# Conservative Candidates' Views on Same Sex Marriage...



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I have the dubious honour of living in Jack Layton's riding, which I don't think he'll have any trouble holding on Monday. Kren Clausen is my local Conservative candidate and I'd like to support him but I want to know his views on same sex marriage as Conservative party policy calls for a free vote on this topic. His website had nothing on this so I wrote to him last Friday, being careful not to hint at the answer I would like:



> Hello Kren,
> 
> I understand that the Conservative policy is to have a free vote in the Commons on whether same sex marriages can continue in Canada. How would you vote on this issue?
> 
> Thanks!


As of yet... no response.

Given their policy is to have a free vote, I think it behoves the local candidates to make their views known. Has anyone else asked their local Conservative candidate? Any interesting answers?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I got this from my local Conservative:



> Your Question
> Same sex marriage, if there was a free vote to come after the Conservative come into power, will you actually listen to how you constituents feel on the matter or just vote based on your own personal beliefs?
> 
> Answer
> ...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Just e-mailed my Conservative candidate the same question. Will wait for a response.

EDIT: Glad to see how the Conservative in Hamilton East - Stoney Creek feels justified in imposing his religious beliefs on other.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

We'll credit is due to having answered your question.

What I find ironic is that he states "MPs should represent the people that elected them" and then writes "As a practising Catholic, I personally would vote to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage in consultation with the people in Hamilton East – Stoney Creek."

Maybe he already knows the answer?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Glad to see how the Conservative in Hamilton East - Stoney Creek feels justified in imposing his religious beliefs on other.


How is it imposing, I'm sure people have told him so far on how they feel about it. Stoney Creek is a lot different than TO, we are not on our way to creating our own Gay Pride Parade. I'm sure if the subject comes up again if he is elected we'll let him know how we feel. 

Canada in general imposes Christian beliefs on society, last time I checked all religion based paid holidays are Christian holidays, maybe they should take those away to keep from imposing on us then?

I personally don't share his view, but as I said before I have to vote on what effects me, and this doesn't, so it isn't a major factor in voting for or against him.


----------



## Jeepdude (Mar 3, 2005)

*Representing...*

There's a big difference between "representing the will of my constituents" and "as a practising Catholic I personally will vote"...

Can't suck and blow at the same time, chump. You either represent the consituents and vote accordingly, or vote according to your personal conviction. Per the letter...which is it?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> I got this from my local Conservative:


I think that in his case the point is moot. He never had a chance of winning or even coming close. I have to say I am glad he will loose.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Can't suck and blow at the same time, chump. You either represent the consituents and vote accordingly, or vote according to your personal conviction. Per the letter...which is it?


I disagree... by that logic no candidate would have any platform or policies at all. This person is telling people his position before the election and they can vote for or against him as they choose. Do you want convictionless MPs who won't do anything before consulting an opinion poll? If so, you have a clear choice...


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

How about, in all fairness, asking how the liberal candidates will vote seeing how many of them are also opposed to ssm. 

BTW, get over it, the Tories are heading for a win, there will be a free vote and then it will be settled one way or another.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> I think that in his case the point is moot. He never had a chance of winning or even coming close. I have to say I am glad he will loose.


Why you know something we don't? Or is this another case of Liberals trying to bribe their way into office?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Why you know something we don't? Or is this another case of Liberals trying to bribe their way into office?


Your riding is a two way horse race... Valeri vs. Marston.

The PC support is nominal at best in that riding. Last election the PC's ran a distant third (10 000 votes) behind the Liberals and NDP (both getting around 18 000 votes).

Nothing has substantially changed in your riding to indicate anything different this time around. I drove through Hamilton beach yesterday and up Centennial and down Highway 8... I saw signs for both the Liberals and NDP not a single sign for the Conservatives.

If you think I am wrong feel free to lay a wager with me. I am that confident that Hamilton East-Stoney creek is going either Liberal or NDP (I will predict that the NDP will squeak by here).

So in the end... I am happy that Frank is going to loose... One less vote against same sex marriage


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> How about, in all fairness, asking how the liberal candidates will vote seeing how many of them are also opposed to ssm.
> 
> BTW, get over it, the Tories are heading for a win, there will be a free vote and then it will be settled one way or another.


Get over it? Um... no. It has been stated that people's rights will be revoked. It may not affect you personally, but it might affect your children or your grandchildren. If this is indeed how it will be played, believe me it will not be settled. There is a large percentage of the population that is in support of same-sex marriage, many of whom will not give up.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

singingcrow said:


> There is a large percentage of the population that is in support of same-sex marriage, many of whom will not give up.


And there is a larger percentage of the population that is NOT in support of same-sex marriage, many of whom will not give up.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> And there is a larger percentage of the population that is NOT in support of same-sex marriage, many of whom will not give up.


So Sinc... tell us, how do they explain to their children that they are in favour of removing the rights of individuals, now defined under law, from being able to marry others?

If you are one of those people, how do you explain it to your children and grand children?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

singingcrow said:


> Get over it? Um... no. It has been stated that people's rights will be revoked. It may not affect you personally, but it might affect your children or your grandchildren.


If we tolerate this, wonder what will be next?

I don't understand the bigotry of some. Does the fact that a segment of the population asking for equal rights really bother you that much? 
How does SSM affect you personally? In most cases it will not. 
Just because "in your day" it was not done is not a reason to stop it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> If we tolerate this, wonder what will be next?


Exactly... where do they stop? Will my marriage be rendered null and void because we are not the same religion or even the same race?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Exactly... where do they stop? Will my marriage be rendered null and void because we are not the same religion or even the same race?


What are you talking about? You are taking this well beyond reason.

You ignored my basic statements and questions in the previous thread.

The fact is nobody is advocating a loss of rights.

The government doesn't have the right to decide who can get married. The courts already decided this. The government only has the ability to recognize marriage. They can recognize a traditional marriage or they could recognize a marriage as being a same sex union. Both marriages would have equal rights.

The courts will have the final say on any new legislation in any case.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

SINC said:


> And there is a larger percentage of the population that is NOT in support of same-sex marriage, many of whom will not give up.


It's obvious you have never had to experience discrimination. If your granddaughter came to you crying because she wasn't allowed to get married, even though she and the entire family had dreamed of this day her whole life, would it then make you realise how you have helped to hurt millions of people?

Discrimination hurts.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The fact is nobody is advocating a loss of rights.


Evidently you have never seen the charter, nor read it... Here I will spell it out for you.

_ 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. _

Failing to allow two people to marry based solely on their gender is contrary to this clause in the Charter. End of story.



Vandave said:


> The government doesn't have the right to decide who can get married. The courts already decided this. The government only has the ability to recognize marriage. They can recognize a traditional marriage or they could recognize a marriage as being a same sex union. Both marriages would have equal rights.


It is not the same. Did you not sign the marriage certificate when you got married? Did you not understand that you were entering into a legal binding contract with the other person? 

Do you not understand that the act of marrying is covered under laws (provincial laws) in Canada?



Vandave said:


> The courts will have the final say on any new legislation in any case.


The Charter, the courts and parliament have already had their say. The bill became law on July 20, 2005. After being passed by the Senate, the same-sex marriage legislation received royal assent as Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, acting in her role as deputy governor general, signed it into law.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave, the courts have also clearly said that equal but not the same is not, in fact, equal. You may disagree with that, but that is also an issue that would have to be surmounted by way of the notwithstanding clause, should a government choose at this stage to go the British route.

The ruling in question is from the Provincial level (Ontario, for sure, and maybe elsewhere), but because the Federal government at the time chose not to appeal, and the window for appeal has closed, which court issued the ruling is no longer relevant. Another peculiarity of our system.

Again, I understand the point you are making - that as far as you (and many) are concerned, equal but under a different name is not discrimination. Unfortunately, at least one Provincial court disagreed with you, and no appeal was ever made the Supremes, and cannot be made at this stage, as I understand the system.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> So Sinc... tell us, how do they explain to their children that they are in favour of removing the rights of individuals, now defined under law, from being able to marry others?
> 
> If you are one of those people, how do you explain it to your children and grand children?





singingcrow said:


> It's obvious you have never had to experience discrimination. If your granddaughter came to you crying because she wasn't allowed to get married, even though she and the entire family had dreamed of this day her whole life, would it then make you realise how you have helped to hurt millions of people?


Sigh. Again:

Marriage = one man and one woman

Union = two persons of the same sex

Two distinctly different things that require definition.

And I can assure you that if my granddaughter dreamed of being married her whole life, she would have been educated by the family what the definition of marriage was and it would not be an issue. If she chose the other alternative and wanted a union, I would be fine with that too.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC, that is YOUR definition of marriage.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, that is YOUR definition of marriage.


Yes sir, never said it wasn't, but poll after poll says it is the definition wanted by a majority of Canadians as well.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Evidently you have never seen the charter, nor read it... Here I will spell it out for you.
> 
> _ 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. _
> 
> Failing to allow two people to marry based solely on their gender is contrary to this clause in the Charter. End of story.


Funny, but it seems you haven't read the Charter either. It doesn't cover sexual orientation. That's been read into it by the courts after it was specifically left out when the Charter was introduced.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> Funny, but it seems you haven't read the Charter either. It doesn't cover sexual orientation. That's been read into it by the courts after it was specifically left out when the Charter was introduced.


Gender my friend covers it... Supreme Court seems to agree with me.

As a matter of fact... it is even more explicit in that they used the word sex and not gender. 

If you don't understand this, then how would you deal with someone is transgendered on this issue?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yes sir, never said it wasn't, but poll after poll says it is the definition wanted by a majority of Canadians as well.



I'm sure the majority of Canadian also wanted the Japanese interned during WWII... that still does not make right or acceptable.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yes sir, never said it wasn't, but poll after poll says it is the definition wanted by a majority of Canadians as well.


Please support your statement with any evidence that your opinion represents "the majority" in Canada. The following links show you are demonstrably not correct:

EKOS poll from January 2005: 
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homssmpoll05.htm

Ipsos-Reid poll:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1097079996511_16?s_name=&no_ads=

The CTV.ca story is particularly interesting for this tidbit:

---
"Since June of 1999, overall conceptual numbers have not changed," John Wright, senior vice-president of Ipsos-Reid, told CTV.ca. One thing has changed, he said. "While certain people could conceptually agree there should be a union of two individuals, what they was having a hard time accepting was the role of the word 'marriage.'

"Wright said in a similarly worded question in August 2003, 'we had opposition to the word 'marriage' being used in a same-sex union at 37 per cent.' That is now up to 45 per cent opposition."
---

Once again, SINC, please show how you came to the conclusion that your opinion is the majority one. Otherwise, stop pretending that you represent the majority of Canadians on this issue, because you don't -- nor can you substantiate your claim of support by the majority for your view.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Exactly... where do they stop? Will my marriage be rendered null and void because we are not the same religion or even the same race?


This can be looked at the other way, where will it stop will people want to marry animals, multiple partners? How is this infringing any rights? So you don't have a legal document that says you are married, I can't get a WPGA touring card. And its not like they are busting down doors and forcing people to be heterosexual.

As for my children/grandchildren I'm sure they'll understand that if they were to be homosexual that marriage is just not allowed. Plus I think we have graver things to be worried about for our children/grandchildren then SSM.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mac Yak said:


> Once again, SINC, please show how you came to the conclusion that your opinion is the majority one. Otherwise, stop pretending that you represent the majority of Canadians on this issue, because you don't -- nor can you substantiate your claim of support by the majority for your view.


Easy:

A poll finds 55 per cent of Canadians favour a Commons free vote on the marriage issue.

More than half the 2,013 adults surveyed in the poll -- 55 per cent -- said they favour a free vote on the divisive issue, as Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has promised. 

http://www.lfpress.com/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=116314&x=articles&s=elections

And by the way, I would appreciate you not telling me to stop expressing my opinion. I have as much right to my opinion as you do for yours, and in my opinion, I AM in the majority of Canadians. Disagree all you will, but no orders please.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> This can be looked at the other way, where will it stop will people want to marry animals, multiple partners? How is this infringing any rights? So you don't have a legal document that says you are married, I can't get a WPGA touring card. And its not like they are busting down doors and forcing people to be heterosexual.


Well animals aren't people so the Charter doesn't really cover them does it? As for multiple partners... that may come up. In some societies this is perfectly acceptable, personally I think that relationship between two people is enough of a challenge. 

As for the WPGA example... nobody is asking admittance to the girls locker room so I fail to see the analogy here.

And nobody is holding a gun to someone's head telling them to be heterosexual... they are just say "move to the back of the bus".



JumboJones said:


> As for my children/grandchildren I'm sure they'll understand that if they were to be homosexual that marriage is just not allowed.


You think you're kids will understand? When they ask why it is not aloud tell us the reason you will give them.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I AM in the majority of Canadians.


And now, SINC has started to root for the Cons by using sophist arguments.

A government of mob rule over the rights and freedoms of individuals there SINC?


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> This can be looked at the other way, where will it stop will people want to marry animals, multiple partners? How is this infringing any rights?


You can't marry animals for the same reason you can't marry kids: there is no informed consent there. As for multiple partners, there are people in this country already living this way who *believe* they are bound to do so because of their religious convictions. How does this way of living infringe on yours? 



JumboJones said:


> So you don't have a legal document that says you are married, I can't get a WPGA touring card.


If you're a man, you can't get an LPGA card, no. But if you are a male, you can get your PGA card, or your CanTour card, or the European Tour, or the Asian Tour... you could even get a sex change and try to become the first of them to attempt to get an LPGA card. Plus you're also welcome to make your living in other ways, and you can pretty much play golf at most any course on Earth -- as long as you can pay. So you have plenty of choices there. 

Not being able to get a marriage licence is far more important and has everyday impacts on people. Why, for instance, is it OK for spouses of heterosexuals to benefit from health and pension plans, but not partners in same-sex relationships? Don't they all pay into those plans equally? Succession rights is another significant matter. At one time, the law didn't recognize married couples and same-sex partners in the same way on this. The Supreme Court of Canada saw what three other countries have also recognized: it's wrong to discriminate on the basis sexual orientation -- and the principle applies to marriage, too. 

So it's a little different from not being able to play professional golf on a tour of your choice.



JumboJones said:


> And its not like they are busting down doors and forcing people to be heterosexual.


Right. So there have never been any sham marriages, and everyone knew from the beginning that Rock Hudson was gay, right?  



JumboJones said:


> As for my children/grandchildren I'm sure they'll understand that if they were to be homosexual that marriage is just not allowed.


You're "sure" they'll "understand" it's not "allowed"? Four countries allow it now -- including the one you apparently live in. Are you sure you're following along here?



JumboJones said:


> Plus I think we have graver things to be worried about for our children/grandchildren then SSM.


On this point, I agree with you. It's time to move on, instead of trying to retract progress. It's pointless to "un-ring" the wedding bells now.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> And now, SINC has started to root for the Cons by using sophist arguments.
> 
> A government of mob rule over the rights and freedoms of individuals there SINC?



He never even attempted to respond to my previous comment...

_I'm sure the majority of Canadian also wanted the Japanese interned during WWII... that still does not make right or acceptable._

Clearly what the mob says is right... and if you don't agree with the mob, well too bad for you. Great attitude boys... bring on the Conservatives.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mac Yak said:


> On this point, I agree with you. It's time to move on, instead of trying to retract progress.


So why even bring back SSM issue to the forefront?
Progress had been made....


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

SINC said:


> Easy:
> 
> A poll finds 55 per cent of Canadians favour a Commons free vote on the marriage issue.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this.



SINC said:


> And by the way, I would appreciate you not telling me to stop expressing my opinion. I have as much right to my opinion as you do for yours, and in my opinion, I AM in the majority of Canadians. Disagree all you will, but no orders please.


I never asked you to stop expressing your opinion. I clearly said that if you say your opinion is the majority, show why you believe this. If you couldn't back it up with the most measly scrap of evidence, I said you should stop suggesting your opinion is the majority, especially in light of the sources I previously presented.

Now you have done so: you have presented the most measly scrap of evidence to back up your opinion. Thanks again.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So why even bring back SSM issue to the forefront?
> Progress had been made....


I'm not suggesting revisiting the issue.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Sure and I say again where does it stop?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html

Why is it that society accepts religious views when it only affects them in a possitive mannor like say Christamas or Easter, but when it comes to their views on Abortion or SSM all hell breaks lose and people are all of a sudden being oppressed. 

Sometimes things need to go backwards in order to move forwards, and this is just one thing that the Conservative believe this country needs to re-evaluate.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Sure and I say again where does it stop?
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/woman-marries-dolphin/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html
> 
> ...


The marriage isn't legal. From the flippin' article:

"...she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing..."

She's in love with a dolphin. She "marries" it. Wonderful. Have a nice life.

Again, how does this impact you and your life? How does this affect the legality of same-sex marriage? What rights does this take away from you?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

How does X-mas affect me in a positive manner? Really?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mac Yak said:


> I never asked you to stop expressing your opinion. I clearly said that if you say your opinion is the majority, show why you believe this. If you couldn't back it up with the most measly scrap of evidence, I said you should stop suggesting your opinion is the majority, especially in light of the sources I previously presented.





Mac Yak said:


> Otherwise, stop pretending that you represent the majority of Canadians on this issue, because you don't -- nor can you substantiate your claim of support by the majority for your view.


That's odd, I thought I clearly read "stop" in that second quote. Sorry, must be my bad eyesight.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> Modern social theory, like modern political theory, developed only when society was given a naturalistic instead of religious explanation


R.H. Tawney

SINC, your eyesight (or something else) may be getting old and tired:
"*stop pretending that you represent the majority of Canadians* on this issue"


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Sure and I say again where does it stop?





JumboJones said:


> Why is it that society accepts religious views when it only affects them in a possitive mannor like say Christamas or Easter, but when it comes to their views on Abortion or SSM all hell breaks lose and people are all of a sudden being oppressed.


Care to explain that logic again? I take it you don't know anyone of a different culture or religion and have had this conversation with them have you? So why aren't you celebrating Diwali? And where was your menorah this year?

Do you not understand that Canada is a MULTI cultural society? Are you not aware of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?



JumboJones said:


> Sometimes things need to go backwards in order to move forwards, and this is just one thing that the Conservative believe this country needs to re-evaluate.


Ahhhh I see. So what's next? You going to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to full term? How do you propose to do that? When do you plan to nullify my marriage because my wife isn't christian or Caucasian? So when do I expect you to force my child into Sunday School?

Seriously, I am trying to be tolerant of other peoples views, but you can't honestly believe what you just said.

If in fact you represent Conservative beliefs... everyone who values personal freedoms, equality and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms needs to vote anything BUT Conservative.

Jimbo... your mission is to tell as many people as possible that what you just said is what Canada needs and the Conservatives are the ones to do it. Congrats... you just came up with the best Conservative slogan to date...

*things need to go backwards in order to move forwards*


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> How does X-mas affect me in a positive manner? Really?


Excuse to booze up and tell your family how disappointed you are in them? No wait, that's Festivus.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

What legal religious statitory holidays are there? If Canada as it stands now NOT impose religion onto society then why doesn't all of Canada have other religious holidays off?

And how is going backwards not a part of the way things work in the world, we learn from our past. New ideas come from past ideas. So do you think that if we relook at things like the young offenders act and gun laws its imposing on our already existing rights?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> R.H. Tawney
> 
> SINC, your eyesight (or something else) may be getting old and tired:
> "*stop pretending that you represent the majority of Canadians* on this issue"


Yep, stop pretending, and by posting I am in a majority view he says I am pretending therefore "stop posting" was his wish, and I won't. What's so hard to understand about that AS?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yep, stop pretending, and by posting I am in a majority view he says I am pretending therefore "stop posting" was his wish, and I won't. What's so hard to understand about that AS?


Logic check!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> What legal religious statitory holidays are there? If Canada as it stands now NOT impose religion onto society then why doesn't all of Canada have other religious holidays off?


You go ask a Muslim, Jew, Sikh, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist (the list goes on) how they feel about Christmas and Easter. You have only highlighted and increasing contentious issue. 

The fact is the those holiday are a remnant of a past history in this culture being originally founded by a Christian base. 

Why do you think the lords prayer is no longer used in schools?



JumboJones said:


> And how is going backwards not a part of the way things work in the world, we learn from our past. New ideas come from past ideas. So do you think that if we relook at things like the young offenders act and gun laws its imposing on our already existing rights?


You look to the past to understand your mistakes... Otherwise what you are saying is that Women should no longer get the vote, Blacks should be treated as property, killing Natives is acceptable, imprisoning the Japanese is a good thing.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yep, stop pretending, and by posting I am in a majority view he says I am pretending therefore "stop posting" was his wish, and I won't. What's so hard to understand about that AS?


I had asked you to back up your opinion on this matter in a previous thread, before the Sun Media/Leger poll came out last Dec. 15. You didn't have this poll result then, and you ingnored my request at that time. Now this poll is out, and you have backed your argument. I never said: "Stop posting." I said: "If you can't put up, then shut up." You put up. I acknowledged it. I *thanked* you. Anything hard to understand there, SINC?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mac Yak said:


> I had asked you to back up your opinion on this matter in a previous thread, before the Sun Media/Leger poll came out last Dec. 15. You didn't have this poll result then, and you ingnored my request at that time. Now this poll is out, and you have backed your argument.


The survey only says that "55 per cent of Canadians favour a Commons free vote on the marriage issue". It said nothing on their views on SSM. 
Details are not a strong suit of some....

To me, the issue has been put to rest - as MacDoc said what else shall we reverse? Women voting?

In the US, the number one enemy is "a God-fearing, teetotal, anti-gay traditionalist who believed that a woman's place was in the home and crime should be punished severely"*
Ah the parallels are so ironic...


* Francis Wheen


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Hey, SINC...if you get lucky AS will become seriously cheesed at you and threaten to ignore all of your replies. 

(Keep your fingers crosed old buddy! Worked for me!)


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> The fact is the those holiday are a remnant of a past history in this culture being originally founded by a Christian base.


As is the traditional view of marriage.



da_jonesy said:


> Why do you think the lords prayer is no longer used in schools?


Public schools yes.



da_jonesy said:


> You look to the past to understand your mistakes... Otherwise what you are saying is that Women should no longer get the vote, Blacks should be treated as property, killing Natives is acceptable, imprisoning the Japanese is a good thing.


Those are a far cry from denying someone of a marriage license. And obviously some people in this country believe that what happened with the SSM situation was a mistake and needs to be relooked at, as should many things.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> And obviously some people in this country believe that what happened with the SSM situation was a mistake and needs to be relooked at, as should many things.


If you go by the survey 55% said there should be a free vote. It does not say about re-looked, nor does it say SSM is a mistake.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> If you go by the survey 55% said there should be a free vote. It does not say about re-looked, nor does it say SSM is a mistake.


If one stops to think, it only stands to reason that the 55% oppose the current definition. Those with no problem with the current situation, would not be calling for a free vote, but would rather see the status quo continue.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC, you are making a leap of faith there, and false logic. Obfuscation of the question and it's conclusion to try and justify your goal is not something I agree with.

The question of SSM has been answered for me, with rights given. This is not a matter of status quo. 

The numbers from http://www.religioustolerance.org/homssmpoll05.htm show that, yes, this is a divisive issue. But this is an issue of human rights, one that should be independent from the whims and popular tendencies.

Sidenote:
The main question was: "Do you support or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry." Nationally, the results were:
42% were in favor of same-sex marriages. 
40% were opposed. This is an decrease from 41% in 2003-AUG.
17% were neither in favor nor opposed.
1% gave no answer.

An alternate way of expressing this same data is:
59% of Canadians either favor allowing same-sex marriage or don't care.
40% are opposed.
1% gave no answer.

As expected:

Geographical location is a factor:

Quebec subjects were the most in favor of same-sex marriage at 52%.
Alberta were the most opposed, at 50%.
Ontario was close to Alberta at 48%.

Age is a major factor. SSM supporters totaled:	
59% of subjects aged 18 to 24,	
47% aged 25 to 44,	
37% aged 45 to 64,	
22% aged 65 years of age and older!

Sex is a factor.
48% of women support SSM
36% of men support SSM.

SINC from the above that would make you 500% opposed to SSM


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Age is a major factor. SSM supporters totaled:
> 59% of subjects aged 18 to 24,
> 47% aged 25 to 44,
> 37% aged 45 to 64,
> 22% aged 65 years of age and older!


This is one of the most important stats here in my mind. Just as today we can wonder why only a few short decades ago the majority were opposed to inter-racial marriage and now we can have a party leader (Layton) who is in one, people in the future will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. Time is not on the side of the dinosaurs.

I'm proud to be among the 37% in my age group. Human rights are not negotiable.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I knew two couples in my home city in Saskatchewan in the 50s who shared the very same backgrounds as Layton/Chow. It was not an issue to me then, nor is it now.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

As I've argued before, I support the right to same sex marriage but I believe the government made a serious mistake in not trying to build a parliamentary consensus around the issue. It looks like we are going to have a free vote on same sex marriage and it seems possible, even probable, that the Conservatives and some Liberals will end it. With that in mind, I have suggestions for those who support same sex marriage:

1. Cool the rhetoric! The vast majority of the 40% of Canadians who disagree with us (according to the before mentioned poll) are not bigots and calling them names will polarize them... not win them to our side. Remember that the motto of the man behind the Canadian Charter of Rights was "Reason over passion".

2. If the Conservatives win on Monday, write to your MP on Tuesday and tell them you support same sex marriage and ask them to represent your opinion in the upcoming free vote. If your MP is Conservative, tell them how thrilled you are to be rid of the Liberals... but advise them not to throw the baby out with the bathwater! And copy your letter to Stephen Harper.

3. Don't give up. The opposition is well organized and vocal... but the demographics show that we will win this battle for good sooner rather than later.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks for that post F-N. 

I get tired of denying I am a bigot. 

Your advice is sound, but you just may be surprised on the outcome of point 3.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Sinc,

No thanks required! I see that we are both approaching our fifth anniversary on EhMac, although you have been considerably more productive. Happy Anniversary!

Sinc wrote:


> Your advice is sound, but you just may be surprised on the outcome of point 3.


Perhaps. According to Kurt Vonnegut:


> History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again.


In this case though, I'll side with Andy Warhol:


> They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.


I intend to make sure I'm not surprised...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Pretty good line by Andy Wharhol there F-N.

That line also works both ways. Touche!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I get tired of denying I am a bigot.


Definition: noun: A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own .

So what's YOUR definition of marriage again?



SINC, I have to ask.
Are you tired of DENYING that you ARE a bigot
or
Are you tired of people accusing you of being a bigot, when you are not.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, I have to ask.
> Are you tired of DENYING that you ARE a bigot
> or
> Are you tired of people accusing you of being a bigot, when you are not.


Sometimes what you say is not what you mean. Actually after reading how I worded that post, I am glad you asked AR.

The answer is: I am tired of people accusing me of being a bigot, when I am not.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify my position.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

ArtistSeries writes:


> SINC, I have to ask.
> Are you tired of DENYING that you ARE a bigot
> or
> Are you tired of people accusing you of being a bigot, when you are not.


What are you trying to accomplish here? Continue what you are doing and at best, you will win a Pyrrhic victory. If you want the cause of same sex marriage to triumph then you should start thinking of ways to convince Sinc and people like him. Because you won't be able to sway the real bigots. All you are doing now is making that task more difficult.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Your are correct Sinc.

Just because you feel that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a women doesn't mean you are a bigot. It means you are very narrow minded.

What are you defending?

Britney Spears' two-day marriage?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/01/05/britney.spears.wedding.ap/

5 minute Las Vegas weddings?
http://www.weddingslasvegas.com/

A 40% divorce rate?
http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html

Spousal abuse?
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/spouseafs.html

I guess all these things should only be left to a man and woman. That is the sanctity of marriage.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Your are correct Sinc.


Actually it's "you're correct SINC".

And I know I am.

And you're welcome.

And Fink-Nottle gets it!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Your are correct Sinc.
> 
> Just because you feel that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a women doesn't mean you are a bigot. It means you are very narrow minded.


I just think it means you have a different opinion.

The people who are throwing the word bigot around are making a lot of assumptions about the opinions of others, which ironically, is a bigoted approach.

Most people in this debate support same sex rights. The debate is really about what to call same sex marriage. Personally, I believe in an inclusive society and that government should encourage that message. Therefore, I think the wording should be the same.

On a side note, many opponents of same sex marriage were laughed at when posing the question of where to draw the line. For example, they asked what would stop a human from marrying an animal. Anyways, it happened: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3191923,00.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I don't think SINC will ever change his views on SSM (or should I say evolve?).
And, I would not want to, he's entitled to his opinion and I respect that. 

The bigger picture is basic rights in Canada. 
Revisiting SSM, the way Harpernites would like, is regressive. post coitum omne animal triste est


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

(deleted post)


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> ...
> 1. Cool the rhetoric!
> ...
> 2. If the Conservatives win on Monday, write to your MP on Tuesday and tell them you support same sex marriage and ask them to represent your opinion in the upcoming free vote. If your MP is Conservative, tell them how thrilled you are to be rid of the Liberals... but advise them not to throw the baby out with the bathwater! And copy your letter to Stephen Harper.


A great post overall, I've just focussed on a couple parts. Thanks for the valuable contribution and sound advice.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

For those who consider [Edit: cut 'ing'] this an important voting issue, one way or the other, this site may help:

http://www.votemarriagecanada.ca/canada/candidates.html


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> As is the traditional view of marriage.


And you still haven't addressed the fact that if we go back to "traditional" definition of marriage that my marriage isn't valid because my wife and I aren't of the same race or religion.

When we got married we had to have two ceremonies, a civil one and an East Indian one. The reason was that 15 years ago when we got married, East Indian ceremonies and priests were NOT recognized as a legal marriage ceremony. Thankfully they are now and people don't have to have two ceremonies in situations like ours.



JumboJones said:


> Public schools yes.


And don't think for a second that the changing demographics of Canada due to immigration won't put additional pressure on statutory holidays like Christmas and Easter



JumboJones said:


> Those are a far cry from denying someone of a marriage license. And obviously some people in this country believe that what happened with the SSM situation was a mistake and needs to be relooked at, as should many things.


See above regarding my own marriage experience.

As for some people believing that SSM is a mistake... equal rights under the Charter is NOT a mistake.

Do you have any other Charter rights that should be repealed because you don't "like" them. 

PLEASE tell me how SSM affects your life if you aren't gay?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> PLEASE tell me how SSM affects your life if you aren't gay?


It makes people feel "icky" thinking about it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> It makes people feel "icky" thinking about it?


My bet is that there is some truth to that AS. Not by me, but yes, surely by some.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> ... there is a larger percentage of the population that is NOT in support of same-sex marriage, many of whom will not give up.
> ... poll after poll says it is the definition wanted by a majority of Canadians...





MAK YAK said:


> Please support your statement with any evidence that your opinion represents "the majority" in Canada.





SINC said:


> ...A poll finds 55 per cent of Canadians favour a Commons *free vote* on the marriage issue.


Uunintended candour! "Free vote" = "NOT in support of same-sex marriage".

SINC has acknowledged that "free vote" is merely code for advancing his, and his good friend Mike's, anti-gay agenda.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> Uunintended candour! "Free vote" = "NOT in support of same-sex marriage".
> 
> SINC has acknowledged that "free vote" is merely code for advancing his, and his good friend Mike's, anti-gay agenda.


Flawed logic.  

Those who agree with the current marriage laws would have no reason to want to force a free vote, lest they lose. They have what they want now.

So, it follows that that 55% in favour of the free vote are opposed to current marriage definitions.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> PLEASE tell me how SSM affects your life if you aren't gay?


That's my point, does it affect you either way? Probably not, so why is it influencing the way you vote? 

I have nothing against SSM, and it doesn't affect me if it stays or goes, and that is why it doesn't influence the way I vote. I have to vote on what affects my life not theirs and there are way more worthy causes than whether or not a gay couple can get married.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> That's my point, does it affect you either way? Probably not, so why is it influencing the way you vote?
> 
> I have nothing against SSM, and it doesn't affect me if it stays or goes, and that is why it doesn't influence the way I vote. I have to vote on what affects my life not theirs and there are way more worthy causes than whether or not a gay couple can get married.


I guess we vote differently. Most of what I vote for/against is my opinion of what is best for the country.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Flawed logic.
> 
> Those who agree with the current marriage laws would have no reason to want to force a free vote, lest they lose. They have what they want now.
> 
> So, it follows that that 55% in favour of the free vote are opposed to current marriage definitions.


Like I said, you are acknowledging that "free vote" is merely code for advancing your anti-gay agenda.

If it was open and honest, the Harper Reform Party wouldn't be saying, "we're not anti-gay, we just want to have a proper free vote". Harper, and you, advocate a position that demeans and oppresses a minority, and puts your own unsavoury agenda ahead of the Charter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I am as far from anti-gay as you could possibly imagine. It is possible to hold beliefs in traditional marriage without being anti-gay in case you had not considered the possibility.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> I am as far from anti-gay as you could possibly imagine. It is possible to hold beliefs in traditional marriage without being anti-gay in case you had not considered the possibility.


I guess your imagination is better than mine. You will have to reconcile your perceived gay friendly (or more likely, gay tolerant) views with your strident, relentless advocacy of a position that is hostile to them.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> I have nothing against SSM, and it doesn't affect me if it stays or goes, and that is why it doesn't influence the way I vote. I have to vote on what affects my life not theirs and there are way more worthy causes than whether or not a gay couple can get married.


I am not black, but I oppose racial discrimination. I am not a Jew but I oppose anti-semitism....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> That's my point, does it affect you either way? Probably not, so why is it influencing the way you vote?
> 
> I have nothing against SSM, and it doesn't affect me if it stays or goes, and that is why it doesn't influence the way I vote. I have to vote on what affects my life not theirs and there are way more worthy causes than whether or not a gay couple can get married.


Because they are in the same boat... having someone else, someone not even involved in their life telling them they can or cannot get married.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> I am not black, but I oppose racial discrimination. I am not a Jew but I oppose anti-semitism....


Thank you... well put.


----------

