Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
YvesVilleneuve





Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.3

PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:36 pm    Post subject: Are Straight Marriages More Equal Than Homosexual Marriages? Reply with quote

In the context of promoting eternal humanity, a heterosexual married couple is a safer bet to re-establish the human race because it has more realistic reproductive options. Hence, in this case, heterosexual marriages are more equal than homosexual marriages.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With 6 billion people on the earth and growing, I don't think we are in danger of not continuing on the human species.

Do heterosexual marriages that don't produce children any less equal? If so, why don't they seem to create nearly as much controversy?
YvesVilleneuve





Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.3

PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Humanity is always under constant threat of extinction. ie. Nuclear War, asteroids, etc

In the context of re-establishing the human race or promoting eternal humanity, a couple who is unable to have children is inferior (less equal) to a couple who can.

Personally, within a defined context, I don't see a problem in placing a value for each different marriage type.
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tell you what, when an asteroid wipes out 99.999 % of the world's population and we need to re-populate the planet, let me know. Until then your point is rather moot.
paisley_cross





Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 806
Reputation: 124.9
votes: 3
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Do heterosexual marriages that don't produce children any less equal? If so, why don't they seem to create nearly as much controversy?


Nobody would suggest that a menopausal woman marrying a male is in any less of a marriage than a couple having sex kids.

Since religions preach that the only valid marraige is a male/female one and since it runs counter to what we have been taught in school what a marriage is, SSM has become a matter of political controversy.

The good news of course is that in the event we have an election, it will NOT be an issue. :wink:

But in essence marriage is what you believe it is. If you are in an SSM and believe it to be equal to traditional marriage then to you it IS equal.


Last edited by paisley_cross on Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:59 am; edited 1 time in total
YvesVilleneuve





Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.3

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not trying to be unreasonable with you but shouldn't we (via the government) plan before disaster could wipe out 100% of humanity i.e. try to save a fertile heterosexual married couple.

I wouldn't want our government forced to defend this strategy because a homosexual married couple is challenging it because it violates Section 15 (Equality Rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, in reality, I believe the government would have a valid legal case that promoting eternal humanity is more equal (more important; more superior) than Section 15 of the Charter.
YvesVilleneuve





Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.3

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

paisley_cross wrote:
The good news of course is that in the event we have an election, it will NOT be an issue. :wink:


The non-Tory parties could try to make it an election issue by saying: if the Conservatives win a majority they will redefine the Civil Marriage Act.

Tories across this country need to be united on this concept to promote eternal humanity or else lose the prospect of a majority.

My proposal to help government plan for eternal humanity with the quickest and safest ease (selecting from a random sample of government-registered heterosexual marriages) is to define civil marriage, through legislation tabled by the Public Safety Minister, by category: straight, gay and lesbian.

This legal definition would also enshrine the notion, physical gender is the most primary and primitive criteria in the selection of a spouse. i.e. it is not proper for a Gay to marry a Lesbian.
paisley_cross





Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 806
Reputation: 124.9
votes: 3
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

YvesVilleneuve wrote:
paisley_cross wrote:
The good news of course is that in the event we have an election, it will NOT be an issue. :wink:


The non-Tory parties could try to make it an election issue by saying: if the Conservatives win a majority they will redefine the Civil Marriage Act.


Yeah, and they could also be saying that the Tories will ban abortion, keep our troops in Afghanistan, bring back capital punishment, make religion mandatory in the schools, etc, etc.

It wouldn't work because the public wouldn't believe them. Harper defused SSM as a political issue when he had a debate and vote on revisiting SSM. Since then it's been dead politically.

For example, it didn't come up in our last annual election 11 months ago. :)
YvesVilleneuve





Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.3

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

paisley_cross wrote:

For example, it didn't come up in our last annual election 11 months ago. :)


All I can say to that is, Dion was Liberal leader at the time who already made plans with the other opposition leaders to form a coalition government following a failed motion of confidence should they lose the election. His focus was on a coalition government and playing clean politics during an election.

The majority of Tories voted in favor for redefining civil marriage; this is on record. Banning abortion and other issues you mentioned are not on record and have been or could easily be dismissed during an election.

Micheal Ignatieff won't be afraid to pull out all the stops to prevent a Tory majority and win the election.
YvesVilleneuve





Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Reputation: 1.3

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not asking my Tory friends (you) to immediately accept my concept and proposal.

I am simply saying to unite behind Stephen Harper should he decide to take this position during an election in defence of any politics of division by the Liberal Party.

Uniting would mean 'posters in this forum' defending Stephen Harper on this issue by knowing the talking points and communicating them in a simple manner to friends and in other forums such as local and national newspapers.

To keep you fully informed, the Tory causus is aware of this concept and proposal for quite some time but I can't say for certain if they are completely behind it at this moment. The other parties are also aware of my arguments.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Look I'm a very religious person, I can understand, to a point why some folks get upset about SSM. But really who cares? Do you think it devalues what you have with your spouse just because the STATE decides to recognize a relationship that you disapprove of?

God sanctifies my marriage not the state, God is the only judge that I concern myself with, not the state.

The state can jump up and down and marry chimpanzees to turtles and it does not effect my marriage or partner relationship with GOD one wit.

Let it go, the word is meaningless in this context, it is just a relationship that the Government recognizes for tax, inheritances, parenting, partnering and benefits purposes. So what they stole our word big deal.

Homosexuality may be a sin, but guess what everybody sins, every freaking day, as far as I know being gay is no more graver a sin then using the Lords name in vain. Lordy it isn't even one of the ten commandments for goodness sakes. Besides IMO It matters not what the sin be, I rather be busy working on bettering myself, working on my sinning self then gloating over others sins.

Get on with important matters.

The state calling it marriage does not make it so.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You sound like a Liberal plant trying to stir up the pot.

I'm a pretty hard core social conservative but even I have moved onto more important issues...
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
The state can jump up and down and marry chimpanzees to turtles and it does not effect my marriage or partner relationship with GOD one wit.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks that gay marriages somehow threaten their own marriage probably doesn't have a very strong marriage to begin with.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7435
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:

The state can jump up and down and marry chimpanzees to turtles and it does not effect my marriage or partner relationship with GOD one bit.


Yep,
My issue with SSM was the way that Martin passed it through the commons,
What the State does or does not do in regards to who they opt to marry does not effect my day to day life.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7435
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
You sound like a Liberal plant trying to stir up the pot.

I'm a pretty hard core social conservative but even I have moved onto more important issues...


Expect several more,
The rage among the Liberals now is to post as "Alberta Conservatives" and throw the term "notacon's" around in regards to Harper.

It seems that the plan is to split the right, its been happening a fair bit in a few forums I post within.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Are Straight Marriages More Equal Than Homosexual Marriages?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB