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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lucamanfredi





Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 170
Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3Reputation: 41.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a crock of shyte. If that's the same Y.V that comes up first in a simple google search then it's all clear. We can reassure the public this is not a Tory.

I doubt he's liberal either. Just a bit barking bonkers.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:51 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...


crazymamma wrote:
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?..


WTF, I stop reading these posts for a week and all of a sudden the social conservatives become wise pragmatists. There is hope for this party yet.
DavidK





Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1520
Reputation: 68.5
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
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...


crazymamma wrote:
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?..


WTF, I stop reading these posts for a week and all of a sudden the social conservatives become wise pragmatists. There is hope for this party yet.


Thank you??? lol

No, but really, I feel the same way. I may not personally like the idea, and I will never support it, regardless what is on the books. But what's done is done and I think we've moved on. And those that haven't, well they really should.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
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?
When you want to get married in the Catholic church, they won't marry you if you intend to stay childless.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
gc wrote:
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?
When you want to get married in the Catholic church, they won't marry you if you intend to stay childless.


I know a couple that got married in a Catholic Church in their 60's. Do you think the church expected them to pop out a bunch of puppies shortly afterwards ?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Um, I think the Catholic church knows about menopause.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Um, I think the Catholic church knows about menopause.


Well then, they would marry a couple that intended to remain childless.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Um, freak out much? The Catholic church has never been big on denying reality. In fact, the Catholic church has been a big patron and benefactor to the sciences over the centuries, contrary to the popular mythology of the modern left.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Um, freak out much? The Catholic church has never been big on denying reality. In fact, the Catholic church has been a big patron and benefactor to the sciences over the centuries, contrary to the popular mythology of the modern left.


No, you ? I was just pointing out your statement was incorrect. The Catholic church has wed people whose intention was to remain childless.
I don't believe the Catholic church has been big on denying reality - although some posters on here seem to.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DavidK wrote:
fiscalconservative wrote:
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...


crazymamma wrote:
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?..


WTF, I stop reading these posts for a week and all of a sudden the social conservatives become wise pragmatists. There is hope for this party yet.


Thank you??? lol

No, but really, I feel the same way. I may not personally like the idea, and I will never support it, regardless what is on the books. But what's done is done and I think we've moved on. And those that haven't, well they really should.


In the past it seems people have not been willing to "move on", or the way I would put it, fight a battle they could win. Taxes, crime, foreign affairs, less regulation, smaller goverment, the military, are our strengths. Abortion and gay rights belong to the Liberals and bringing them up only puts us in opposition.
(though I can respect a social conservative who will not participate because they feel abortion = murder. I would certainly not be involved with a party that approved of killing the disabled after birth. )
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
In the past it seems people have not been willing to "move on"


You know - the funny thing is - liberals never "move on" when the issues are against them but they always expect us to "move on" once they get their way. Abortion used to be illegal but the left didn't just "move on". Gay marriage used to be illegal but the left didn't just "move on". It's funny how issues are "settled" once the left gets their way...
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
fiscalconservative wrote:
In the past it seems people have not been willing to "move on"


You know - the funny thing is - liberals never "move on" when the issues are against them but they always expect us to "move on" once they get their way. Abortion used to be illegal but the left didn't just "move on". Gay marriage used to be illegal but the left didn't just "move on". It's funny how issues are "settled" once the left gets their way...


I could point out examples the other way as well. In Ontario, "workfare" and welfare cuts have not been reversed even though we now have a Liberal government. They opposed these items at the time, but the public more or less supported them, so the Liberals moved on. The Liberals said the GST cut should have been applied to personal income taxes instead, but you don't hear about them changing it now.
You don't hear the Liberals talking about lowering the age of consent back to 14, even though they left it at that level for years.
Go look at some of the things Liberals under Trudeau pushed for. Do they not acknowledge that the NEP is settled? How about the gauranteed anual wage, or the carbon tax ? Those issues have been settled, and not the way the Liberals/liberals wanted them to be.

The liberal positions on abortion and gay rights were never costing them votes with the "mush middle" that decides elections, so they could contiue to push them even if they were not super popular at the time. THey were never going to get the social conservative vote anyway, so why should they care about losing it ?
On the other hand, abortion and gay rights will cost us votes with the "mushy middle". (people will change their votes just because of these issues). We are not going to gain social conservative votes with our position on abortion, because social conservatives don't tend to vote Liberal anyway. I can understand your frustration with the situation, but thems the breaks.

In short, its not politicians that settle things, its public opinion and how public opinion will affect the vote.
Craig Smith





Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 244
Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
I could point out examples the other way as well.


Oh course you could. You probably have them written on the wall of your bedroom.
paisley_cross





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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The liberal positions on abortion and gay rights were never costing them votes with the "mush middle" that decides elections, so they could contiue to push them even if they were not super popular at the time. THey were never going to get the social conservative vote anyway, so why should they care about losing it ?
On the other hand, abortion and gay rights will cost us votes with the "mushy middle". (people will change their votes just because of these issues). We are not going to gain social conservative votes with our position on abortion, because social conservatives don't tend to vote Liberal anyway. I can understand your frustration with the situation, but thems the breaks.


When it comes to what are called family issues we have four liberal parties in the HofC. The CPC platform says it will not bring in a bill to restrict abortion and the resolution on a review of SSM that Harper promised two elections ago was a mechanism to bury it politically once and for all.

There is no reason why gay rights and abortion should not be campaign issues; however the socon habit of allowing clergymen to take part in the process, with their predilection to quote the Bible and, at times, to make abrasive statements, hurts rather than helps their cause.

But the reality is that abortion and gay rights are not going to be issues of substance politically any time soon.

I'm more interested in issues like euthanasia and polygamy (both of which I am opposed to) which are the next social conservative battles.
Joahob





Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 403
Reputation: 75.3Reputation: 75.3
votes: 2
Location: Spaceship Earth

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course, homosexual marriages are illegitimate and heterosexual marriages are sanctified. That the government chooses not to recognize this is unfortunate. We can stack it up alongside a host of other issues which the official government stance gets wrong. Homosexual marriages shouldn't make or break a party.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  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