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 3 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paisley_cross wrote:

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.
Yeah, it is not like clergymen are citizens, or even people for that matter, right? They should just STFU and know their place, right? Glad we have people like you to ensure freedom for all of us.
Craig Smith





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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Glad we have people like you to ensure freedom for all of us.


Do you get along with anyone???
paisley_cross





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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Yeah, it is not like clergymen are citizens, or even people for that matter, right? They should just STFU and know their place, right? Glad we have people like you to ensure freedom for all of us.


They have the same right as anyone to talk and say what they want. However, their speaking out does not help social conservative causes anymore. Over the last 20 years religion has lost a lot of credibility as has its spokespersons.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They have credibility in my eyes. The Catholic church has been around for 2000 years, Canada less than 200. I think I will take the opinion of the learned padre for $1000 Alex.
fiscalconservative





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
paisley_cross wrote:

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.
Yeah, it is not like clergymen are citizens, or even people for that matter, right? They should just STFU and know their place, right? Glad we have people like you to ensure freedom for all of us.


If you could just give all your strawmen guns, you would not need to worry about an election, you would have an army that could rule the world.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, for the record, I have to state that the original question is flawed. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, till death. Anything else is a simple contractual agreement, with no more moral or ethical meaning than the Heatley trade.
teenagetory





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 369
Reputation: 30.4Reputation: 30.4Reputation: 30.4
votes: 1
Location: Halifax

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I personally think that while marriage is between a man and a woman, but all in all it is a covenant between the couple and god, not the couple and the government. If the United Church wants to marry a homosexual couple, fine, they can answer for it in the next life. As long as there is protection for those clergymen who cannot in good conscience marry a homosexual couple, I do not see an issue.

That said, why is the government even defining what marriage is? Because there are so many laws and regulations that have clauses for married couples (like divorce law for example). If the government did not have such an overwhelming amount of rules and regulation pertaining to marriage, I doubt gay marriage ever would have been an issue in the first place.
fiscalconservative





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

teenagetory wrote:
That said, why is the government even defining what marriage is? Because there are so many laws and regulations that have clauses for married couples (like divorce law for example). If the government did not have such an overwhelming amount of rules and regulation pertaining to marriage, I doubt gay marriage ever would have been an issue in the first place.


I think it would. Right now they can be in common-law relationships whose rules are almost identical to those of married individuals. There was no big fuss then.

There has always been great weirdness when it comes to gay people. People would beat them up and attack them. Cops had special units to hunt them down, even having undercover officers pose as gay. The communists were worse than the social conservatives, sending them to Gulags.
If the army caught them, they would serve prison sentences usually reserved for murders.
paisley_cross





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

teenagetory wrote:
That said, why is the government even defining what marriage is?


If Parliament does not define marriage who becomes eligible for taxation benefits? Unless SSM is given the same status as M-F marriage it would not be considered as having the same legal status.

It would preferable if the legislator were to spell out which contractual relationships (eg, M-F, same-sex, common law) were entitled to what in law. If people wanted to go beyond a contractual relationship they would be free to also get married in a religious ceremony.
lucamanfredi





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Watch how the plants disappear after trying to stir up a storm.

We have an economy to fix, a tribal conflict in Afghanistan to resolve, a majority to win, the whole Arctic to defend and we almost allow ourselves to be bogged down in this can of worms.

Interpersonal relationships on any level are up to the people involved. The gov't and the churches should be simple willing witnesses, not deciders. Get rid of privileges based on status (married couple vs common-law one) and transfer the funds into privileges based on outcome (joint home ownership credit, childcare benefit, whatever).

Meanwhile let's focus on the real issues at hand instead of awarding the legitimacy of reply to a truckload of crappola.
fiscalconservative





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paisley_cross wrote:
teenagetory wrote:
That said, why is the government even defining what marriage is?


If Parliament does not define marriage who becomes eligible for taxation benefits? Unless SSM is given the same status as M-F marriage it would not be considered as having the same legal status.

It would preferable if the legislator were to spell out which contractual relationships (eg, M-F, same-sex, common law) were entitled to what in law. If people wanted to go beyond a contractual relationship they would be free to also get married in a religious ceremony.


I don't think there is any difference between common law and marriage right now, except in the breakup of martial assets on seperation.
Taxes are the same for Common-Law as for married.

One interesting point about "relgious ceremony". It amazes me how some hardline Christians will accept a marriage in a pagan religion (even Yezidi (arguably devil worshippers)) but not a marriage in a non-religious environment.
paisley_cross





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
One interesting point about "relgious ceremony". It amazes me how some hardline Christians will accept a marriage in a pagan religion (even Yezidi (arguably devil worshippers)) but not a marriage in a non-religious environment.


During the debate over legalizing SSM some religionists argued that only religion has a right to define marriage - a position not likely to get much support from the multitudes - such as myself - who were married (twice) in a civil ceremony. :D
lucamanfredi





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're kind of leaping there. The main deity of Yezidism apparently is an angel that has redeemed itself and its tears of repentance extinguished the fire of hell. If the deity indeed belonged to a group that originally fell, it's the guy that repented soon after. Hardly the hell-master of our monotheistic tradition.

Getting back to the topic, religionists can definitely argue that it's their faith that should determine what is a marriage and what isn't. Little snag: within the purview of their own belief system, not of society at large or the government.

Different confessions will always disagree about something. Marriage is no exception. Doesn't mean the government has to choose a side. If an alien civilization looked at us, it would think we're fighting over who can hear their imaginary friend clearest. It's sure a great debate about morality, but last time I checked that area of human relations wasn't within the scope of any level of government.... Separation of church and state is truly a wonderful invention.
paisley_cross





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lucamanfredi wrote:
Getting back to the topic, religionists can definitely argue that it's their faith that should determine what is a marriage and what isn't. Little snag: within the purview of their own belief system, not of society at large or the government.


Of course, nobody would argue with that. But that's why only governments (by representing society as a whole) can determine which relationships have legal status.
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lucamanfredi wrote:
Separation of church and state is truly a wonderful invention.


Yes - and a facade. Every single law in our land is rooted in the Judeo-Christian belief system. There is no separation. The whole concept of separation of Church and state is an invention of atheists as an excuse to suppress the Church.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 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