other sort of support for that assertion, if you can.

Are White, English speaking Catholics forcing the federal government to make constitutional changes or force federal intervention to accommodate their views?

Jews have, Muslims have, Francophone's have, Aboriginals have, Blacks have etc. etc. etc.

My friend, you are very confused. Since 1867 there have been less than a handful of constitutional changes.

Apart from that, I fail to see how White Catholics are being forced to pay for anything for other groups. And if you think they need better lobbying efforts for some reason, no one is stopping them.

Posted
Catchme you soooo nailed it. :)

... but I still believe in marriage.

Andrew,

Legal in the eyes of the law. As he and I would sign a legal contract of marriage as recognized by the government.

And yes, I want to have the ceremony to publicly promise our love to one another. For us and our friends to say "yahhhh we finally did it!" *picture cheering happy people*.

And yes, marriage gives the sense of permanence to the relationship.

No, I do not expect to be "happier" (or sadder for that matter) after the ceremony.

Being married also makes other things easier... banking, credit, life insurance, rrsps, taxes... all are less complicated with a married couple (as compared to a co-habitating couple).

But really, I love the man. That's it. That's enough.

I totally understand the desire to have a public gathering with friends and loved ones, to affirm your relationship to those who matter to you.

I also understand the administrative benefit - my wife can have dual citizenship from her native country if we 'tie the not' as far as Canadian custom goes. She just has to be married to a Canadian when she becomes a Canadian citizen, otherwise her native country won't allow her dual citizenship. If we sign the papers she gets it, (i wonder if my status changes), our son already has it.

We would essentially be getting married for a passport. Not a bad thing to have i suppose.

But are financial reasons the only purpose behind having the government recognize ones personal and intimate arrangements? I cant help but feel a bit of resentment at governments for withholding these benefits and freedoms until we fulfill their definition of marriage.

No big deal. I just sometimes wonder why we have the institution of marriage and whether it is something that government should spend time and money on.

Andrew

Posted
Catchme you soooo nailed it. :)

... but I still believe in marriage.

And yes, marriage gives the sense of permanence to the relationship.

No, I do not expect to be "happier" (or sadder for that matter) after the ceremony.

What does believe in marriage mean?

Why does it give a sense of permanence to the relationship?

You yourself walked away from a marriage in a few short years. How long have you been with this fellow? It sounds like longer than you were with your husband, if this is the case, then perhaps a sense of permanence, does meet reality?

Making a life-time commitment to one another, does not need state sanctions to make it be more permanent, or solid. My partner and I will be celebrating 28 years this year, his mother has been married 4 times withing this time frame. Also, he stayed at home as a house husband for 3 years, long before it became an identifable recourse in our society. The bigotry that was expressed towards us, by some, during this period, was unbelievable. Even though it well discussed amongst the family members, and the grandparents, to examine it for feasability and consensus, some in the extended family thought it beyond the pale. Even though the alternative would have been latch key children, it was more important for the male partner to be working for some reason.

The truth is marriage still comes with the built in systemic and operant conditioning towards a clear male bias. So, please do let us know if your relationship changes after your marriage.

Having said that, I feel the same way towards marriage, as I do any other social construct, everyone has freedom of conscience and self-determination, and am happy with whatever anyone else chooses to do as long as their choice has no impact upon me and is within the laws of the land.

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre

Posted
So women seeking equality has spelled the demise of "traditional" marriage?

Ergo, "traditional" marriage is an unequal partnership contract favouring males.

So, males decrying the loss of traditional marriage are then decrying the loss of an institution that gave them unfair advantage over women.

Oh my, that is so too bad, eh?!

Might be too bad, but it is true.

Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)

Posted
How would women seeking equality lead to the end of traditional marriage. Once again I think their are quite a few reason's we have seen the family decline over the years, and many of them are economic. However I doubt that gay marriage, or feminism, has had that much of an impact of marriage.

CB, Feminism is the single biggest reason for the decline in tradional marriage. Unless you think traditional marriage includes two working parents, which I think of as more modern than traditional.

Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)

Posted

Traditional marriage is failing---WHY?

Feminism.

I always took you for more of a Liberal minded person, anyway that's a ballsy post. Good luck defending yourself...

In some areas I am very Liberal minded, in others very conservative. This topic is neither. Just basic observation. It is easy to see that feminism has brought about the downfall of Traditional Marriage.

Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)

Posted

Which, Whitedoors, from my perspective is not a bad necessarily a bad thing.

Hubby and I basically share the traditional marriage roles which makes for a nice balanced life. ;)

...jealous much?

Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee

Posted

I agree that if a declining birth rate is a concern, then government should act on it. But then it needs to promote childbirth specifically, not pursue your marriage tangent.

You always have such accommodating anti-Christian views, concerning the moralistic character of this country.

I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-religion.

Posted

I agree that if a declining birth rate is a concern, then government should act on it. But then it needs to promote childbirth specifically, not pursue your marriage tangent.

You always have such accommodating anti-Christian views, concerning the moralistic character of this country.

I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-religion.

That's like saying you are not anti-Japanese, you are anti-Asian.

LOL

Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.

~blueblood~

Posted

Whitey: religion and race aren't analgous. I shouldn't have to tell you why that is.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,857
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Tony Eveland
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...