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  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
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 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paisley_cross wrote:
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.


Not to mention the fact that we live in a democratic society - so if the majority of people are Christians (practicing) and decide that they don't want gay marriage then so be it.
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 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lucamanfredi wrote:
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.


Its not my leap, its an evengelical leap that even Al Queda has agreed with. If you line up all the Christians who are against SSM and those who believe there are "devil worshippers" out there, there would be a huge degree of overlap.

And, yes, to be fair, Yezidism is not the worship of evil, even if it is "worship of the devil"
paisley_cross





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
paisley_cross wrote:
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.


Not to mention the fact that we live in a democratic society - so if the majority of people are Christians (practicing) and decide that they don't want gay marriage then so be it.


Right, and if the religious right in Canada had any political clout we would not now have legalized SSM
lucamanfredi





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
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.


What is sin for the Church is not necessarily a crime for the State, ergo each entity can think for itself. That is enough separation for my standards. Most of our laws are rooted in the ten commandments, which are pretty common sense in a civilized society. If we were truly applying strict Judeo-Christian beliefs we'd have a lot of Leviticus word-by-word in our law books, and that would be barking madness.

Craig wrote:
Not to mention the fact that we live in a democratic society - so if the majority of people are Christians (practicing) and decide that they don't want gay marriage then so be it.


That's a generalization. Not all practicing Christians would necessarily decide to vote for a party commitedly against SSM. Not all people who want SSM made illegal are Christians, practicing or otherwise. And I am sure among the practicing Christians you'll find a broad spectrum of opinion, from outright disapproval of same-sex relationships in general to openness toward some sort of recognition like the french PACS.

When push comes to shove, governments will carry out the policy they are mandated to pass. And unlike religious dogma, such policies can be reversed by any successive government. That's the main difference.


paisley_cross wrote:
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.


What do married heterosexual couples do that cohabiting couples of any gender combination don't? Discrimination of status legality should be based around these differences rather than suppositions or dogma. And if possible such discrimination should be moved towards outcomes. If one believes married HS couples deserve preferential treatment because they can bear children, let's increase the economic and legal incentives for such an outcome to occur rather than walk around in circles around an issue of semantics.

Because creating an easier environment to rear a child (still citing an example here) is definitely a government's duty. Limiting citizens' ability to enter into a contract which does not infringe anyone's rights or property isn't.
crazymamma





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

PostPosted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Luca writes:

Quote:
Because creating an easier environment to rear a child (still citing an example here) is definitely a government's duty.


They could start by leaving some of my money in my wallet and let me decide how to spend it on my children.

Let me decide how and where to educate them.

That would be sweet, don't cha think?
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 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lucamanfredi wrote:
What is sin for the Church is not necessarily a crime for the State, ergo each entity can think for itself.


That doesn't mean there is separation. It just means that there is SOME separation.

Quote:

Craig wrote:
Not to mention the fact that we live in a democratic society - so if the majority of people are Christians (practicing) and decide that they don't want gay marriage then so be it.


That's a generalization. Not all practicing Christians would necessarily decide to vote for a party commitedly against SSM


I didn't say they ALL would. I said "and decide". Suffice it to say that my point stands despite the hair splitting.

Quote:
When push comes to shove, governments will carry out the policy they are mandated to pass.


Yep - and those policies can call for the integration of Church and state.

Quote:
And unlike religious dogma, such policies can be reversed by any successive government. That's the main difference.


Funny that the state still funds Catholic schools then.
paisley_cross





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

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Funny that the state still funds Catholic schools then.


Looked like a good deal in 1867. Not so much now with a lot of other religious groups asking - "How can I get on the gravy train?"
crazymamma





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

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

paisley_cross wrote:
Craig wrote:
Funny that the state still funds Catholic schools then.


Looked like a good deal in 1867. Not so much now with a lot of other religious groups asking - "How can I get on the gravy train?"


If people are forced to fund schooling available to everyone, then stands to reason that taxpayers should be given CHOICE as where and how they wish to educate their children.
Imagine that the taxpayer having a choice? lessen the noose of the teacher's unions that run the province of Ontario Anyway? Perish the thought?

Choice and competition are never a bad thing,

Besides Catholic schools have a higher graduation rate and the students do better on testing, be it the standardized testing or for university.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What really amazes me, is the sheer number of people, who honestly believe that they know better than the collective experience of human kind prior to their being born. It is a wonder how anyone survived before the light of their reason shone across the benighted landscape.

I really think these guys are the majority now, and not by a slim margin or anything.
Chuck80





Joined: 07 Aug 2009
Posts: 26
Reputation: 1.8
Location: www.chucklet.blogspot.com

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
What really amazes me, is the sheer number of people, who honestly believe that they know better than the collective experience of human kind prior to their being born. It is a wonder how anyone survived before the light of their reason shone across the benighted landscape.

I really think these guys are the majority now, and not by a slim margin or anything.



I heard that, brother........and never the twain shall meet.
crazymamma





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

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
What really amazes me, is the sheer number of people, who honestly believe that they know better than the collective experience of human kind prior to their being born. It is a wonder how anyone survived before the light of their reason shone across the benighted landscape.

I really think these guys are the majority now, and not by a slim margin or anything.


Your amazed by the egos that have infested this forum? I'm amazed by what passes as "conservative".

No competition in health care, no competition in education, tax this tax that.

Curious.
lucamanfredi





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

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My bad Craig, you did not generalize. For a government to be elected on a platform of integrating Church and State would require nothing short of a mass epiphany accompanied by a sleuth of constitutional amendments to which Quebec (among others) would have to consent. That sounds pretty impossible to me for the foreseeable future... Not to mention my gut feeling that if a current party stood federally on such a platform it would implode with a crack come election day.

Choice in education would definitely get standards improving. Where do I sign?
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lucamanfredi wrote:
My bad Craig, you did not generalize. For a government to be elected on a platform of integrating Church and State would require nothing short of a mass epiphany accompanied by a sleuth of constitutional amendments to which Quebec (among others) would have to consent. That sounds pretty impossible to me for the foreseeable future... Not to mention my gut feeling that if a current party stood federally on such a platform it would implode with a crack come election day.

Choice in education would definitely get standards improving. Where do I sign?
I believe you sign up with John Tory?

PS. Standardizing religious/secular schools under one umbrella seem, for the foreseeable future, to have gotten the toxic issue treatment due to its handling by John Tory in the last Ontario election.
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 14, 2009 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paisley_cross wrote:
Craig wrote:
Funny that the state still funds Catholic schools then.


Looked like a good deal in 1867. Not so much now with a lot of other religious groups asking - "How can I get on the gravy train?"


Personally, I would like to see all Christian schools subsidized. And I'm not even particularly religious (go to Church twice per year).

What is the point of having a country if you fund everything for everyone? Like-minded people should have countries. If you love Islam live in an Islamic country. If you love Atheism live in an Atheistic country.

These are the things that define a country in my opinion...

1. Language
2. Religion
3. Culture
4. History
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 14, 2009 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lucamanfredi wrote:
For a government to be elected on a platform of integrating Church and State would require nothing short of a mass epiphany accompanied by a sleuth of constitutional amendments to which Quebec (among others) would have to consent. That sounds pretty impossible to me for the foreseeable future...


Nah - just do what the Liberals do and stack the courts with ideologues. Then you can loosely interpret the constitution and laws of the land to achieve your goals.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  


 
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