# Conservatives re-open SSM 'debate'



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

As I've said before, you can trust the conservatives...

... to do what's in their best interests.


Here we go again:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/28/same-sex.html


Hopefully this will be defeated quickly, so we can finally be done with this completely one-sided 'debate' and drive a stake into its heart so that it doesn't keep coming back to life whenever the conservatives want to rouse the support of the religious fundamentalists.

cheers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think re-opening it is good for both sides. There was a feeling among some that the legislation was railroaded through the first time. This both fulfills an election promise and will put the issue to bed...so to speak.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Why open it? It passed the first time, end of story.

The wingnuts and SINC will never want this issue put to bed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A simple renaming of the descriptive term for same-sex unions would satisfy most who object to the current corrupted definition of "marriage".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A simple dumping of the term marriage entirely from the legal lexicon would solve the problem completely.

This is just pandering to the RR.
You know the "2 minutes to get the PM on the phone" crowd. The "we want a theocracy" bunch with daddy Harper leading us to the promised land. 

This Con gov is setting itself up to get turfed to wee corners of irrelevancy come next election.

Hell the GREENS did better than the Cons in the London by-election. Now this political pandering nonsense wasting legislative time while GHG legislation sits neglected.
Bozos


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> A simple dumping of the term marriage entirely from the legal lexicon would solve the problem completely.
> 
> This is just pandering to the RR.
> You know the "2 minutes to get the PM on the phone" crowd. The "we want a theocracy" bunch with daddy Harper leading us to the promised land.
> ...


There are just as many Canadians who hold the opposite views to yours who believe it is thinkers who hold opinions like those above who are the real Bozos.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> A simple renaming of the descriptive term for same-sex unions would satisfy most who object to the current corrupted definition of "marriage".


Sinc, sadly we have gone over the language issue and it still hasn't sunk in. The word marriage is commonly used to describe the joining of more than a man and a woman (i.e. the marriage of two companies, a marriage of blues and gospel, the marriage of food and wine).

This isn't a corrupted definition... it is the correct usage of the word. You are in journalism, I find it sad that you continue to put forth this incorrect argument.

I have read somewhere that the Conservatives are facing an uphill battle in this case that they believe they will (thankfully) lose by about 30 votes.

While I think this upcoming vote is nothing but a distraction from real issues, it saddens me deeply that anyone in our country are seriously thinking about taking away rights as granted under the Charter from individuals.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Still out of touch eh Sinc.....bad as Harper.



> 2006-JUN-19: Environics Research Group issues poll results:
> 
> Their poll indicates that Canadians are increasingly accepting of same-sex marriage and are overwhelmingly opposed to reopening the matter in Parliament.
> 
> ...


http://www.religioustolerance.org/homssmpoll06.htm

Not even a majority of the Cons are interested.
It's a done deal. It's the law. 

But Harper....nor you it seems.....appears to get it.
Con priorities are so incredibly stupid - wrangle over SSM which is a done deal and yet ignore even the oil companies, the rest of the plan and the huge majority of Canadians that want action NOW on GHG and caps put in place NOW.

Canada sits 51st out of 56 on climate change action.

But Harper wants to question our world leading Charter and play dinosaur on GHG control.
Con minority.......soon an embarrassing footnote in Canadian history.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Doc, I know you are upset about GHGs, but please don't bring your gas into unrelated topics, OK?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

If we must do this stupidity again, let's get it over and done with quickly.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Doc, I know you are upset about GHGs, but please don't bring your gas into unrelated topics, OK?


Geez MF, haven't you yet figured out that MacDoc blames everything on GHG? Pick a subject and GHG is the culprit, in this case under the covers of the marriage bed.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Brainstrained said:


> If we must do this stupidity again, let's get it over and done with quickly.


The only stupidity is pandering to the RR who feel that their hapless lifes are somehow elevated by their gay phobia.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It merely points out how wrong Con and YOUR priorities are.
In my mind and in that of the majority of Canadians.

This is governance by idiocy and dogma and it's deteriorating very quickly.

Once more the diversionary comments when you can't make a cogent argument.

Bringing this to parliament now is pandering and stupidity period and is totally out of step with the Canadian electorate priorities.
It's even out of step with the conservative constituency.
Just plain stupid move.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Doc, you just want the return of the naturally ruling dogma. You know little of my priorities since I've only spoken out on a handful of issues.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's opinions like MacDoc's that would have us back in the Dark Ages.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Damn Cons and their hidden agenda! 

Seems to me its just fulfilling an election promise. One that everyone that voted for them (or against them) was well aware of. Imagine the gall of them to actually do what they promised during the campaign. 
If Canadians support gay marriage as you say, you have nothing to worry about.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> It's opinions like MacDoc's that would have us back in the Dark Ages.


Care to expand on that? 

Hello Pot? Kettle here...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Damn Cons and their hidden agenda!
> 
> Seems to me its just fulfilling an election promise. One that everyone that voted for them (or against them) was well aware of. Imagine the gall of them to actually do what they promised during the campaign.
> If Canadians support gay marriage as you say, you have nothing to worry about.
> ...


I can understand the fulfilling an election promise thing, however... SSM is the law of the land. It is a right as defined under the Charter. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court. At what point can we finally say to a bigoted minority... enough is enough? I would say that the word IS final and the issue should not be revisited.

If this issue gets revisited then what is to stop any minority from raising other issues such a woman's right to vote, or interracial marriage, etc...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

This is good.

a) The Conservatives are fulfilling an election promise.
b) When this is all said and done, the two major political parties will have solidified same-sex marriage.

This is nothing but good. No future Liberals or Conservatives will want to go back and say "Oh, we change our mind on that issue." It just looks bad.

The only bad thing is that there are still people who think their marriage is less valid because a couple guys down the street are allowed to get married .

*COUGH*SINC*COUGH*

Honestly, I find it shameful that gays can own pets. It makes me having a pet cat mean less to me. They can have jobs too! My job means so little to me now. And amazingly, they can have sex! Sex should be a heterosexual word only!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Care to expand on that?


Rule of the masses by so-called intellectuals.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Rule of the masses by so-called intellectuals.


As opposed to mob rule?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> If this issue gets revisited then what is to stop any minority from raising other issues such a woman's right to vote, or interracial marriage, etc...


Nothing is permanent. It's conceivable that any issue we now take for granted can be revisited. A woman's right to vote encompasses only a tiny sliver of time in the history of the Western world.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

For any woman who doesn't support same-sex marriage, I wonder how she would feel if her right to vote was stripped.

For any black person who doesn't support same-sex marriage, I wonder how he or she would feel if we still had slavery.

For any white male who doesn't support same-sex marriage, I wonder how he would feel...oh hell, white guys have had the free ride since the beginning of time...they just don't want to give it up.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Nothing is permanent. It's conceivable that any issue we now take for granted can be revisited. A woman's right to vote encompasses only a tiny sliver of time in the history of the Western world.


So are you saying that is a good thing? Or are we not striving for a better society?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I don't think he's saying it's good or bad. We are always striving for a better society. Nothing is ever permanent though.

Look at the US "Land Of The Free" how it has degenerated into "Land Of The Patriot Act".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> As opposed to mob rule?


If change keeps being forced upon the populace at the current rate and immoral trends, it is entirely possible. One day people might say enough is enough.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

What immoral trends?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

DJ: Guy's right. I'm only pointing out that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> What immoral trends?


Oh, like house arrest for murder for example.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Oh, like house arrest for murder for example.


So you are saying that SSM is on the same moral scale as murder?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> If change keeps being forced upon the populace at the current rate and immoral trends, it is entirely possible.


...must... resist... Monty Python... outburst....

Dennis: "Ooh, what a give away! Did you hear that? That's what I'm on about...."
Arthur: Shakes Dennis
Dennis: "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Did you see 'im repressing me... you saw it didn't you..."


Cheers


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I don't think a vote against reopening the debate would settle it once in for all. Come the next federal election in 2007, if the Conservatives were to gain even a slim majority would Stephen Harper and the Conservatives break their promise about letting it be settled once and for all?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> What immoral trends?


The ones that keep Maurie Povich busy doing DNA tests everyday.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Oh, like house arrest for murder for example.


What does that have to do with same-sex marriage? Stay on topic.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Stay on topic.


When were you appointed Sherriff? I must have missed the memo?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> When were you appointed Sherriff? I must have missed the memo?


Someone tell Harper, SINC missed the memo....


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> ... wrangle over SSM which is a done deal ...


A lawful marriage in Canada is limited to a relationship exclusively between a man (the husband) and a woman (the wife). 

Neither present-day Canadian judges nor Canadian Members of Parliament are the lawful ultimate authority on the lawful definition of marriage in Canada. 

Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God, not the supremacy of Parliament nor the supremacy of Canadian judges.​


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And you're mythology's chosen interpreter are you??.......say hello to Houdini for me.

You missed your calling by about 400 years. I'm sure the Jesuits or Pilgrms would have loved your certainty.

YOUR problem is youl ive in a secular society under a Charter which IS the law of the land and you are welcome to raise the requisite number of votes at various levels to try and change it.

Until such time as you succeed in changing the Charter......it's a done deal.

Go blather in the closet - that's what your good book says to do.

••

The term marriage could be, should be eliminated as a legal term and then you could handfast around the maypole or break glass or do whatever you like within legal bounds and call it marriage.

But sign on the dotted line as a union and you undertake the rights and responsiblities as set out under law.

KInda easy to see where Harper gets his authoritarian streak.... the RR in home base are full of it.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> A simple renaming of the descriptive term for same-sex unions would satisfy most who object to the current corrupted definition of "marriage".


Seems to me that Nova Scotia did just that and it was found to be a discriminatory act.

Oh! Right! Damned Activist Judges again!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> And you're mythology's chosen interpreter are you??.......say hello to Houdini for me.
> 
> .
> 
> ...


And Doris. 
Seems that the good dpwozney and Stock have similar views on Dinos...


> I am unaware of any evidence or reason for absolutely believing dinosaurs ever existed. The possibility exists they may be a fabrication of nineteenth and twentieth century people possibly pursuing an evolutionary and anti-Bible and anti-Christian agenda.


http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaur.htm#Conclusion

God sure is a rotten bastard to let wingnuts like this on earth...
I guess, I'll be missing the rapture train...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Must be tar sand effluent - I hear it's real bad in the water. Hallucinogenic when inhaled too.
Accounts for the "visions" I guess.

Do you think a train really might come and take them away ??- can I pay for a ticket for one. Happy to donate to such a good cause. ..Imagine....


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> While I think this upcoming vote is nothing but a distraction from real issues,


True dat!


da_jonesy said:


> it saddens me deeply that anyone in our country are seriously thinking about taking away rights as granted under the Charter from individuals.


It saddens me deeply that we continue to waste time on trivial non issues like SSM and navel gazing about Quebec, when China and India are looking to figure out how to help themselves to a thick slice of our bread.


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> SSM is ... a right as defined under the Charter.


According to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, “It is clear that a law that has a discriminatory purpose cannot survive s.15(1) scrutiny”. 

The phrase "without discrimination" in Section 15(1) of the Charter refers back to "every individual", not to "the law".

Section 15(1) states: "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."

The law can, should, and does morally discriminate. For example, male-only and female-only washroom laws morally discriminate on the basis of sex. Male-only and female-only schools, jobs, teams, clubs, areas, accommodations, etc. discriminate based on sex. Birth certificates discriminate based on sex. Sex-based insurance rates discriminate based on sex. Age-based insurance rates discriminate based on age. Age-of-consent laws discriminate based on age. Voting-age laws discriminate based on age. Definitions for words morally discriminate on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability.

Every individual (without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability) is equal before and under the law (which can morally discriminate) and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law (which can morally discriminate).​


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> SSM ... has been upheld by the Supreme Court.


Canadian courts, such as the Ontario Court of Appeal, in Halpern et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al., repeat the false claim made by the so-called "Supreme Court of Canada", in Egan v. Canada [1995], that:

"Sexual orientation is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within the ambit of s. 15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated grounds".

So long as at least one person’s sexual orientation is changeable at acceptable personal costs, the claim made by the so-called “Supreme Court of Canada” is false. Numerous testimonies of people who are no longer homosexual, whose sexual orientations have changed at acceptable personal costs, have discredited this false claim made by Canadian courts. Sexual orientation can be changeable at a personal cost that is very acceptable. Also, religion can be changeable at acceptable personal costs, and religion is listed in Section 15(1).​


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Maybe we "can beat the"* RR outta you also...

* reference to nutbars thinking they can have the "gayness" beaten out of them...


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> YOUR problem is youl ive in a secular society ...


Definitions for "secular", such as "of or relating to worldly things as distinguished from things relating to church and religion", are problematic, specious, and untenable. Nothing in the world can be distinguished from things relating to church and religion. 

Colossians 1:16-17 states that by Jesus Christ were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. 

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3)

Like the concept of "infinity", the concept of a "secular society" is an interesting concept that one can think about, and can write about, but which actually has no basis or foundation in reality.​


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

dpwozney said:


> "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3)
> LEFT]​



His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. He ordains life and death and has power over all things.

He is the first and the last, the visible and the unseen. He has knowledge of all things.
The Koran.​


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

dpwozney said:


> Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God, not the supremacy of Parliament nor the supremacy of Canadian judges.[/LEFT]


This is hogwash! The Charter makes no claim about which God is supreme so your assumption that God hates Gays is based on a a view of God NOT supported by the constitution. How do I know this? The God was never specified and Canada was already officially multicultural when this God crap was put in the charter. Sorry but your argument falls flat. I thank the God I don't believe in every time this kind of thing rears its ugly head. Recognizing the supremacy of God was never meant to be a tool for bigots to use to impinge on the rights of minorities. 
As for changing sexual orientation?
Get real. This is just offensive.

How do I make a puking Smilie?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I'd just like to add that opening this debate again brings all kinds of ugliness to the fore. Now people are calling others bigots (and often rightfully so) again and society is suffering again and the intolerants who would take away what has been won by one of Canada's minorities have brought in this boogy man to stir up hatred and bigotry again so they can lose again. 
How much are we paying to placate the intolerant among us? Why is this a good thing? How many times are the regressives going to do this to our society? When are we going to tell them to f**k off already!

I really resent my taxes going to pay politicians to debate a done deal that is a fractious issue to begin with. Why don't we have a debate on whether inter-racial marriages should be allowed? It would be just as constructive.
          tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> I'd just like to add that opening this debate again brings all kinds of ugliness to the fore. Now people are calling others bigots (and often rightfully so) again and society is suffering again and the intolerants who would take away what has been won by one of Canada's minorities have brought in this boogy man to stir up hatred and bigotry again so they can lose again.
> How much are we paying to placate the intolerant among us? Why is this a good thing? How many times are the regressives going to do this to our society? When are we going to tell them to f**k off already!
> 
> I really resent my taxes going to pay politicians to debate a done deal that is a fractious issue to begin with. Why don't we have a debate on whether inter-racial marriages should be allowed? It would be just as constructive.
> tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp


Wow!

This is one "tolerant" guy that just isn't going to tolerate those intolerant bastards with opposing views to his anymore. All you intolerant people out there, f**k off already and be tolerant like him.

Incase you forget what tolerance is, I've added the definition for a reminder.

tolerant |?täl?r?nt| adjective 1 showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with : we must be tolerant of others | a more tolerant attitude toward other religions.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman is just a typically angry "progressive."


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

dpwozney said:


> Canadian courts, such as the Ontario Court of Appeal, in Halpern et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al., repeat the false claim made by the so-called "Supreme Court of Canada", in Egan v. Canada [1995],​




I'll quote this but my response is in regards to both your responses to me. Unfortunately the cases you are referring to are a number of years old and were dealt with by the Supreme court. In the example of Ontario...

The first legal same-sex marriages performed in Ontario were of Kevin Bourassa to Joe Varnell, and Elaine Vautour to Anne Vautour, by Rev. Brent Hawkes on January 14, 2001. The legality of the marriages was questioned and they were not registered until after June 10, 2003, when the Ontario Court of Appeal in Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General) upheld a lower court ruling which declared that defining marriage in heterosexual-only terms violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This process was repeated in 7 other provinces...

The 1995 case you are referring to is only remotely related to this issue as it has nothing to do with the definition of marriage but how spouse was interpreted by the Old Age Security Act. My guess is that if you do some more digging you will find that this decision will likely be overturned by finding that Old Age Security Age contravenes the Charter. This is not new and examples of this are easy to find.

And FYI...

The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day.

It IS now the law.​


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

dpwozney said:


> Colossians 1:16-17 states that by Jesus Christ were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
> 
> "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3)
> 
> Like the concept of "infinity", the concept of a "secular society" is an interesting concept that one can think about, and can write about, but which actually has no basis or foundation in reality.​


Are you serious? Do you believe in the literal translation of the scriptures then? Do you think that they should be the basis upon which our society functions?


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

martman said:


> The God was never specified and Canada was already officially multicultural when this God ... was put in the charter.


The following three quotes from the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II provide information and insight on the real meaning of the phrase "supremacy of God" in the Charter.

"And as Solomon was anointed king
by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet,
so be thou anointed, blessed, and consecrated Queen
over the Peoples, whom the Lord thy God
hath given thee to rule and govern,
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Amen"

"...that by the assistance of his heavenly grace
you may govern and preserve
the Peoples committed to your charge..." 

"The Lord who hath made you Queen over these Peoples..."

With "God" in "supremacy of God" referred to by "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" the "rule of law" includes the rule of New Testament Christian law. During the coronation of Canada's visible head of state on earth, Queen Elizabeth II promised to the utmost of her power to maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel. These laws of God are found in the New Testament King James Bible which was referred to at her coronation as "the most valuable thing that this world affords".

The word "Peoples" in the above three quotes refers to both Christians and non-Christians; New Testament Christian law applies to both Christians and non-Christians.



martman said:


> Recognizing the supremacy of God was never meant to be a tool ... to use to impinge on the rights of minorities.


The New Testament does not prescribe any specified penalty, punishment, or enforcement for violations of the laws of God before the end of the present church age. 

Freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression are consistent with the teachings of the New Testament. The right to choose to exercise free will to violate the laws of God is a New Testament doctrine. 

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2) 

The commandment in Matthew 7:1-2 is to judge not violations of God's laws along with measures meted out. See also Matthew 13:28-30. 

Nevertheless, both good and evil are to be discerned: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I wonder if I'll be able to have casual sex with Mimi Rogers before the Rapture?


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> This process was repeated in 7 other provinces...


According to Wikipedia, "Same-sex marriage has been legal: ... in the province of Saskatchewan since 5 November 2004; ...".

What was the name of Canada’s constitutional Queen regnant who had executive government and authority of and over Canada when the “Saskatchewan Act” was drafted in 1905?

In 1905, Section 9 of the _British North America Act, 1867_ now called the _Constitution Act, 1867_, stated: “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the *Queen*”.

In 1905, Section 17 stated: “There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the *Queen*, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons”. 

In 1905, Section 91 stated: “It shall be lawful for the *Queen*, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...”.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

dpwozney said:


> The following three quotes from the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II provide information and insight on the real meaning of the phrase "supremacy of God" in the Charter.


No it doesn't! :lmao: 

Please back this up with anything!
:lmao: 

Thanks for the sermon. You can keep it to yourself. I don't believe you.
:clap: :-( :clap:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Martman is just a typically angry "progressive."


Macfury is a typically arrogant "Social Creditist"
What is your point?
Yes I'm pissed off. The rights have been granted they will never be taken away. This issue brings up hostilities and bad feelings and has already been settled but our government has to waste time and money on this issue to appease a SMALL minority who need to express their bigotry in one futile attempt to turn back the clock to "the good old days" when you could beat up gays and no one would say boo. Everyone already knows the bigots don't have enough votes to trample the rights of gays so what precisely is the point of this exercise other than to waste money?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The rights have been granted they will never be taken away


Don't be over confident on that part.
Ask the women in Afghanistan who used to be teachers and doctors and university professors before the crescent version of the RR arrived there ( and may arrive again ).

Patriarchal theocrats know no boundaries in their behavior". Just look south.

I think a little tax reform is overdue for religious organizations. They are supposed to stay out of politics to maintain their exemption.
2 minutes to the PMs ear sounds like they've breached that agreement.
I can think of a couple excellent educational programs that need funding. A national childcare/early education for one.

If the RR wants to spread ignorance and bigotry then they can be taxed and the proceeds used to provide the early education and care all kids deserve.
I'm sure the churches across the land would see no issue in supporting such an unarguably beneficial program.........with THEIR dollars.
Why property taxes alone will be a boon to communities.

TANSTAAFL


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm not a big fan of Harper but I can take it when he's merely acting on a promise he made to jack SSM back open once he got in as Prime Minister. Yeah it will probably be a huge waste of money but there are probably much larger wastes of money going on that we should look into. I'm hoping that the answer will be no and we can get on with other matters. By then even the Harperites will get the message.

Spraying the room with emoticons as a sign of your displeasure or impatience, on the other hand, merely detracts from whatever message you want to impart. Give me the guy who's quoting coronation ceremonies but refraining from freaking out with a kamikaze line of petulant little red faces going apeshyte... but hey, that's just me.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Gee Wozney, couldn't you find anything more recent and/or more relevant to Canada to support your supposition that our constitution recognizes the supremacy of God?

I doubt you would find many monarchists who would attempt to use that argument.

The coronation was more than a half-century ago, occurred in Britain, contained only fleeting reference to Canada, and was not financially supported or politically sanctioned by Canada's Parliament.

I have never really cared a fig about our head of state being the Queen, and not elected by Canadians, but if anybody took this argument seriously, I'd have to become a republican. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

dpwozney said:


> According to Wikipedia, "Same-sex marriage has been legal: ... in the province of Saskatchewan since 5 November 2004; ...".
> 
> What was the name of Canada’s constitutional Queen regnant who had executive government and authority of and over Canada when the “Saskatchewan Act” was drafted in 1905?
> 
> ...


Now you are just being obtuse... how is that even remotely relevant to this argument? Is the point you are trying to make that because Canada head of State draws authority from some supreme source that Canada must then form it's society based on the word of biblical scripture?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Brainstrained said:


> Gee Wozney, couldn't you find anything more recent and/or more relevant to Canada to support your supposition that our constitution recognizes the supremacy of God?


"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

And the rule of law. The rule of law was interpreted carefully (even if losing parties disagreed...that's more of a pro-sports standard of evaluating referees) so, unless someone wants to use the notwithstanding clause, which is a valid part of our laws, it is over.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I don't take anybody seriously who uses God and The Bible as relevent sources for any argument.

It's like using _The Tooth Fairy_ and _Curious George Goes To The Hospital_ as infallible evidence of history and our future.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"
> 
> And the rule of law. The rule of law was interpreted carefully (even if losing parties disagreed...that's more of a pro-sports standard of evaluating referees) so, unless someone wants to use the notwithstanding clause, which is a valid part of our laws, it is over.


I assume you are meaning that the Rule of Law trumps the Supremacy of God?
I personally like the following quote to explain it...

_"The rule of law is a political principle the classic exposition of which is in Dicey Law of the Constitution (10th Edn, 1959) p 187 et seq. Dicey identified three principles which together establish the rule of law: (1) the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power; (2) equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts; and (3) the law of the constitution is a consequence of the rights of individuals as defined and enforced by the courts."_


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

dpwozney said:


> Definitions for "secular", such as "of or relating to worldly things as distinguished from things relating to church and religion", are problematic, specious, and untenable. Nothing in the world can be distinguished from things relating to church and religion.


Hey dpwozney, you are quite a card. I don't think I've seen such a good lampooning of the religious right for a long time. Made my day.

The only criticism I could make of your brilliant sarcasm is that it's a little cruel to make fun of all those people living with these schizophrenic hallucinations... I think some of them really believe in their magical sky-daddy, and apparently some of them even imagine hearing his voice sometimes. We shouldn't make fun of them.

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Hey dpwozney, you are quite a card. I don't think I've seen such a good lampooning of the religious right for a long time. Made my day.
> 
> The only criticism I could make of your brilliant sarcasm is that it's a little cruel to make fun of all those people living with these schizophrenic hallucinations... I think some of them really believe in their magical sky-daddy, and apparently some of them even imagine hearing his voice sometimes. We shouldn't make fun of them.
> 
> Cheers



Puhhhh-lease tell me that I didn't just get punked.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I assume you are meaning that the Rule of Law trumps the Supremacy of God?


No, but with one being uninterpretable by us mere mortals, it is all that works. I think, if God shows itself and demands something, that we should acknowledge that God has supremacy but, with the "and" clause, tell God to tread lightly lest we collectively sue God's arse. It really is touch-and-go once God is actually making pronouncements. 

Old books and individual interpretations of said books are not, however, God. They are human notions and are thus protected within the Charter, but not over the Charter.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Old books and individual interpretations of said books are not, however, God. They are human notions and are thus protected within the Charter, but not over the Charter.


You read my mind. That was going to be my next question.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Puhhhh-lease tell me that I didn't just get punked.


Well, he's either really funny, or a pathetic wanker. I'm choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  

cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Wow!
> 
> This is one "tolerant" guy that just isn't going to tolerate those intolerant bastards with opposing views to his anymore. All you intolerant people out there, f**k off already and be tolerant like him.
> 
> ...


:clap: :clap: 

There are many in this thread who need to reread this definition. Disageement is one thing, "dissing" quite another and there are too many who are very good at the latter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Spraying the room with emoticons as a sign of your displeasure or impatience, on the other hand, merely detracts from whatever message you want to impart. Give me the guy who's quoting coronation ceremonies but refraining from freaking out with a kamikaze line of petulant little red faces going apeshyte... but hey, that's just me.


Yep, they can be the worst at demonstrating intolerance in the thread.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> :clap: :clap:
> 
> There are many in this thread who need to reread this definition. Disageement is one thing, "dissing" quite another and there are too many who are very good at the latter.


Let me throw another definition out there then:



> bigot
> –noun
> a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


Does that apply to somebody who doesn't tolerate same-sex marriage?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I wonder if I'll be able to have casual sex with Mimi Rogers before the Rapture?



Sure...they already killed agent Mulder so he won't care.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Let me throw another definition out there then:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that apply to somebody who doesn't tolerate same-sex marriage?


It would if I did not tolerate it yes, but I do.

I just don't agree with the definition, that's all.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Inclusion, not exclusion (same-sex marriage includes people - traditional definition of marriage excludes people).

Freedoms, not restrictions (same-sex marriage gives people freedom to get married - traditional definition of marriage restricts people's ability to get married)

Personal choice, not labels - (same-sex marriage gives people the choice to get married or not - traditional definition of marriage and "same-sex unions" scream the labels of hetero and ****)

So, it's your choice.

Free, inclusive, personal choice
or
Restricted, exclusive, labels.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Beej, you missed the point of my post.

Wozney was responding to Martman's comment that our constitution doesn't indicate which God is supreme - a gay-bashing God, or a gay-loving God. In doing so Wozney reference the coronation of the Queen as to what God the constitution referred to.

My point was and is that that argument is aged, distant, and not particularly relevant to Canada, if not down right ridiculous.

If Wozney or any other one wants to make the argument that our constitution refers to a gay-hating Christian God, as opposed to, say, a gay-loving Christian God, a gay-indifferent Buddha or whatever God, he or she will have to do much better than that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> So, it's your choice.
> 
> Free, inclusive, personal choice
> or
> Restricted, exclusive, labels.


My free, inclusive personal choice is:

One man, one woman = marriage.

Two men or two women = union.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> My free, inclusive personal choice is:
> 
> One man, one woman = marriage.
> 
> Two men or two women = union.


Oh man! And you are a journalist! To quote myself...

_Sinc, sadly we have gone over the language issue and it still hasn't sunk in. The word marriage is commonly used to describe the joining of more than a man and a woman (i.e. the marriage of two companies, a marriage of blues and gospel, the marriage of food and wine).

This isn't a corrupted definition... it is the correct usage of the word. You are in journalism, I find it sad that you continue to put forth this incorrect argument._


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> My free, inclusive personal choice is:
> 
> One man, one woman = marriage.
> 
> Two men or two women = union.


And I agree you should be free to think that way as long as you don't expect anyone else to agree with you. What we're talking about here is how the legal system defines these terms, now how SINC defines them. The legal system is not permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and therefore has to view all sexual unions equally. Personally, I don't think the legal system should have any interest in peoples sex lives, so it shouldn't need any terminology for this, but, given that it currently does, and the recent changes made it less discriminatory, it's obviously an improvement.

If someone wants to talk about scrapping 'marriage' altogether, I'm in complete agreement. But if you're going to insist on the legal system respecting your primitive traditions, you've got to let anyone who want's to play participate.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Oh man! And you are a journalist! To quote myself...
> 
> _Sinc, sadly we have gone over the language issue and it still hasn't sunk in. The word marriage is commonly used to describe the joining of more than a man and a woman (i.e. the marriage of two companies, a marriage of blues and gospel, the marriage of food and wine).
> 
> This isn't a corrupted definition... it is the correct usage of the word. You are in journalism, I find it sad that you continue to put forth this incorrect argument._


Apparently you cannot grasp the difference between an incorrect argument and opinion.

I put forth an opinion, get it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> And I agree you should be free to think that way as long as you don't expect anyone else to agree with you.


But you see, there is where you are wrong. I not only expect there are those who agree with me, I know there are hundreds of thousands who do agree with me.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Apparently you cannot grasp the difference between an incorrect argument and opinion.


Ohhh so you admit that your argument is wrong? So then we are in agreement, the * argument* is settled. Marriage does means the bond between two parties regardless of their gender.

It is good of you to finally admit that.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> :clap: :clap:
> 
> There are many in this thread who need to reread this definition. Disageement is one thing, "dissing" quite another and there are too many who are very good at the latter.


Yeah I agree Sinc

The most intolerant and hate filled comments on this board are coming from those claiming a monopoly on tolerance. Amazing. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> But you see, there is where you are wrong. I not only expect there are those who agree with me, I know there are hundreds of thousands who do agree with me.


That's exactly the point... it doesn't matter how many people agree with you, part of the reason our legal system exists is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Just because most people are insecure about their sexual identities and want to make sure that the sexual labels they use for themselves clearly communicate their heterosexuality, doesn't make the legal system any less obliged to remain sexual-orientation-neutral. So any and all legal definitions must apply equally to all sexual orientations.

As long as there is a legal definition of 'marriage' it has to be equally applicable to same-sex couples as heterosexual couples. That all there is to it. You don't have to like it, you don't have to disagree, but it's a simple fact of the way our legal system works. It's been decided, and it can't be decided any other way without re-writing the Charter.

For the cons to re-open this debate is simply an enormous waste of time an money.

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> The most intolerant and hate filled comments on this board are coming from those claiming a monopoly on tolerance. Amazing.


That is funny... you guys are defending your own intolerance by claiming people are intolerant with your intolerance. :lmao:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> My free, inclusive personal choice is:
> 
> One man, one woman = marriage.
> 
> Two men or two women = union.


I love how your idea of inclusion involves exclusion.

Why not just say:



> Gays are allowed to get married, as long as they don't call it marriage.
> Gays are free to get married, as long as they aren't allowed to be married.
> I welcome gays and their ability to get married, as long as I don't have to welcome them and allow them to get married.
> I'm open to them and equal rights, as long as I can discriminate again them, and tell them they aren't equal to me.


SINC, you are the pillar of decency and righteousness!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> That is funny... you guys are defending your own intolerance by claiming people are intolerant with your intolerance. :lmao:


Its not so much the intolerance I take issue with. Nobody is or should be tolerant 24/7. There are things I can tolerate and things I can't. That can be said of anyone on this board. 
Its the unnecessary hate filled remarks made in the delivery of it that raises my eyebrows. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Its not so much the intolerance I take issue with. Nobody is or should be tolerant 24/7. There are things I can tolerate and things I can't. That can be said of anyone on this board.
> Its the unnecessary hate filled remarks made in the delivery of it that raises my eyebrows.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


This is a hate filled remark:


dpwozney said:


> So long as at least one person’s sexual orientation is changeable at acceptable personal costs, the claim made by the so-called “Supreme Court of Canada” is false. Numerous testimonies of people who are no longer homosexual, whose sexual orientations have changed at acceptable personal costs, have discredited this false claim made by Canadian courts. Sexual orientation can be changeable at a personal cost that is very acceptable. Also, religion can be changeable at acceptable personal costs, and religion is listed in Section 15(1).


I am not hateful but yes I am intolerant of bigots. Maybe bigots don't like having it pointed out that they are prejudiced but I can't help that. How am I supposed to fight prejudice if I can't point out bigotry when it occurs?

It seems for the purpose of this discussion it is OK to be a bigot so long as you hate gays. I don't buy that. The Charter offers gays protection from discrimination and I aim to uphold that. If anyone feels I am being hateful they are welcome to try and get me banned. Other than the above statement and quote I have done my best to keep the accusation of prejudice and bigotry to hypothetical people (the religious right for instance) not at specific individuals.

If I failed I am sorry but I will not stop pointing out prejudice when it occurs right in front of me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Ohhh so you admit that your argument is wrong? So then we are in agreement, the * argument* is settled. Marriage does means the bond between two parties regardless of their gender.
> 
> It is good of you to finally admit that.


Wrong. Not to me it doesn't. And it never will. I will consider human marriage as being the joining of one man and one woman as long as I live.

Any other combination is not. And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled. If you don't like it, ignore it, just like I ignore the term marriage applying to same sex couples.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah you can dye your skin too .....what is hateful is the level of ignorance expressed by the RR

The complete bullheaded refusal to move forward and accept change and enhanced understandning that is far too characteristic on topics from evolution to bigotry and ssm and far far too many other issues.

There are limits to spouting nonsense and be prepared to be called on it.
If you want to throw salt over your shoulder feel free - just don't toss in someone's eye.

You want to limit the rights of another citizen because of your myths, superstitions, ignorance and eccentricities then you will be called on it. And don't try dressing it up as "sacred" or above criticism - it's not - it's ignorance, period.

Churches and religions get far too much of a free ride in society and it's time for them to be held to account and their "special circumstances" withdrawn.

Human sacrifice is no longer acceptable - it once was in human societies.

Human slavery is no longer acceptable - it once was in human societies.

The sacrfice of hard won knowledge on the alter of ignorance also needs to become unacceptable. It can start here.

Canada is leading the world in equal rights for gays and every Canadian should be proud of that and the Charter.

Instead we hear the flat earthers ranting and thundering. What an embarrassment anti-ssm/anti-gay proponents are to human knowledge and progress. 
Hide in a closet, or better under a rock.....it reeks of bigotry


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I will consider human marriage as being the joining of one man and one woman as long as I live.
> 
> Any other combination is not. And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled. If you don't like it, ignore it, just like I ignore the term marriage applying to same sex couples.


I think we should stop hassling SINC about this. He's absolutely right that he's entitled to his opinions, and has every right to believe whatever he likes.

The point that seems to be getting lost here is that, whatever your personal stance on the issue, the legal system have to be much more circumspect about not-descriminating.

SINC should be perfectly free to reject the idea of gay couples getting married, but the legal system is not free to discriminate on those grounds, so it can't reject gay marriages. This is the crux of the matter. Individuals can be as close-minded as they want, but the legal system is not an individual, and must respect the rights of all under the Charter.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Yeah you can dye your skin too .....what is hateful is the level of ignorance expressed by the RR
> 
> The complete bullheaded refusal to move forward and accept change and enhanced understandning that is far too characteristic on topics from evolution to bigotry and ssm and far far too many other issues.
> 
> ...


You can always count on a Mac Doc rant to make my point. 

Thanks Doc!
Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I think we should stop hassling SINC about this. He's absolutely right that he's entitled to his opinions, and has every right to believe whatever he likes.
> 
> The point that seems to be getting lost here is that, whatever your personal stance on the issue, the legal system have to be much more circumspect about not-descriminating.
> 
> ...


So long as SINC doesn't try and take away the rights of others, I agree. He can feel any way he wants. Many churches will forever be intolerant and that is fine so long as they do not lobby for change. Once they do, all bets are off. If you insist on arguing this issue you will be made to answer for you views whether you are for or against.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Canada is leading the world in equal rights for gays and every Canadian should be proud of that and the Charter.


I agree completely with everything you posted above, but I want to point out that, if it were not for the Stockwell "Doris" Day's and other flat-earthers so vociferously trying to turn back the clock, the significant accomplishments that Canada has made in the past few decades wouldn't be so remarkable.

I'm not saying that we should sit by an allow these dinosaurs to promote their small-minded agendas un-criticized, I'm just suggesting that, without their opposition, we'd have less to be proud of.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> This is a hate filled remark:
> 
> 
> I am not hateful but yes I am intolerant of bigots. Maybe bigots don't like having it pointed out that they are prejudiced but I can't help that. How am I supposed to fight prejudice if I can't point out bigotry when it occurs?
> ...


The guy is simply arguing that homosexuality isn't a inevitable biological trait like brown hair or black skin. People have successfully changed orientation. You may not agree with him and he may be misguided or dead wrong but I don't see anything hateful in what he said. If you have scientific evidence that proves otherwise, maybe you should share it with him instead of attacking him? He may be motivated by hate for gay people but I'm not reading that in his post. If he pulled a Rev. Fred Phelps and started with the "God hates ****" lingo I'd agree with you. I've met lots of people that oppose gay marriage that don't hate gay people. Heck I've heard gay people themselves that oppose the idea.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There is a distinction between a person themselves not wishing to say marry someone of the same sex - that's sexual orientation and the at the heart of this issue.

I'm not so sure passive acceptance of a stance that is discriminatory IS.

If the opinion owas based on race or gender could partake in a legal activity that was open to others.....would you tolerate that opinion?????... or call it for what it is bigotry and fomenting dissension.

I don't think that kind of opinion should be accepted without challenge. It's harmful. Just as if it were skin colour discrimination.

Ignorance needs to be challenged - the planet and society can't afford the dinosaurs anymore.
It's not harmless.

Copernicus, Darwin and many many others suffered at the hands of ignorance and many gays have through out history have lost lives and peace to bigots - religious or not.

Time to stand up and call it for what it is ...destructive ignorance....instead of amusing idiosyncracy.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Wrong. Not to me it doesn't. And it never will. I will consider human marriage as being the joining of one man and one woman as long as I live.
> 
> Any other combination is not. And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled. If you don't like it, ignore it, just like I ignore the term marriage applying to same sex couples.


Well first off you were the one who claimed that *your* argument was incorrect. 

Secondly, so that is fine... your opinion is that SSM is not a marriage, but what if you were an employer and someone in a same sex relationship working for you. What if they asked for benefits/respect (ie time for an anniversary diner) which are accorded to heterosexual couples? What would you do?


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Canada is leading the world in equal rights for gays and every Canadian should be proud of that and the Charter.


I am glad to see us leading the world but I think the Charter is behind much of the vitriol on this topic. Our parliamentary system is one where issues are discussed and argued and where the necessary compromises are made to ensure majority support. By its nature though the Charter eschews compromise... it radicalizes issues and then rules for one extreme position or the other. This thread is a good example of the result.

Almost all European nations now have varying types of 'Civil Unions' (often known as marriages) and this has been achieved with far less acrimony than we've seen here. You could argue the ends justify the means, except that those ends are now under threat because of the means. This has always been an issue that the people and Parliament should have decided... not the courts.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> The guy is simply arguing that homosexuality isn't a inevitable biological trait like brown hair or black skin. People have successfully changed orientation. You may not agree with him and he may be misguided or dead wrong but I don't see anything hateful in what he said. If you have scientific evidence that proves otherwise, maybe you should share it with him instead of attacking him? He may be motivated by hate for gay people but I'm not reading that in his post. If he pulled a Rev. Fred Phelps and started with the "God hates ****" lingo I'd agree with you. I've met lots of people that oppose gay marriage that don't hate gay people. Heck I've heard gay people themselves that oppose the idea.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Sorry I don't buy that. He is insisting that gays "can help it" by offering shoddy anecdotal evidence from the so called religious right. He never spells out his stance with any actual information just makes statements that homosexuality is only learned. You want me to present "evidence" I will but he is clearly not going to look at it let alone actually consider it.

I'll start this exercise in futility now:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20571062-5005961,00.html
Usually anti-gay bigots start with the unnatural argument. The above link proves that this argument is based in ignorance.


> With documentation of gay or lesbian behaviour among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural".
> 
> "We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear – homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said.
> 
> ...



Now on to the gays can change argument:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145754,00.html
While not completely conclusive I offer WAY more than dpwozney does in terms of "evidence" to back up my position. He uses the Bible (and poorly at that, Jesus mention homosexuality how many times? and poverty how many times?
I don't see dpwozney doing ANYTHING ABOUT POVERTY) and I use science.


> Genes Linked With Male Sexual Orientation Found
> 
> Friday, January 28, 2005
> 
> ...


Here is a different approach to the "genetic issue":
http://www.dowling.edu/faculty/Perring/wheelan.htm


> Another study done by Simon LeVay focused on the size of INAH3 nucleus of the hypothalamus. He wanted to test whether the areas INAH-2 and INAH3 in the nucleus were different in size not by sex, but by sexual orientation. By proving a difference in size, he could establish that the brains of gay men were similar to that of women's brains. He only found that INAH-2 exhibited difference in sexual orientation. It was two times larger in heterosexual men as homosexual men, and he concluded it was different because of sexual orientation, not because of a difference in sex.


The part that bothers me the most here is that I am put in a position where everything I say I have to back up but the intolerants never have to prove anything. 

I could go on for a lot longer with evidence that suggests my point but I believe I have done enough already and this post is more than long enough already.
Let's see dpwozny post some actual evidence now


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Almost all European nations now have varying types of 'Civil Unions' (often known as marriages) and this has been achieved with far less acrimony than we've seen here.


I believe this is because fundamentalism is comparatively rare in Europe.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

dpwozney said:


> So long as at least one person’s sexual orientation is changeable at acceptable personal costs, the claim made by the so-called “Supreme Court of Canada” is false. Numerous testimonies of people who are no longer homosexual, whose sexual orientations have changed at acceptable personal costs, have discredited this false claim made by Canadian courts. Sexual orientation can be changeable at a personal cost that is very acceptable. Also, religion can be changeable at acceptable personal costs, and religion is listed in Section 15(1).


This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on this board.



MacGuiver said:


> The guy is simply arguing that homosexuality isn't a inevitable biological trait like brown hair or black skin. People have successfully changed orientation.


If you actually believe that and agree with dpwozney, you are as ignorant as he is.



SINC said:


> I will consider human marriage as being the joining of one man and one woman as long as I live. Any other combination is not. And that is my opinion, to which I am entitled. If you don't like it, ignore it, just like I ignore the term marriage applying to same sex couples.


Bigotry at it's finest.

This thread has really highlighted the bigoted, ignorant opinion of at least three ehMac members. Wonderful company we have here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep and the scary thing is not one of them understands it to be bigotry.

If we substituted basing marriage on skin colour ( that also is in the dubious history of human discimination banning mixed marriages ) then without question it's bigotry with a racial component.

But since it's a gay person's rights - it's open season.

It needs challenging again and again and again.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


MacGuiver why am I taking all the flack here? Don't you think you are being unfair or you just don't like me personally?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Yep and the scary thing is not one of them understands it to be bigotry.
> 
> If we substituted basing marriage on skin colour ( that also is in the dubious history of human discimination banning mixed marriages ) then without question it's bigotry with a racial component.
> 
> ...


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

martman said:


> MacGuiver why am I taking all the flack here? Don't you think you are being unfair or you just don't like me personally?


It's because he loves you...but not in a marriage type way.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GT - watch those phallic avatars....might offend some sensibilities around here


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> It's because he loves you...but not in a marriage type way.


:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Isn't this great for the country?
I love all the bad feeling being generated here. This is happening all over the country and still not one proponent of anti-ssm has told any of us why this is a good thing. No one has disputed my assertion that the anti-ssm people don't have a chance of having enough votes to pull this off so what exactly is to be gained here other than wasting tax payer money and pitting Canadians against each other? 
So I challenge an anti-ssm er to explain why this debate is helpful to their or any cause.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Secondly, so that is fine... your opinion is that SSM is not a marriage, but what if you were an employer and someone in a same sex relationship working for you. What if they asked for benefits/respect (ie time for an anniversary diner) which are accorded to heterosexual couples? What would you do?


I would obey the law of the land of course. That is my responsibility as a citizen. 

But it does not change my opinion on SSM nor will it ever. I will lobby for that change as long as I breathe. And that too is my right.



MacDoc said:


> Yep and the scary thing is not one of them understands it to be bigotry.
> 
> It needs challenging again and again and again.


As does your opinion, which I happen to disagree with.

I am every bit as free to voice my objection to such policies as you are to express your support.

I just choose to do so minus the amount of venom and insults you spew towards we who think differently like this:



MacDoc said:


> The complete bullheaded refusal to move forward and accept change and enhanced understandning that is far too characteristic on topics from evolution to bigotry and ssm and far far too many other issues.
> Instead we hear the flat earthers ranting and thundering. What an embarrassment anti-ssm/anti-gay proponents are to human knowledge and progress.
> Hide in a closet, or better under a rock.....it reeks of bigotry



And you continue to do so with that "I know it all, you don't" attitude of yours. And THAT is objectionable and offensive to our position.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It would be a wonderful irony if certain people showed up at the pearly gates one day and God said...

"No no no...it's no gays that I hate. It's the bigots. That whole love thy neighbour thing? Ya, I was being serious about that. Going down?"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

What, you believe in heaven? What next? Stock walked with Dinos??


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> ... how is that even remotely relevant to this argument?


The laws in Canada's constitution have not been followed since 1901 when Queen Victoria died, so why start now?

Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901.

The next day, on January 23, 1901, Section 9 of the _British North America Act, 1867_, now called the _Constitution Act, 1867_ still stated: “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the *Queen*”.

On January 23, 1901, Section 17 still stated: “There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the *Queen*, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons”. 

On January 23, 1901, Section 91 still stated: “It shall be lawful for the *Queen*, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...”.​


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Are you implying he didn't?

Man walked with dinosaurs.
The Earth is only 6000 years old.
God hates homos.

It's all true! Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy all verified it!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

dpwozney,

The Dark Ages called. They want you back.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

By the amount of ridicule being poured on Christians here, one thing has become crystal clear.
Atheists are a pretty insecure bunch when they feel the need to pile on the insults to make themselves feel good. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I would assume that most of the people here are Christians... it's just the intolerant bigots that are getting hassled. You regressives keep trying to prevent the rest of the world from moving beyond you're bronze-age superstitions, and it's getting old. Why don't you go burn a witch or something?

Where's RevMatt when you need him?

Cheers


----------



## ROFF (Feb 21, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> By the amount of ridicule being poured on Christians here, one thing has become crystal clear.
> Atheists are a pretty insecure bunch when they feel the need to pile on the insults to make themselves feel good.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Don't change the subject by claiming that ridicule is being poured on Christians. Ridicule is being poured on bigots. If a bigot happens to be a Christian ( or not ) that is just not the point. Bigots, as in Archie Bunker types, bring ridicule upon themselves when they think that by restricting the human rights of others, they themselves are enhanced.


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

Brainstrained said:


> The coronation ... was not financially supported or politically sanctioned by Canada's Parliament.


According to the _Constitution Act, 1867_, Canada's Parliament consists of the Queen.

Section 17 states: “There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons”. 

Queen Elizabeth II participated in the coronation.​


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> I would assume that most of the people here are Christians... it's just the intolerant bigots that are getting hassled. You regressives keep trying to prevent the rest of the world from moving beyond you're bronze-age superstitions, and it's getting old. Why don't you go burn a witch or something?
> 
> Where's RevMatt when you need him?
> 
> Cheers


Speaking of insecure. Hi Bryan!

Last I checked, Rev. Matt believed in a "sky daddy" too? Funny you'd call on a superstitious bronze age fellow to straighten me out.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Society's general attitude on this topic is undergoing a rapid change. While comparisons to past rights revolutions are valid, don't forget how much time has passed. In time (a generation or two), I think the vast majority of society will look back and wonder why the answer wasn't obvious to everyone. 

Until then, some perspective helps on how much has been happened in just 30 years. We (as in all Canadians) were not worse people on a whole 30 years ago, even if our accepted conventions, practices and presumptions were worse (from the perspective of individual rights and freedoms). 

We have gone from a point where a "progressive" attitude on this issue 30 years ago (maybe even 20, or 10) is now "regressive". 

I'm no fan of the "tradition" argument, but can understand the sentiment. 

I am a fan of ridiculing silliness to deligitimise it because it isn't "he said/she said" but actually logic versus silliness, and can see where some of the more active SSM-supporters are coming from. I instinctively feel that way. But repeatedly tossing around terms like "bigot" in polite, albeit politically offensive, conversation? I can see myself doing that in a particularly rousing conversation, but wouldn't be proud of myself afterwards.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> By the amount of ridicule being poured on Christians here, one thing has become crystal clear.
> Atheists are a pretty insecure bunch when they feel the need to pile on the insults to make themselves feel good.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I'm sorry. Where in the previous pages of this thread do you (or anyone else) state "Here is my opinion, because I am Christian."?

I pour on the ridicule, not because I'm insecure, but rather because ignorant bigots generally deserve it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> But it does not change my opinion on SSM nor will it ever. I will lobby for that change as long as I breathe. And that too is my right.


Where is it your right to lobby to take away someone else's rights?


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> The laws in Canada's constitution have not been followed since 1901 when Queen Victoria died, so why start now?
> 
> Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901.
> 
> The next day, on January 23, 1901, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867 still stated: “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen”.


That assertion is incorrect. The BNA Act and subsequent acts compose only part of our constitution... it also incorporates over a thousand years of precedent, practice and tradition. One such practice is that statutes may refer to the current monarch, but in doing so also refer to his/her successors. It's more elegant that way than to have acts that refer to the "Queen/King".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Where is it your right to lobby to take away someone else's rights?


To lobby for that? That's anyone's right. To get it is another thing. But hey, at least that would be "getting involved".


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Fink-Nottle,

It's best to just ignore dpwozney.

He keeps using the same argument over and over again, about laws being unlawful, the constitution being unconstitutional, the government being illegal, etc, etc, all because God has some super-power over us all.

dpwozney is 12 posts in, and already shown his true colours.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

dpwozney said:


> The laws in Canada's constitution have not been followed since 1901 when Queen Victoria died, so why start now?
> 
> Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901.
> 
> ...


Wow, that is some claim. So by your logic the Charter is not legally valid?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Last I checked, Rev. Matt believed in a "sky daddy" too? Funny you'd call on a superstitious bronze age fellow to straighten me out.


My point was that despite being infec...er, I mean being a Christian, he's a reasonable fellow, and has no problem with SSM, and I doubt any insults or ridicule would be directed at him in this thread.

It's got nothing to do with religious beliefs, but rather the recognition of the legal equality of all citizens.

Cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Why should the Charter be legal?

The Queen has +10 power, God has +100, given to the fact that elected officials do have +3 to +5 abilities of reflection, and take into account your general citizen who has a 10 to 12 percent chance of rolling a positive spell using a d12 and d20, you can obviously see the Charter is legally void.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

dwip has every right to challenge the Constitution and whip up the requisite numbers of votes at various levels to make change.
In fact I think that would be wonderful use of his time.

dwip and his trusty side kick singuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> dpwozney is 12 posts in, and already shown his true colours.


I suspect dpwozney is a sock-puppet. I mean, sure there are some fundamentalists who believe things like that, but not many of them are bright enough to figure out how to plug in a computer, let alone get on the internet.

Cheers


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> dwip and his trusty side kick singuiver


Most appropriate MacDoc, given that Spain and the Netherlands (respectively home to Don Q and many windmills) are two of the three European nations who have full same sex marriage.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Dear Sir,

As a representative of Sock Puppets Encouraging Equality Defense Organization (SPEEDO), we take great offense to your associating us to fundamentalists.

Please be so kind as to respect our organization, and yes, we know how to plug in computers.

Sincerely,

Jim "Button-Eyes" MacGregor


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I'd love to stay in the playground with you kids but I've got a witch burning at 7 followed by a Flat Earth Society meeting at 8. I'll leave you "intellectual giants" to banter back and forth like a bunch of eight year olds that just lay a beating on the ugly kid, giving each other high fives and pats on the back. Maybe the ass too, who knows. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

FN - thank you - it was entirely unintentional - I am now a better person for your enlightment :clap:

I really don't understand why the gov just doesn't ditch the term "marriage" entirely as a legal term make it entirely "civil union of persons" which is as unisex as corporation.

•••

poor dissed sock puppets. :-( can't get no respect.

••

Bryanc you bring up an interesting point.

Perhaps there should be "alternative" airlines powered by prayer and voodoo. Seems the dinosaurs like to pick and choose what science principles they embrace.

Surely levitation is more reliable than a an elevator.

Why bother with a seat belt.....going through the windshield leads directly to a "better life in heaven".

Swiss cheese thinking indeed.

The absurdity that these kind of discussions go on in the 21st century is bewildering and dismaying.
Silly apes.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> By the amount of ridicule being poured on Christians here, one thing has become crystal clear.
> Atheists are a pretty insecure bunch when they feel the need to pile on the insults to make themselves feel good.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I haven't seen anyone ridicule Christians in this thread, but I have seen people ridicule bigots and fanatics. Most Canadians are Christians but most don't think like dpwozney.
Calling his beliefs Christian is like calling Osama Bin Laden's beliefs Muslim. It is a bit dishonest. Like Muslims, most Christians ARE NOT fundamentalist fanatics.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> poor dissed sock puppets. :-( can't get no respect.


I wouldn't want the respect of the likes of you.
Don't you have a Church of Envirotology meeting to attend? Maybe some burnt offerings to Mother Earth?
Or maybe you have another load of computers to send off to the landfill sites 

Cheers
Macguiver


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"Tell a man that there are 400 billion stars and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint and he has to touch it."

This is actually a relevant quote. Believe it or not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - illogic and ignorance - especially bigotry needs to be confronted whether is a skinhead, sharia judge or cross wielding dinosaur.

The religinuts have had a free ride for too long. Speaking up loudly about discrimination and bigotry where ever it arises speaks of passion for egality not insecurity.

Anti-gay arguments are indefensible and odious..period.
As unacceptable as racial discrimination and if you want to fellow travel with NeoNazis and skinheads who also hate gays.

Well ...enjoy your "marriage of minds"......it fits.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

:lmao:
You don't mince words!
Good for you!:clap: :clap:


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

This just in...

I also have a neo- nazi meeting at 9. Thanks MacDoc for the reminder! I can always count on your extremist opinion to sign me up for another group. Keep em coming oh enlightened one. LOL!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oy... got room for one more fascist at your meeting of backward beasts? This thread is starting to feel a bit stuffy for me. Lots of fumes in the air. I need to clear my head... might as well go where the fun is.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

We should all go protest MPs debating and voting on something. Durned MPs. 

The Cons will keep a promise (good) to do something stupid (bad) and reinforce notions of their distance from some, but gain respect from others. What is the real problem here? 

This was a dumb campaign promise that favoured their little-tent politics, but many feel strongly against the current situation. Right or wrong, voters matter. 

This brings in the mess of party-politics versus special interests. Why should they appeal to a broad audience? I prefer strong national parties so, to me, they clearly should moderate, but some propose more "grassroots" approaches. This is what roots look like.

I understand where people stand on the foundational issue, but on the existence of the vote itself? Grassroots supporters (for good or ill), to me, would support it unless their "power to the people" notions only apply to personally favourable opinions. That's not grassroots, or anti-big-party, it's just "I want" politics.

Supporters of broad but compromised national parties (for good or ill), to me, would disagree and/or just cheer on a "national" party showing its roots to its detriment.

Ehmacers thoughts?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't mind a mixture of local, national and regional parties. The bigger the organization, and the broader its mandate, the less I trust it. Sweeping national movements make sweeping national errors.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> I understand where people stand on the foundational issue, but on the existence of the vote itself? Grassroots supporters (for good or ill), to me, would support it unless their "power to the people" notions only apply to personally favourable opinions. That's not grassroots, or anti-big-party, it's just "I want" politics.


Considering this poll, "power to the people" is all talk on the part of the Conservative party.



> An Environics poll released in May indicated that 62 per cent of Canadians do not want to see the debate on same-sex marriage revived.


So much for the will of the majority.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> This just in...
> 
> I also have a neo- nazi meeting at 9. Thanks MacDoc for the reminder! I can always count on your extremist opinion to sign me up for another group. Keep em coming oh enlightened one. LOL!


This is exactly what I'm on about. See how constructive this is? We've just opened old wounds and all for nothing. Not one anti-ssm er has dared to tell us one good thing coming from this. And not one has told me they actually expect to get anywhere. So if you are proud to be Canadian why are you dividing the country like this? You know you don't have the votes in Parliament so what IS the purpose of this? Are you all too scared to answer this?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Yep - illogic and ignorance - especially bigotry needs to be confronted whether is a skinhead, sharia judge or cross wielding dinosaur.
> 
> The religinuts have had a free ride for too long. Speaking up loudly about discrimination and bigotry where ever it arises speaks of passion for egality not insecurity.
> 
> ...


Still spewing venom and insults I see.

Too bad that such an intellectual and highly educated mind can't take part in a civil discussion without resorting to the lowest tactics available.

tptptptp


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

Fink-Nottle said:


> That assertion is incorrect.


If my assertion is incorrect, as you claim, then what was the name of Canada’s constitutional Queen regnant who had executive government and authority of and over Canada on January 23, 1901?



Fink-Nottle said:


> The BNA Act and subsequent acts compose only part of our constitution... it also incorporates over a thousand years of precedent, practice and tradition. One such practice is that statutes may refer to the current monarch, but in doing so also refer to his/her successors. It's more elegant that way than to have acts that refer to the "Queen/King".


Edward VII was not a Queen. On January 23, 1901, Sections 9, 17, and 91 of the _British North America Act, 1867_, now called the _Constitution Act, 1867_, did not use the words "King" or "Monarch" but rather they used the word "Queen". Reasonably elegant ways to refer to a "Queen or King" have existed since before 1867.

Sections 9, 17, and 91 did not refer to Edward VII. The laws in Canada's constitution have not been followed since 1901 when Queen Victoria died, so why start now?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> So much for the will of the majority.


Don't mistake the "will of the majority" with giving voice to the minority and polls with people. Again, grassroots politics supports giving voice to this despite disagreement/"wrongness". Grassroots and "power to the people" doesn't just mean agreement with personal politics.

Also, poll-playing is highly time-sensitive. If the same poll were taken years ago, and ended unfavourably, should the issue have been dropped? Clearly not. The "will of the majority" changes and, in no small part, due to the ongoing discussion of an issue. This is a good thing, but picking polls at a point in time and defining it as Right has no basis, especially with regards to minority rights. 

Before people rush off to protest something, such as SSM, thinking is highly recommended. With thought beyond status quo assumptions and tradition people will, in my opinion, see the writing on the wall. 

But, before they do, consider deeper causality, as is often raised with other issues like crime: are they Wrong or just outside the consensus due to other factors? 

Some ehmacers seem much more willing to "understand" and politely address criminal acts than political differences.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I wouldn't want the respect of the likes of you.


Tetchy tetchy.... glad to see that anger management class is paying off for you


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej: I just picked the most current poll I could easily find. You have a newer one showing that people (in Canada) in general really want to dredge this up again? 

I'll respect this more if there is any indication that folks really want to go through this (again). Look at how painful this has been and it's only been one day! 

Are we going to keep doing this over and over again like the Quebec Separation issue? Gays fought for and won their rights just like blacks and women before them. When are we going to get closure on this instead of repeatedly picking at a festering scab on the fabric of Canadian society?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Tetchy tetchy.... glad to see that anger management class is paying off for you


Yeah they're doing wonders! But they really put a damper on my ability to participate in activities with my newfound skinhead friends at our meetings!:love2: 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The Cons will keep a promise (good) to do something stupid (bad) and reinforce notions of their distance from some, but gain respect from others. What is the real problem here?


Harper once said he had "evolved", so while you may think that keeping this promise would have "evolved" with him.....


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

abOUT: the Gay Life Magazine asked Bruce Clemenger, president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, two questions regarding why he feels this debate should be re-opened:

Link

Please note that this is a .pdf file.

Note that "about" should have two non-capitalized letters "ab" with "out" being capitalized. For whatever reason I can't get this to reflect in the post.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

From the article:



> Bruce J. Clemenger, president of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
> 
> *Why do you consider the debate in Canada on this issue to be insufficient?*
> 
> ...


One of the weakest arguments ever. Does he really want to open this can of worms? Should now commission reports on the effects of:

a) Single parent households?
b) Both parents working households?
c) Divorce and the impact on children?

I'd rather see a child raised by two loving gay men, in a nuturing environment, than a child raised by two work-obsessed straight parents, who shovel fast food down their kids throat and use PlayStation as a babysitter. What kid do you think will turn out better? No study needed.

Also, what is gay couples choose not to have children? How does that affect children?

It's such an invalid argument, it makes me want to scream. Arrghhh.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

zoziw said:


> abOUT: the Gay Life Magazine asked Bruce Clemenger, president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, two questions regarding why he feels this debate should be re-opened:
> 
> Link
> 
> ...


I have to admit that while I disagree with the content of the article, the tone and language used is a far cry better than what would have come from a similar organization in the US. Does this mean that Canadian Evangelicals are smarter than US ones?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> Does this mean that Canadian Evangelicals are smarter than US ones?


I think the British Evangelicals win that prize.

American evangelicalism was largely co-opted by fundamentalism due to some circumstances back in the 1970's that gave people like Falwell and Robertson undue influence in the movement.

A lot of Canadian evangelicals, including my father-in-law, came from european countries where they faced some discrimination for being outside of the state sanctioned churches. Evangelicals were one of the groups who were very opposed to Canada setting up a state church back at Confederation (inparticular, the mennonites wanted to know why the Anglican Church should get the state treatment since the mennonites were here as well).

Of course, the idea was dropped.

Evangelicals in Canada break down into three groups on this issue. According to a poll done by the EFC back in 2003, 25% of evangelicals somewhat or strongly supported the redefinition of marriage the other 75% were opposed to it.

There were two groups within that 75%, one group that believed the church needed to speak with a "prophetic voice" on the issue and the other that believed that our focus must remain on the Gospel and that we shouldn't divert our attention into these kinds of things.

I do not have a breakdown on which group is larger, but the "prophetic voice" people have quite a bit of funding (I suspect they receive some funding from American groups) and work hard to get their voice heard in the media. The gospel people don't.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

zoziw said:


> There were two groups within that 75%, one group that believed the church needed to speak with a "prophetic voice" on the issue and the other that believed that our focus must remain on the Gospel and that we shouldn't divert our attention into these kinds of things.


What does "prophetic voice" mean? Is it like the echo effect in Garage Band?

cheers


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

bryanc said:


> What does "prophetic voice" mean?
> 
> cheers


The "prophetic voice" people are the ones saying that the country will go down the toilet if SSM stays on the books.

The name comes from the prophets in the Bible who regularly showed up to rain on people's parades...(hehe, I guess that works out to be a bit of a pun  ).


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Sections 9, 17, and 91 did not refer to Edward VII. The laws in Canada's constitution have not been followed since 1901 when Queen Victoria died, so why start now?


That assertion remains incorrect and is based on a spurious interpretation of our constitution. It is largely unwritten and the unwritten parts are as important or more important than the written parts. This unwritten nature of our constitution makes it flexible and adaptable; many components of our system (ie. the role of the Prime Minister, the selection of the Cabinet etc) are not codified but have changed with the times. In this our system differs from the United States. The codified US constitution was strongly influenced by the British system except that it replaced the King (or Queen) with an elected president and expanded suffrage. Britain of course kept the monarchy but over time change its role. That is why it has been said that the US is a republic that looks like a monarchy while Britain (and Canada) are monarchies that look like republics.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

bryanc said:


> What does "prophetic voice" mean? Is it like the echo effect in Garage Band?


LMAO... that brought a true chuckle. Thanks! :lmao:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Excellent post. Bravo.




guytoronto said:


> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> I'd rather see a child raised by two loving gay men, in a nuturing environment, than a child raised by two work-obsessed straight parents, who shovel fast food down their kids throat and use PlayStation as a babysitter. What kid do you think will turn out better? No study needed.
> It's such an invalid argument, it makes me want to scream. Arrghhh.


If you had asked a simple question with a real comparison, it could be answered. For example:

I'd rather see a child raised by two loving gay men or two gay women, in a nuturing environment, than a child raised by two loving straight parents, in a nuturing environment. What kid do you think will turn out better? 

Then the answer would be the child raised in the straight parents household. Why you ask? Well that child would be part of the mainstream having both a mother and a father. 

That child would never have to explain to other children why he/she has two "daddies" which is biologically impossible, or he/she has two "mommies", equally biologically impossible, unlike the same sex couple child who would be constantly explaining him/her self for the rest of their lives as having grown up in a different type of family. 90% of people assume the norm before they are faced with the difference, thus requiring the explanations.

That has to be traumatizing for a child IMHO.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:



> If you had asked a simple question with a real comparison, it could be answered. For example:
> 
> I'd rather see a child raised by two loving gay men or two gay women, in a nuturing environment, than a child raised by two loving straight parents, in a nuturing environment. What kid do you think will turn out better?
> 
> ...


What a load! Children live in Single parent households, have multiple sets of parents, live in Gay parent households and all grow up fine. SINC you need to come up with proof that growing up with gay parents is damaging because the people I know who did are just fine.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Mary had a baby named Jesus yet it was a virgin birth. Biologically impossible!

Santa Claus visits kids all around the world in a single night. Biologically impossible!

The Tooth Fairy works her butt off - makes Santa look like a loafer. Biologically impossible!

Sinc, you're going to have to try harder.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think the basic approach is wrong. The laws shouldn't so strictly be manipulated to maximise the likelihood of "good" kids. Social programs and taxes, sure, but not rights. Otherwise we'd need licensing, coursework and other standards for parents.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What about a loving mongoose and a capybara? 

I'd rather seee the child raised by two lving gay men who occasionally bickered than such an unholy union.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> If you had asked a simple question with a real comparison, it could be answered. For example:
> 
> I'd rather see a child raised by two loving gay men or two gay women, in a nuturing environment, than a child raised by two loving straight parents, in a nuturing environment. What kid do you think will turn out better?
> 
> ...


By your logic SINC, single parents should be allowed either.

Not having a father is biologically impossible.

Not having a mother is biologically impossible as well.

Are you saying that unless a child has a male father and a female mother, the child should not be allowed to be raised in that household?

Would you recommend not allowing single women to have a baby if they aren't living with the father?

Would you recommend outlawing divorce until the children leave the home?

And can you please explain to me how it is better for a child to be raised in an uncaring home, being fed a diet of junk food, with no intellectual stimulation other than their Playstation than having to explain how he has two moms.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:



> By your logic SINC, single parents should be allowed either.
> 
> Not having a father is biologically impossible.
> 
> ...


No, read. Just that it is different from the norm and requires an explanation many times during a lifetime.



guytoronto said:


> Would you recommend not allowing single women to have a baby if they aren't living with the father?


 No.



guytoronto said:


> Would you recommend outlawing divorce until the children leave the home?


 No.



guytoronto said:


> And can you please explain to me how it is better for a child to be raised in an uncaring home, being fed a diet of junk food, with no intellectual stimulation other than their Playstation than having to explain how he has two moms.


Read my first reply. I said no such thing.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> What kid do you think will turn out better?


I hate to keep picking on you, because I really do think you mean well, but this is really a load of crap. Try to slow down and think a little before you post stuff like this.

Who's to define 'better'?!? Are you a better person because you were raised by parents with characteristics X, Y and Z, as opposed to me, having been raised by obviously socially unacceptable people with characteristics A, B and C?

Not only do you have no data to back up such wild assertions, you don't even have a reasonable hypothesis.

Adolf Hitler was raised by 'normal' heterosexual parents. You can't make any judgements about how someone will 'turn out' on the basis of the sexual orientation of their parents.

Ya might want to re-examine your preconceptions on this one, SINC.

Cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC keeps changing the question to suit the answers he wants to give.

SINC's only defense is to ignore the questions.

He loves to apply double-standards, in that children will be traumatized having two moms or two dads, but a child doesn't need to be protected from parents like Britney and K.Fed.

The lack-of-logic used by SINC shows that he should be no position to EVER decide what is right or what is wrong to better our society.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Interesting question though. In the case of two loving couples, one gay and one straight, which would you choose to raise an adopted child? Flip a coin?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Interesting question though. In the case of two loving couples, one gay and one straight, which would you choose to raise an adopted child? Flip a coin?


If this is "all else equal", then yes. I'm sure there are a list of things that agencies look at, though.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> If you had asked a simple question with a real comparison, it could be answered. For example:
> 
> I'd rather see a child raised by two loving gay men or two gay women, in a nuturing environment, than a child raised by two loving straight parents, in a nuturing environment. What kid do you think will turn out better?
> 
> ...


How do you justify this explanation? I'd like to see studies which show this to be the case.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Interesting question though. In the case of two loving couples, one gay and one straight, which would you choose to raise an adopted child? Flip a coin?


I'd sit the child down with both sets of parents, let them get to know each other, and then ask the child what he or she feels.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Interesting question though. In the case of two loving couples, one gay and one straight, which would you choose to raise an adopted child? Flip a coin?


Yep! And as stated above: all other things being equal, any other answer is the answer of a bigot (except one similar to guytoronto's as above). I'll add that IF there is a stigma attached to having same sex parents it is the fault of bigots in society the same type of individual who places a stigma on being a Sri Lankin (or what ever minority (pick any)) parent. There will always be bigots and bullies around and denying parenthood to people because their children might be teased is just plain criminal, stupid and counter productive. Tell me, did you ever get teased because of who you are? Maybe your parents shouldn't have been allowed to have you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"Thought Exercise," Martman. Is this so difficult a concept for you?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Too many adults feel we have to protect kids from EVERYTHING in the world.

In their distorted view of a perfect world, a child would never get teased, never fall down and skin his knee, never have to apologize, never have to work, eat whatever they want, watch whatever they want, do whatever they want.

Frickin' yuppies...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> "Thought Exercise," Martman. Is this so difficult a concept for you?


WTF are you getting at?
I don't understand what (if any) point you are trying to make with this post.
Please clarify.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A thought exercise suggests a preposition not necessarily supported by the proposer to see if answers illuminate the original debate in some fashion. It's not appropriate to attack the presenter (for example, suggesting he never be born) for proposing a thought exercise.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Any question of parenting must be applied equally - if you question gay caregiving then heterosexual also must be questioned and held to the same standard under the Charter.

If you applied the same "questions" to say First Nations parenting how do you think they would "rate" given the conditions under which they live?

Some people just don't understand what egality and equality under the law means.

Now - here's the actual situation - ANY set of parents looking to adopt currently have to undergo fairly rigourous vetting.
That automatically includes SS parents ....every one, and also includes HS parents looking to adopt.

The real question perhaps is why EVERY one who wants to raise a child is not required to undergo the same vetting procedure. From trailer trash, to junkie culture to Conrad Black circles........why is automatically "okay" for them to have a kid in or out of a HS relationship without questioning?

Arguing from a "cultural uniformity" basis for kids health is simply another form of bigotry and discrimination.

Cultures are diverse and kids superbly adaptable. Racism and bigotry is a learned attitude and flows from the parents attitudes.

The larger society in the first world has moved to acceptance that sexual orientation is NOT learned but inherent as much as lefthandedness is ( they had their own battles not so long ago ).

Out of that flows integration of gay culture as one facet of mainstream culture, fashion culture, academic culture and a whole spectrum of ethnic cultural differences.

Some just can't get past the view of SS as "perversion" just as too many see dark skin or Jewish culture or Islamic culture as "threatening", "not us".

Lefties had to deal with "sinister"......the root is lefthanded.

Bigots needs to be confronted and minorities protected from them in law and in civil discourse.

*It's NOT acceptable behaviour* to question their rights just as it would not be acceptable behaviour to question rights based on skin colour, or handedness.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Ya might want to re-examine your preconceptions on this one, SINC.


Bryan, I always appreciate your reasonable and non venomous replies and arguments.

The preconceptions to which you refer are in fact those that an awful lot of people I communicate with share.

Most people I know think the child of a SS couple will have much explaining to do given that his family and relationship with them is different from the mainstream. If you can't concede that stigma really does exist in society, I can't explain it further.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> A thought exercise suggests a preposition not necessarily supported by the proposer to see if answers illuminate the original debate in some fashion. It's not appropriate to attack the presenter (for example, suggesting he never be born) for proposing a thought exercise.


I should be more clear. The "never been allowed to have you" quip was directed at SINC for his stance that same sex couples shouldn't have children because they might be teased as a result. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> If you can't concede that stigma really does exist in society, I can't explain it further.


Of course stigma exists but so what? My GF grew up in a small town in Southern Ontario. There was one minority kind in town (Italian descent) and he was teased mercilessly. By your logic his parents shouldn't have been allowed to have children. Now I know you don't feel this way SINC but you are ducking my question. What make this Italian-Canadian couple any different from a SSM couple in terms of the stigma attached to their kid? Why should gay-Canadians be treated any differently than Italian-Canadians or Black-Canadians or First Nation-Canadians?

This example shows that bigots will find ANYTHING to discriminate against! Doesn't have to be sexuality or colour of skin. It could be anything. Maybe no one should be allowed to have children as there might be a stigma placed on them by a bigot.


edit: GF was also mercilessly teased because they moved to this small town from Toronto, her brother was similarly teased because he had asthma.

While I admit my above argument is a slippery slope, (a type of fallacy) it does illustrate the futility of the "they might be damaged by the stigma argument". 
ANYONE CAN BE AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO STIGMAS PLACED ON THEM WHILE GROWING UP! It makes no difference if your parents are straight, gay or Martian.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> The preconceptions to which you refer are in fact those that an awful lot of people I communicate with share.


Nicely put. This is the problem in a nutshell. How do we fix this? Try to prevent SS couples from having kids? I guess that would 'fix' the problem in that it wouldn't be a problem we'd have to deal with any more. But similarly, a racist would argue 'given the choice between having a child raised by a white couple and a black couple, obviously being raised by the black couple would be preferable.' Should we not allow black parents to adopt... it would save the child a lot of persecution, wouldn't it?

A little more realistically, should we not allow adoptive parents to adopt children of a different ethnicity... the poor kid will always have to explain how they're white even though their parents are black.



> Most people I know think the child of a SS couple will have much explaining to do given that his family and relationship with them is different from the mainstream. If you can't concede that stigma really does exist in society, I can't explain it further.


Of course the stigma exists. But that's the problem. The solution isn't to shy away from it, but to confront the sigma, shine a bright, focused light on it, and say very clearly that this is not acceptable.

I'm sure you were teased as a child (we all were)... being different is inevitable and, in the final analysis, highly desirable. But we all have to explain ourselves to our peers, or fight their preconceptions otherwise (sometimes quite literally... there was this little Eastindian kid in my junior high-school who got teased a lot, until he hospitalized one of the bullies that was picking on him with a quick shot to the bridge of the nose... dropped the stupid lummox like he'd been shot), and that appears to be an inevitable, and probably essential component of the process of maturation.

I pity the child who's so 'normal' that they never have to stand up for themselves.

cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> But we all have to explain ourselves to our peers, or fight their preconceptions otherwise, and that appears to be an inevitable, and probably essential component of the process of maturation.


Agreed, but it appears to me that children from SSM families will have to do so a lot more often, and for much longer duration based on the reactions of those Albertans to whom I pose the question.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Interesting question though. In the case of two loving couples, one *tall* and one *short*, which would you choose to raise an adopted child? Flip a coin?


T, FTFY. Now do you see what a nonsensical question it is?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The tall one.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A child being teased is ZERO reason to justify discrimination. That could apply to any number of situations.. 

Oh look your parents are hippies, or Pakis, or poor, or fat or Jewish or short or or or

This is an issue of equal rights before the law.

Social ills such as bullying and taunting and "kids being kids" will always be with us.

But that makes even more important that minorities of all sorts....even **** dinosaurus....are equal under the law.

Women, left handers, non-whites, Chinese, French Canadians, Meti and gays and Catholics the list is long and tearful have had to work hard to obtain their rights under the law and then acceptance in main stream society in Canada.

The two aspects are not always in step but in my mind the the FIRST and most important is equal under the law.

That's what makes this issue so frustrating .....it IS the law and there are those who would deny equal rights to these citizens over a term like marriage.
Just makes my blood boil. There is no excuse.

•••

yeah tall because they earn more..........


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Agreed, but it appears to me that children from SSM families will have to do so a lot more often, and for much longer duration based on the reactions of those Albertans to whom I pose the question.


Maybe what we ought to do is start a relocation program... move a few thousand gay families into Lethbridge, Grand Prairie, Athabasca (actually, I know lots of gay people in Athabasca, due to the university there), Innisfail, Devon, Hinton, etc.

There are already lots of gay couples in Edmonton and Calgary, but the smaller communities are still stuck in the '50s and need to be confronted with reality to get them up to speed.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> or P*k*s
> ......................
> yeah tall because they earn more..........


Not a good term to use, even as an example.
................. 
Also more confident and just all-round great people! beejacon


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Also more confident and just all-round great people! beejacon


How tall are you Beej?
:lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> How tall are you Beej?
> :lamo:


About average height relative to my most frequent experiences.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> There are already lots of gay couples in Edmonton and Calgary, but the smaller communities are still stuck in the '50s and need to be confronted with reality to get them up to speed.


There is more truth in that statement than many can possibly know where it concerns rural western Canada, not just Alberta. That's why I maintain the stigma exists and quite strongly, I might add. It could take two generations or more, of intense education to change that fact.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

This debate is starting to remind me of the abortion debate. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind because the positions are held so fiercely, logic or not and in many cases tangled up with selective religious interpretations.

I've made my position clear on this forum on a number of occasions. I am proud to be a part of a country that does not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation and although none of my gay male or lesbian friends has talked about getting married, I will happily and proudly attend their marriage celebration if they do. Even a decade ago this would have been a radical idea. Happily I've talked to the husband of a senior-aged BC marriage commissioner who said his wife is just as enthusiastic as me.

As far as changing anyone's mind on this, I doubt if my opinion would. There are those who are dead set against same sex marriage and will continue with their arguments whether they make logical sense or not. They will just have to get used to it, as previous generations had to get used to interracial marriage, universal suffrage and the abolition of slavery, because society won't be going backwards on this. Even the USA will eventually have to recognize this, although they may be one the last countries on Earth to do so.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

... and ...

the Cons bringing this up again is just a waste of time and money and they know it. Even if they could get the House to vote same-sex marriage down again, it would eventually be reversed in the courts. It would be just a huge expensive litigious mess, but the party who preaches "fiscal responsibility" has no problem heading down this road.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There are those who are dead set against same sex marriage and will continue with their arguments whether they make logical sense or not. They will just have to get used to it...


I think you've got this right. We can't legislate belief, but we can legislate behaviour.

After the next generation has grown up in a world were same sex couples are legally entitled to exactly the same treatment as heterosexual couples, and in which those few who do discriminate are consistently spanked in court, the discrimination will fade away and society can move on to dealing with other problems.

The dinosaurs will hang on for too long, and we'll have to deal with their embarrassing pitiful attempts to turn back the clock for decades (just as we still have to deal with the sexists and racists fairly regularly), but society will out live them.

In the meantime, it is imperative that the courts be contentious and clear about applying this law, so the regressive don't make any come-backs.

cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: good posts GA and Bry.
It's why having the legal basis strongly stated is in my mind a critical first step to full acceptance.
Discrimination couched in law is the most odious of all.

••••

If the dinos feel marginalized and isolated then maybe it will sink in how others that are at the receiving end of bigotry also feel.

One thing I see as a maturation of a culture is the ability to engage and even generate humour about "differences". I'd say the gay community has done a pretty fine job in that regard in making the idiosyncracies of certain parts of their culture hilarious . :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Even if they could get the House to vote same-sex marriage down again, it would eventually be reversed in the courts.


And therein lies the next problem. Judges making law. Totally unacceptable. The sooner we elect them, the better.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

An ignorant bellow by any other name doth smell as foul.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> An ignorant bellow by any other name doth smell as foul.


Could you do something about post 189, please. As per my comment in post 191.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Could you do something about post 189, please. As per my comment in post 191.


MacDoc does not subscribe to doing what he says. He does and says whatever he wants, wrong or right because in his mind, he is always right. And that is extremely sad.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> This is an issue of equal rights before the law.


This is simple enough, except that bigots like to dictate how we should act. 
I have no qualms calling SINC a dinosaur when it comes to this issue. Further, if "your" definition of marriage worries you so much maybe it's time to evolve. You are oppressing others, no bones about it. In the olden days, I'm quite sure you would be against the liberation of slaves under some religious excuse or definition of what a man is.

You have pedantic Beej and SINC doing their best at muddying up the debate when it facts it's simple. 
Should we treat gays as second class citizens because some don't like the definition of marriage? It say that some are being influenced by their homophobic nature and thinly disguised hate.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS, the thread is around 200 posts and has ranged over a couple related issues as such long threads often do. If that's too muddy for you to handle, I'm sorry about your limitations. Many others seem to be doing fine. Perhaps you should ask for help instead.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No Beej - it's an example of harm....just as ******, ****, Jap , Hun, Canuckistan, - the list is endless of pejoratives and I suspect in every language........some are funny some are deadly harmful and ALL are learned.
I took a cross section of physical, national, religious.......discrimination.

They are uncomfortable words .......but no more uncomfortable than the oh so polite bigotry swirling around "less than equal" ghetto that some here wish to park gays in. 

As I've stated a couple of times it's time for the free rides and politely ignoring bigotry to be over.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I tried to be polite about it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Time for politeness on this is gone. It's too important to dance around Victorian style.
What's under the skirts and antimaccassars reeks.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> What's under the skirts and antimaccassars reeks.


Look to yourself. You've lost perspective, at least in the past few hours. If you can't handle the discussion without becoming what you protest, then back away from the keyboard, if not before, then after someone tries to politely point out the clear error. You are not making the point that you think you are to me and, I propose, to some others. Even with the best of intentions, the best of us "lose it" and start spitting vulgarity to attempt a point. You tried to cover it by doing worse but, at least the second time, making the intention more clear. Good intentions are not enough.

You made a mistake. We all do.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nope - not at all.
I'm echoing what Scott Brison JUST said in the leaders debate - attack the Charter of Freedoms and you get a fight.

And HE of all can truly speak to what I'm on about.....and he said it very clearly....without the Charter and the changes in society he would not, could not be there. :clap:

From the heart.....

Am I dismissive of an ignorant attitude - you bet. Have been, always will be.
It's not something to be polite about.

You can if you wish, I won't.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Racial slurs do not strengthen your argument. The use of the asterix is easy, like I did in referring to your vulgarity. See the whole Michael Richards discussion. 

You screwed up with good intentions. Admitting error on this does not mean admitting error on your thesis of aggressively attacking discrimination. Admitting error does not mean admitting weakness, it takes strength to face up to it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Racial slurs do not strengthen your argument. The use of the asterix is easy, like I did in referring to your vulgarity. See the whole Michael Richards discussion.
> 
> You screwed up with good intentions. Admitting error on this does not mean admitting error on your thesis of aggressively attacking discrimination. Admitting error does not mean admitting weakness, it takes strength to face up to it.


So you are saying that using pejorative words is offensive even to say that the use of such words is offensive?

I don't buy this argument.
It's a little too anal retentive for me.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> So you are saying that using pejorative words is offensive even to say that the use of such words is offensive?
> 
> I don't buy this argument.
> It's a little too anal retentive for me.


First, look at the use of P*k*s in post 189. Now do you see? 

Second, like with swears, the asterix is easy to use, as are phonetic misspellings. In private conversation with people you know or are deeply engaged in discussion with, I agree with you, but this isn't that situation. 

Consider this board's language if people used such vulgarity when making points (and not actually due to racism): it would be horrendous. I'm surprised more people are not speaking up about this, but maybe I'm off-base on this. To me it's pretty effing clear and, I suspect, there would be a much more vociferous response if a "righty" or "dinosaur" used such language without racist intent. But that last bit is more subjective than the first bit. Still, worth considering.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc stepped over the line here. I would hope he can find the strength to admit his error and move on.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> And therein lies the next problem. Judges making law. Totally unacceptable. The sooner we elect them, the better.


You have to stop looking at the Judges to get your way. You have to rewrite the Charter (good luck with that by the way) in order for you to get your outcome. Even an elected Judge has to follow the law. SSM *is* the law of the land and it is supported by the charter.

You'll have to first re-write the Charter and then strike down the current federal SSM legislation. Then you'll have to and appeal all the cases now supported by the provinces.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> First, look at the use of P*k*s in post 189. Now do you see?
> 
> Second, like with swears, the asterix is easy to use, as are phonetic misspellings. In private conversation with people you know or are deeply engaged in discussion with, I agree with you, but this isn't that situation.
> 
> Consider this board's language if people used such vulgarity when making points (and not actually due to racism): it would be horrendous. I'm surprised more people are not speaking up about this, but maybe I'm off-base on this. To me it's pretty effing clear and, I suspect, there would be a much more vociferous response if a "righty" or "dinosaur" used such language without racist intent. But that last bit is more subjective than the first bit. Still, worth considering.


I fully get your point. I'm reminded however, of an incident I read about in the papers a couple of years ago where a teacher in California (I think it was Sacramento) was fired for telling his class that it was inappropriate to use words like *THE N WORD* because it is hate.
This should never have happened. 

(Of course he didn't say "N Word" and I should be able to say it in this context also. That I'm afraid to is sad and gives more power to *The N Word*.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nice try MF - just like a little kid...anymore snickers?

I chose my examples of discrimination specifically as each one different and they could have been any nationality based pejorative, *****, Jap, Hun Frog, Bohunk...as I said the list is endless to humanity's shame.

Politeness and pseudonym and gentility ( how loaded is that word ) cover the rottenness of embedded bigotry.

Y'know...THOSE PEOPLE...wink wink nudge nudge...... 

I was proud that Brison could stand in front of the nation and say what he did about the Charter and the impact on own his life and very loud applause it engendered.

That's what it's all about.

••

DJ - exactly - if the nay sayers want the Charter changed then they have the mechanism to do it.

Until that time saying gays should be second class citizens will get the disgusted reaction to bigotry it deserves.
Equal is equal.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> No Beej - it's an example of harm....just as ******, ****, Jap , Hun, Canuckistan, - the list is endless of pejoratives and I suspect in every language........some are funny some are deadly harmful and ALL are learned.


What's the point of throwing in racial slurs except to use them as a tool to get more attention? Disregarding any form of politeness in this thread is useless - the audience you're addressing may be a small subset of the forum population but it's a sign of disrespect to discard all politeness. I don't see the point of discarding politeness when you know what the other side believes and they aren't going to be changing their position.

There are times where certain terms are known to be not hate terms in a small group, but in a public arena they are not appropriate. In my opinion, the terms weren't used in a hate filled fashion - maybe ill advised, but from my experience I can't see them being used in any other way then crude slang to differentiate between cultures.

My own two cents, (as in just me) I don't believe MacDoc owes anyone an apology - the terms weren't meant derogatorily - but the usage IMO was ill advised.

So please keep it respectful, there's no problem with feeling passionate about a position but railroading all other positions doesn't serve anyone.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"I chose my examples of discrimination specifically as each one different and they could have been any nationality based pejorative,"

"Oh look your parents are hippies, or P*k*s, or poor, or fat or Jewish or short or or or"

and later in the same post:

"Women, left handers, non-whites, Chinese, French Canadians, Meti and gays and Catholics the list is long and tearful have had to work hard to obtain their rights under the law and then acceptance in main stream society in Canada."

(my *s)

That is the original use before subsequent attempts to cover for it by using a string of slurs. Spot the multiple racial slurs? This is just sick. It's up to the moderators, but I see no difficulty in expecting such vulgar language to *ed just like the word sh*t. It's that simple. The debating point still gets made.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Better drop it Beej. Like I said, MacDoc is always right in his own closed little mind when it comes to terms and usage on his terms.

His wording was vulgar, unnecessary and insulting to ehMac members. One does not have to stoop that low, even here to make a point.

I have lost all respect for the man as of today.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Better drop it Beej.


Thanks for the advice. 

I've made my case in more detail than I ever expected was necessary. I thought post 191 was enough: simple error in judgement, simple correction (ie. *s or different word) to make, end of story.

I will now take your advice.


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> Better drop it Beej. Like I said, MacDoc is always right in his own closed little mind when it comes to terms and usage on his terms.
> 
> His wording was vulgar, unnecessary and insulting to ehMac members. One does not have to stoop that low, even here to make a point.


Well said... :clap:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> And therein lies the next problem. Judges making law. Totally unacceptable. The sooner we elect them, the better.


The judges did not make that law. The law that you're upset with was made by our elected representatives when they made our charter. Our charter says one cannot discriminate based on a number of criteria and the judges have said quite clearly that not allowing gays to marry like everyone else is discrimination. We've gone up and down this dozens of times now and you still don't get it. Giving them a separate status, "civil union" is discrimination. (Of course the same people who are proposing civil union now, would have denied them even that right a decade ago - this is a rear guard action.) Either you're being purposely obtuse and know better or you're not able to understand a logical argument. 

Every argument you've used to try and justify re-enacting discrimination against gays has been fallacious. If parliament took away the right of gays to marry that would not stand up to the democratically enacted law of the land and would fail. Harper and his party fully know this, yet they persist, because they don't want to piss off their social conservative base who don't understand this. There is no argument here - unless you plan to revoke the Charter, but you can't pin this on the judges.

I understand that you don't want gay people to have equal rights, but please don't expect me to believe there is anything behind it except for the willingness to tolerate and/or the willingness to engage in discrimination.

But as I said earlier, this is like debating abortion, it's impossible have a rational argument about it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It is indeed. This thread is ample proof of that. Sooner or later the fine points tend to get lost amidst the corrosion of background noise... ego smashing flat into intelligence and courteous exchange of views.

We should perhaps all back off of this thread for a few moments and take stock.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I'm surprised more people are not speaking up about this, but maybe I'm off-base on this.


Maybe indeed you are offbase. I considered my language very carefully and if you can't see it in the context of what I said then we'll disagree.
Not the first time nor the last time.


Society has moved past SOME of bigotry and casual hurtful language that existed in the past.
But not all .....and hiding that fact behind polite language is no longer acceptable.

Volpe kicked off his speech with his family as immigrants and one his constituents, an immigrant., plea to him ..."make me feel I'm part of this country".

How about extending that same welcome to gays.......they are part of this country - equal in EVERY respect.

I'm not in the least bit afraid of defending my statements, language or position - unlike it seems those that can come up with nothing but sarcastic sound bites with no contribution.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The judges did not make that law.


Maybe not that particular law, but there are others they have indeed "made" in their own twisted way and Canadians are the poorer for them. And there are far too many who refuse to apply the full force of the law that need to be turfed and electing them is the only way to achieve that.

But like Max says, maybe it's time we all took a break.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I'm not in the least bit afraid of defending my statements, language or position - unlike it seems those that can come up with nothing but sarcastic sound bites with no contribution.


I guess you didn't read MY CONTRIBUTION the first time round, so here it is again:



SINC said:


> Like I said, MacDoc is always right in his own closed little mind when it comes to terms and usage on his terms.
> 
> His wording was vulgar, unnecessary and insulting to ehMac members. One does not have to stoop that low, even here to make a point.
> 
> I have lost all respect for the man as of today.


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

martman said:


> It seems for the purpose of this discussion it is OK to be a bigot so long as you hate gays.


How, or why, does it seem to you that "for the purpose of this discussion it is OK to be a bigot so long as you hate gays"?

Jesus said: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Matthew 19:19, 22:39, Mark 12:31 (KJV)).

This is not a hate-filled remark: "So long as at least one person’s sexual orientation is changeable at acceptable personal costs, the claim made by the so-called 'Supreme Court of Canada' is false. Numerous testimonies of people who are no longer homosexual, whose sexual orientations have changed at acceptable personal costs, have discredited this false claim made by Canadian courts. Sexual orientation can be changeable at a personal cost that is very acceptable. Also, religion can be changeable at acceptable personal costs, and religion is listed in Section 15(1)."


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

Fink-Nottle said:


> That assertion remains incorrect and is based on a spurious interpretation of our constitution. It is largely unwritten and the unwritten parts are as important or more important than the written parts.



Can you prove that Canada's Constitution "is largely unwritten"?


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The judges did not make that law. The law that you're upset with was made by our elected representatives when they made our charter. Our charter says one cannot discriminate based on a number of criteria ...


According to judges with the Court of Appeal for Ontario, “It is clear that a law that has a discriminatory purpose cannot survive s.15(1) scrutiny”.

The phrase "without discrimination" in Section 15(1) of the Charter refers back to "every individual", not to "the law".

Section 15(1) states: "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."

The law can, should, and does morally discriminate. For example, male-only and female-only washroom laws morally discriminate on the basis of sex. Male-only and female-only schools, jobs, teams, clubs, areas, accommodations, etc. discriminate based on sex. Birth certificates discriminate based on sex. Sex-based insurance rates discriminate based on sex. Age-based insurance rates discriminate based on age. Age-of-consent laws discriminate based on age. Voting-age laws discriminate based on age. Lawful definitions for words morally discriminate on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age and mental or physical disability.


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, ...


Members of the House of Commons as of June 28, 2005, and members of the Senate as of July 19, 2005, previously swore, or affirmed, that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second.

Section 128 of the _Constitution Act, 1867_ states: "Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person Authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; ...".

The Fifth Schedule of the _Constitution Act, 1867_ states:

"OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.​
I, A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. 

_Note.--The Name of the King or Queen of the *United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland* for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with Proper Terms of Reference thereto._"

Queen Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Does anybody recognize a present-day existence of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland?

According to _Wikipedia_, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a state that was created on 1 January 1801 by the merger of the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself a merger of the former Kingdoms of Scotland and England in 1707) and the Kingdom of Ireland. It ended upon Irish independence in 1922 when the Anglo-Irish Treaty created the Irish Free State.".

According to _The World Factbook_, "the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 formalized a partition of Ireland; six northern Irish counties remained part of the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland and the current name of the country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was adopted in 1927".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_Parliamentary_Titles_Act_1927


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Reading on the unwritten:

http://www.canadianembassy.org/government/constitution-en.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_convention_(political_custom)


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

Beej said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_Parliamentary_Titles_Act_1927


The "Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 (17 Geo. 5. c. 4 [12th April 1927.])" states: "BE it enacted by the *King*'s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :—".

On April 12, 1927, Section 9 of the _British North America Act, 1867_, now called the _Constitution Act, 1867_, stated: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the *Queen*". 

On April 12, 1927, Section 17 stated: "There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the *Queen*, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons". 

On April 12, 1927, Section 91 stated: "It shall be lawful for the *Queen*, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...".

George V was not a Queen. George V was not Canada's constitutional Queen regnant on April 12, 1927.​


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

These aren't examples of "moral" discrimination. They represent discrimination based on matters of convenience. Morals are something else entirely. Except for the consent-age thing.

But a sentence like "Birth certificates discriminate based on sex" does make a pretty blatant demonstration of what's wrong with this argument.




dpwozney said:


> The law can, should, and does morally discriminate. For example, male-only and female-only washroom laws morally discriminate on the basis of sex. Male-only and female-only schools, jobs, teams, clubs, areas, accommodations, etc. discriminate based on sex. Birth certificates discriminate based on sex. Sex-based insurance rates discriminate based on sex. Age-based insurance rates discriminate based on age. Age-of-consent laws discriminate based on age. Voting-age laws discriminate based on age. Lawful definitions for words morally discriminate on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age and mental or physical disability.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

dpwozney said:


> Queen Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.


It looks like Beej dug out the appropriate reference for this one. 

Do you seriously think that the very institutions which govern this nation are in fact not legal entities? 

This is a specious argument at best and I can see where this is headed... My guess is that you feel that all laws governing Canada as laid out in the original constitution and all subsequent legislation are all null and void. Then I suspect that since the dominion of Canada was not specifically mentioned in the Offences Against the Person (England) Act 1828 that legally Canada is still under the Buggery Act 1533.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533

Keep reaching for the stars there buddy :clap: 

BTW... I have to admit that the line of reason for your argument is far more interesting than most of the other arguments here.


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

Beej said:


> Reading on the unwritten:
> 
> http://www.canadianembassy.org/government/constitution-en.asp





> http://www.canadianembassy.org/government/constitution-en.asp
> 
> "Canada's Constitution ... also includes unwritten elements such as British constitutional conventions, established custom, tradition and precedent."


Can anyone prove that Canada's Constitution "also includes unwritten elements such as British constitutional conventions, established custom, tradition and precedent"?​


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

dpwozney said:


> Can anyone prove that Canada's Constitution "also includes unwritten elements such as British constitutional conventions, established custom, tradition and precedent"?​


I believe you are looking for this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriation_Reference

Then this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriation

and this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_convention_(political_custom)


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

dpwozney said:


> George V was not a Queen. George V was not Canada's constitutional Queen regnant on April 12, 1927.[/left]


The point is "Styles" and convention. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_of_the_British_Sovereign

The death of a monarch (and gender change) does not invalidate the 1867 BNA, much less the repatriated 1982 Constitution. There are now rules in succession and whether or not Canada must recognise future monarchs if succession changes. That also doesn't invalidate our constitution.

You've only made a case that monarchs have changed over years. In that, I agree with you. You have not made any case of relevance. You just keep pointing out various documents that demonstrate the changes.

As for conventions:
Unenforceability
................................
Constitutional conventions are not obligatory, but are in effect procedural agreements to which all sides adhere. Some conventions evolve or change over time; for example, before 1918 the British cabinet requested a parliamentary dissolution from the monarch, with the Prime Minister conveying the request. Since 1918, prime ministers on their own initiative request dissolutions, and need not consult members of the cabinet. However conventions are rarely ever broken. Unless there is general agreement on the breach, the person who breaches a convention is often heavily criticised, on occasions leading to a loss of respect or popular support. It is often said that "conventions are not worth the paper they are not written on", i.e., they are unenforceable in law because they are not written down. Whatever enforceability they have comes from history, tradition, symbolism and their cross-party support.
................................

The embassy link I provided gave an example. These are not "written in stone" and are a part of a flexible constitutional body versus a fully codified approach. 

"Responsible government, for example, in which the Cabinet is collectively responsible to the elected House of Commons and must resign if it loses a vote of confidence, is a fundamental, but unwritten, element of Canadian parliamentary democracy at the federal and provincial levels."

This actually happens (just did last year). So by, "Proof", what are you looking for?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/keywords.php?keyword=20

If you are simply saying you don't agree with the validity of convention because it isn't written down as an Act, then that is just preference for a different constitutional form than Canada's. With the Charter, ours became more codified, not fully codified.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.constitutional-law.net/divisionsample.html
..............................
The written Constitution provides the formal establishment of the institutions of public power. Over time, daily political life develops expectations as to how the institutions of governance should be operated. Constitutional writers call these expectations the 'usages, practices, customs and conventions' of the constitution. The institutions of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, for example, indeed the entire system of responsible government, are nowhere mentioned in the written constitution. Yet, without understanding the usages, practices and conventions established in these institutions, Canada's written Constitution would make no sense. A person reading the written Constitution would think that Judges are appointed by the Governor General. A person familiar with the constitutional conventions relevant to judicial selection would understand that the Minister of Justice and Prime Minister follow a procedure which results in a name being forwarded to the Governor General for her rubber stamp. If the Governor General were to ignore this process and appoint a person on her own, her act would be 'unconstitutional' in the conventional sense. The consequences of such 'unconstitutional' action are discussed in two cases that follow (Patriation Reference and Osborne v. Canada). These cases also discuss how constitutional conventions may be identified and their overall significance. 
..............................


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

HowEver said:


> But a sentence like "Birth certificates discriminate based on sex" does make a pretty blatant demonstration of what's wrong with this argument.


My Webster's New World™ Dictionary (CD-ROM, 1995) defines "discriminate" as:

"*dis crim i nate* (di skrim'i nat ; _for adj._ , -nit) *vt. -nat ed, -nating* [[< L _discriminatus_ , pp. of _discriminare_ , to divide, distinguish < _discrimen_ , division, distinction < _discernere_ : see DISCERN]] *1* to constitute a difference between; differentiate *2* to recognize the difference between; distinguish --*vi.* 1 to see the difference (_between_ things); distinguish *2* to be discerning *3* to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality _(in favor of )_ or prejudice _(against )_ --*adj.* involving discrimination; distinguishing carefully --*SYN. * DISTINGUISH".

My "Certificate of Birth" states "Sex MALE".

Birth certificates distinguish and differentiate between the male sex and the female sex.​


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

dpwozney said:


> Birth certificates distinguish and differentiate between the male sex and the female sex.​


Only for the purposes of identification. There is no implied or explicit discrimination happening here... unless of course you are transgendered.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I can see dpwozney's point. Discrimination has become a pejorative even though we exercise it all of the time. Society demands that we not discriminate, but switches the criteria constantly, declaring some discrimination acceptable and other discrimination unacceptable.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Dpwozney does NOT have a point. Yes, those dictionary definitions of discrimination are all correct. 

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with discriminating. All it is is dividing or separating based on certain criteria. 

If we want to be healthy, we discriminate. No more McDonalds, more home-made salads.

If we want to we rich, we discriminate. No more $5 Starbucks Lattes, more home-made tea.

Discrimination is not always a bad word.

When you use discrimination to impose unfair restrictions on people, that's when it becomes an issue. Sure, your driver's license says your male. There are no consequences to that. Until you go to get insurance. You're a male, so you pay more. The driver's license isn't to blame. The insurance company is.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But then some discrimination is allowable while other discrimination isn't. By ruling against "discrimination" the government creates policy based on a false distinction. They ought really to deal with the core issues rather than building a big gooey anti-discrimination confection out of each issue.


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

dpwozney said:


> The Fifth Schedule of the _Constitution Act, 1867_ states:
> 
> "OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.​
> I, A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.
> ...


Queen Elizabeth II claims the style and title "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". Parliament of Canada passed an act with respect to the royal title of Queen Elizabeth II which was "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

The possibility exists that there has been a King and a Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ever since July 1, 1867.

"And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible" (Mark 10:27).​


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

dpwozney said:


> Members of the House of Commons as of June 28, 2005, and members of the Senate as of July 19, 2005, previously swore, or affirmed, that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second.
> 
> Section 128 of the _Constitution Act, 1867_ states: "Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person Authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; ...".
> 
> ...


Why should Canadians have to obey so-called "laws", allegedly based on the Constitution, when such supposed "laws" are made up by people who themselves clearly do not follow laws in the Constitution?​


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I hope this isn't a cry for help.

Then again, in my experience, people who are made the most uncomfortable by someone else's lifestyle are the ones who most dearly want to try it out.

It's time to quit repressing and walk a mile in their sandals. Live and learn. And respect others.





dpwozney said:


> Why should Canadians have to obey so-called "laws", allegedly based on the Constitution, when such supposed "laws" are made up by people who themselves clearly do not follow laws in the Constitution?​


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

HowEver said:


> It's time to quit repressing and walk a mile in their sandals. Live and learn. And respect others.


To whom are you giving these instructions? 

What repression are you referring to?​


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> My guess is that you feel that all laws governing Canada as laid out in the original constitution and all subsequent legislation are all null and void.


I do not "feel that all laws governing Canada as laid out in the original constitution and all subsequent legislation are all null and void".



da_jonesy said:


> Then I suspect that since the dominion of Canada was not specifically mentioned in the Offences Against the Person (England) Act 1828 that legally Canada is still under the Buggery Act 1533.


Canada is not mentioned in the Buggery Act 1533. Legally, Canada has never been under the Buggery Act 1533.

In the present church age, people today are under New Testament Christian law. The New Testament does not prescribe any specified penalty, punishment, or enforcement by men for violations of the laws of God before the end of the present church age.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)

The commandment in Matthew 7:1-2 is to judge not violations of God's laws along with measures meted out. See also Matthew 13:28-30.

Nevertheless, both good and evil are to be discerned: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

dpwozney said:


> In the present church age, people today are under New Testament Christian law.


If you want to live by the rules of a bunch of bronze-age drug-addicts, that's your business, but keep your crazy rules to yourself.

Cheers


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

Beej said:


> The death of a monarch (and gender change) does not invalidate the 1867 BNA, much less the repatriated 1982 Constitution.


On April 12, 1927, Section 9 of the _British North America Act, 1867_ required a Queen regnant to have executive government and authority of and over Canada.

On April 12, 1927, Section 17 of the _British North America Act, 1867_ required a Queen regnant to be part of the Parliament for Canada.

On April 12, 1927, Section 91 of the _British North America Act, 1867_ required a Queen regnant to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada.

George V was not a Queen. George V was not Canada's constitutional Queen regnant on April 12, 1927.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

dpwozney said:


> On April 12, 1927, <... bunch of stuff about kings and queens deleted...>


Uh, what's you're point? We all know that Canada is historically a constitutional monarchy, but that the roles of the royalty are purely symbolic now. So what does it matter?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

dpwozney said:


> In the present church age, people today are under New Testament Christian law. The New Testament does not prescribe any specified penalty, punishment, or enforcement by men for violations of the laws of God before the end of the present church age.
> 
> "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)
> 
> ...


Well then your entire argument is a non sequitur now isn't it? By your logic the New testament does not prescribe enforcement, penalty or punishment then people are FREE to wed whomever they choose whenever they choose.

I consider that a religious victory for the forces supporting SSM.

Thanks!


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

bryanc said:


> If you want to live by the rules of a bunch of bronze-age drug-addicts, that's your business, ....


What "bunch of bronze-age drug-addicts" are you referring to?

What "rules of a bunch of bronze-age drug-addicts" are you referring to?



bryanc said:


> We all know that Canada is historically a constitutional monarchy, but that the roles of the royalty are purely symbolic now.


How do you "all know" "that the roles of the royalty are purely symbolic now"?​


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

dpwozney said:


> What "bunch of bronze-age drug-addicts" are you referring to?


The ones that wrote the various strange fairy tales that make up the bible.



> What "rules of a bunch of bronze-age drug-addicts" are you referring to?


I'm not quite sure, but I assume that when you wrote that "people today are under New Testament Christian law" you were suggesting that there are rules in the bible that might apply outside of your imaginary world.



> How do you "all know" "that the roles of the royalty are purely symbolic now"?


Well, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding from elementary school is that the monarchy's representative is required to give royal assent to any bill passed by parliament. In principle, the GG could refuse, but it doesn't happen in practice, and if it did it would cause a constitutional crisis resulting in the removal of the role for the monarchy. Canadians, like Australians, don't mind having kings and queens to decorate our currency, but they don't have any functional role in our governments.

Cheers


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> By your logic the New testament does not prescribe enforcement, penalty or punishment then people are FREE to wed whomever they choose whenever they choose.


There may be other laws, that are not in the New Testament, concerning marriage.

Freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression are consistent with the teachings of the New Testament. The right to choose to exercise free will to violate the laws of God is a New Testament doctrine.



da_jonesy said:


> I consider that a religious victory for the forces supporting SSM.


You can consider the religious victory to have occurred in the first century AD. The New Testament was written in the first century AD.​


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The ones that wrote the various strange fairy tales that make up the bible.


What "bible" are you referring to? The KJV Bible never uses the words "fairy" and "fairies".



bryanc said:


> I'm not quite sure, but I assume that when you wrote that "people today are under New Testament Christian law" you were suggesting that there are rules in the bible that might apply outside of your imaginary world.


Can you prove my world is "imaginary"?



bryanc said:


> Well, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but my understanding from elementary school is that the monarchy's representative is required to give royal assent to any bill passed by parliament.


Is the Queen's representative always required even if the Queen is in Canada?



bryanc said:


> In principle, the GG could refuse, but it doesn't happen in practice, and if it did it would cause a constitutional crisis resulting in the removal of the role for the monarchy.


How do you know "it doesn't happen in practice"? How do you know "if it did it would cause a constitutional crisis resulting in the removal of the role for the monarchy"?



bryanc said:


> Canadians, like Australians, don't mind having kings and queens to decorate our currency, but they don't have any functional role in our governments.


Can you prove any of your various claims?

Are you a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada? 

In my dictionary, the first definition for "privy" states "private", and the second definition for "privy" states "hidden, secret, furtive". "Furtive" is defined as "done by stealth to avoid being noticed; secret, clandestine".​


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Given what the Queen's family has been up to, marriage-wise, I don't think we'll be taking too many pointers from her.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

dpwozney said:


> What "bible" are you referring to? The KJV Bible never uses the words "fairy" and "fairies".


Neither do many other fairy tales. What's your point?



> Can you prove my world is "imaginary"?


Nope. That's the beauty of imaginary constructs. I can't prove your magical sky-daddy doesn't exist in exactly the same way you can't prove you're not being followed by invisible pink space pixies. Both constructs are of equal explanatory value, and both are of equal plausibility.



> Is the Queen's representative always required even if the Queen is in Canada?


Dunno. Don't care. I do care that our elected representatives are who pass laws in this country.

Do you have any points to raise relevant to this, or any other discussion, or are you simply going to go on quoting ancient documents?


----------

