# Anyone thinking of voting Conservative should read this



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I have kept pretty quiet (well pretty quiet for me) during this whole campaign (I'm working on being more tolerant towards others, but sometimes this is hard for me). Prior to the election I want all those young people and undecided voters who might vote conservative to give this a read and think on it.

I am opposed to the Conservatives for one reason and one reason only. That reason is their opposition to the current same sex marriage law. Stephen Harper has said, that should the Conservatives win an election, one of the first things they would do is bring this issue to a "free" vote in the house of commons. Given the background of the Conservatives platform on this issue this will result in the law being changed and the "not withstanding" clause being invoked to take away the rights of some Canadians.

Should this happen, this is what I want you to think about...

Twenty years from now when you have kids or your kids have their own kids, will you be able to sit down and look them in the face and proudly tell them that your vote took away the rights of other Canadians? What reason will you give them for they way you have voted? What do you think they will think of you? Will they be proud of you for taking away someone else's right?

Before you vote... think about that.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

First I need to say that I agree with same sex marriage and support the current legislation. I don't think it needs to be changed.

But, I also feel that people are making too big a deal about this issue. As a rights issue, it is marginal in my opinion.

The Conservatives support same sex rights. They support equal treatment under the law for gay couples. They only want the name of a gay marriage to be different. This is something that opponents to a free vote often overlook. So maybe we have two types of marriage: 'traditional' and 'modern'. Again I don't support a change, but I would feel quite comfortable telling my kids that I supported a party that supported a vote on the naming of different types of marriage.

Nobody is voting to take away rights.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Nobody is voting to take away rights.


Yes, they are. If the Conservatives are true to their word... they will use the notwithstanding clause to take away rights granted under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

If they weren't going to do this... they wouldn't have said it. Unless of course they were just kidding? Do you think they are kidding?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Your description of how it will happen are not entirely factually. 

Gays won't loose a single "right". What they will loose is use of the term "marriage" to define their distinctly different union. They'll be getting spousal benefits just like the straight couples, raising kids although not making them, paying taxes and paying spousal support when they break up just like the heterosexuals. So unless you call ownership of a term a human right then they'll have lost nothing. My wife has all the same rights as me yet she can't say she's a male and she doesn't need to. We all know a woman has all the rights of a man even though she is not defined using the same terms.

If you vote Conservative, don't loose any sleep. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Yes, they are. If the Conservatives are true to their word... they will use the notwithstanding clause to take away rights granted under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.
> 
> If they weren't going to do this... they wouldn't have said it. Unless of course they were just kidding? Do you think they are kidding?


Gee I don't seem to understand the Liberal fear campaign regarding the notwithstanding clause. Especially when in the vortex of the gay marriage debate Martin even promised to use it if the Supremes decided to force churches to perform gay weddings against their religion. Would the social left refuse to use it if socially conservative judges decided that a fetus was a human being entitled to all the protection granted under the charter? I think not.

Its there for a good reason. Unless you prefer the opinions of a majority of unelected judges to dictate the law for the entire country with impunity. No thanks.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> My wife has all the same rights as me yet she can't say she's a male and she doesn't need to. We all know a woman has all the rights of a man even though she is not defined using the same terms.


Interesting idea, however this argument completely fails if your wife was to undergo sexual reassignment surgery. Or do you not think your wife would be allowed to make any claims to her/his new gender? Would you say that she, now he is not a man?

Gender is not what it once was and same sex marriage is the law of the land.



MacGuiver said:


> If you vote Conservative, don't loose any sleep.


Sure... don't loose any sleep now. Like I said, when people start losing their rights... how are you going to explain your actions? When two people who love each other cannot be married... what will YOU say to them? 

I can see MacGuiver now, the words coming out of his mouth "Sorry you are gay, but you can't be married to each other."

Give it a try MacGuiver, try it on for size.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Its there for a good reason.


I'm not debating the existence of the notwithstanding clause... 

Do you think you can explain to your children that taking away the chance for two people who love each to say they are married is a good enough reason to use the notwithstanding clause?


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> use of the term "marriage" to define their distinctly different union.


I guess what I don't get is, what makes it destinctly different? As I see it, and correct me if I am wrong, marriage is the union of two people who love each other. Because if we want to get into semantics, a person of Asian descent marrying a person of Afro-American descent is destinctly different than the union between my wife and I - two multi generational Canadians.

But, as far as I am concerned if two people love each other and want to make their lives together in the union of marriage, I don't think their level of commitment or value of the term is degraded because they may use the same public restroom.

Marriage is love, and the souls that choose to live by it's definition… 

And I don't define my marriage by history, or definition or preconcevied notion of what is _'right'_. I define it by the level of commitment we have made to each other.

And I won't vote for any party that wants to remove the ability for anyone to use the same term that I apply to themself because by my standards, their union is different.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Vandave, Macguiver,

What is your source when you say that the Conservatives do advocate same sex unions? I would hope that they would go at least this far but I don't see it in their platform or hear it in their speeches.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> The Conservatives support same sex rights. They support equal treatment under the law for gay couples. They only want the name of a gay marriage to be different. This is something that opponents to a free vote often overlook. So maybe we have two types of marriage: 'traditional' and 'modern'. Again I don't support a change, but I would feel quite comfortable telling my kids that I supported a party that supported a vote on the naming of different types of marriage.
> 
> Nobody is voting to take away rights.


:clap: 

Exactly. Follow England's lead. 

Marriage = one man and one woman

Union = two persons of the same sex


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

Da_jonesy, it's obvious to me that those in support of revoking the rights of GLTB's to marriage, have not themselves had to deal with discrimination. They do not realise that simply not permitting the use of the same word hurts and is discriminatory. There ignorance will not be discarded until they or someone close to them has to deal with the hurt. 

What I want these people to do , is to try to place themselves in another's shoes. Maybe they will get a glimmer of what it's like not to live in there safe little world, and will finally see how a simple X in a box can hurt millions.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Vandave, Macguiver,
> 
> What is your source when you say that the Conservatives do advocate same sex unions? I would hope that they would go at least this far but I don't see it in their platform or hear it in their speeches.


I believe Haper has stated this is their policy during the campaign.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I believe Haper has stated this is their policy during the campaign.


Vandave, what you have is a party that says it's fine with SSM but is ready to revisit the issue as a free vote. Knowing full well what the members of the Cons will do. It's using a back door to seem more palatable and less bigoted.


> The Conservative Party candidate for the Yukon says she doesn't support the concept of same-sex marriage.
> Sue Greetham says same-sex couples should be granted civil union status instead.
> "I come from a very, you know, I believe in God, I believe in marriage, a man and a woman for the family to bring children up," she says.
> "The definition of marriage has been in this country for years and years and people don't understand why it's being actually ripped away from them. It's a loss, not a gain, it's a loss."
> Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper has indicated that he would be willing to revisit the legislation and hold a free vote on the issue if his party gets a majority in the Jan. 23 election.


Now, I wonder why he would not want a free vote if he has a minority?
I mean he is saying it's a free vote... The hypocrisy is amusing...

http://www.cbc.ca/north/story/marriage-election-16012006.html


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Vandave, what you have is a party that says it's fine with SSM but is ready to revisit the issue as a free vote. Knowing full well what the members of the Cons will do. It's using a back door to seem more palatable and less bigoted.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/north/story/marriage-election-16012006.html


:clap: Exactly Artistseries... it is completely disingenuous.


----------



## Luc Tremblay (Jul 5, 2005)

To me, people who desire to differentiate the way we name marriage depending on the sexual orientation of a couple just demonstrate they are not willing to treat homosexual couples as equal to heterosexual couples.

Does it really change something to you? Are you threatened or something? You don't want to have gays in your "married straight guys club"?

It seems to me some people want to have the last word. That's it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> "The definition of marriage has been in this country for years and years and people don't understand why it's being actually ripped away from them. It's a loss, not a gain, it's a loss.


Well then perhaps we should revisit voting rights for women.........there were no voting women for much longer than there has been universal suffrage.......feel like being a chattel again?????......

It was SUCH a loss to men........


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I believe Haper has stated this is their policy during the campaign.


In fact his speech to parliament opposing changing the traditional definition clearly indicated he favored them having full rights much like they have in the UK.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> In fact his speech to parliament opposing changing the traditional definition clearly indicated he favored them having full rights much like they have in the UK.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver



I think Revmatt covered it nicely in the other related thread...

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


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A valid point, singingcrow ("What I want these people to do , is to try to place themselves in another's shoes. Maybe they will get a glimmer of what it's like not to live in there safe little world, and will finally see how a simple X in a box can hurt millions."). Imagine the outcry if gay and lesbian marriages were called "a marriage", and heterosexual marriages were called "a civil union". Personally, I don't care what it is called for myself, or a gay and lesbian couple. To me, it is just a word. I think that if someone, regardless of gender, wants to commit themselves to another person and share their lives together, we all share something in common (i.e., the love of and for another person). Therefore, we should be able to share the word which describes this sharing.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


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


Wasn't "separate but equal" the old slogan of apartheid South Africa? Of course, in practice, the "but equal" part was conveniently forgotten.


----------



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

Harper has said he will not invoke the notwithstanding clause over this issue. However, he has said that if a free vote passes to prevent same sex marriage, he will refer it to the Supreme Court and expects the court to dismiss the earlier legislation. The supreme court is unlikely to be able to do this due to the legal complications that such a reveral of consitutional rights would lead to.

Because same-sex marriage is legal is several provinces due to a series of successful challenges, rescinding the Canadian law will put the provinces and federal courts out of step. There will be appeals by individuals that will be referred to the Supreme Court, eventually. This will cost millions of dollars and keep lawyers busy for years. What for? To placate in the short term the right wing of the Conservative Party and those older than 45. There is no doubt that the term marriage will not be restricted to heterosexual couples at the end of the day. However, this short-sighted political expediency will deny observation of rights to same sex couples for several years, at substantial and futile legal cost. Legally, it is a non-issue since Harper's only way out (for 5 years) is to invoke the non-withstanding clause, which he stated he will not do.

Canada is supposed to be a progressive society. On this issue, Stephen Harper is acting like King Canute and the tide WILL come in.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Tides go out as well.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> _the courts have also clearly said that equal but not the same is not, in fact, equal. _


Reminds me of this old quote...

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

- George Orwell's Animal Farm


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Person = Man (pre-1930), Man or Woman (post-1930)

African = Slave (pre-1819, Upper Canada), Free (post-1819, Upper Canada)

Homosexual = "criminal sexual psychopaths" and "dangerous sexual offenders." (pre-1960), "the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation"" (post-1960)

Child = Mine worker (pre-1870), School-kid (post-1870)

My, how definitions change over time.

Marriage = Man & Woman (pre-2003), Two People (post-2003)

Deal with it.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

GuyTO, I get and agree with your basic point, but in fairness all of your other examples are of how the definiton of being a person is understood, while the definition of marriage is about how an insitution functions. I slightly different thing. You would be better, I think to simply point out how marriage has been differently defined over history. Like that it was once for many. Like that it was once not voluntary for the female. That it largely didn't exist outside of the societal elite and royal families until about 300 years ago. And so on.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Marriage = Man & Woman (pre-2003), Two People (post-2003)
> 
> Deal with it.


I have. And so will many other Canadians. Get over it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I have. And so will many other Canadians. Get over it.


And do you think they will be as proud as you for taking away the institution of marriage from people who love one another?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> And do you think they will be as proud as you for taking away the institution of marriage from people who love one another?


It's not taking anything away. It's all about retaining the institution.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> It's not taking anything away. It's all about retaining the institution.


So what do you say old boy, let's make divorce illegal...
It does go against the institution of marriage, n'est ce pas?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> So what do you say old boy, let's make divorce illegal...
> It does go against the institution of marriage, n'est ce pas?


Be fine with me as I have no need of such procedures.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> It's not taking anything away. It's all about retaining the institution.


Ah, but the law has passed... now it *IS* taking it away.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Ah, but the law has passed... now it *IS* taking it away.


No one is asking for any _rights_ to be taken away. Just a simple change defining two very different types of pairings.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Question:

If same sex couples are going to still have all the same rights, privileges and headaches associated with marriage, why should it have to be called anything but marriage?

Calling it a 'union' just so that those in the country who don't want them to marry are appeased seems discriminatory (for lack of a better term) to me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

PosterBoy said:


> Question:
> 
> If same sex couples are going to still have all the same rights, privileges and headaches associated with marriage, why should it have to be called anything but marriage?


Because a same-sex union is NOT one man and one woman which is the traditional definition of a marriage.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> No one is asking for any _rights_ to be taken away. Just a simple change defining two very different types of pairings.


As Revmatt said previously... "the same but different is NOT the same".


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Because a same-sex union is NOT one man and one woman which is the traditional definition of a marriage.


There it is again... "traditional definition of marriage".

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

So I ask you Sinc, 15 years ago, if my wife and I just had the East Indian ceremony you would feel comfortable in not recognizing our marriage?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> So I ask you Sinc, 15 years ago, if my wife and I just had the East Indian ceremony you would feel comfortable in not recognizing our marriage?


You did what you felt you had to, given the laws of the day. :clap:

I too am doing what I feel I have to, given the laws of the day.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Because a same-sex union is NOT one man and one woman which is the traditional definition of a marriage.


Again, this is your traditional definition of marriage.

Britney Spears' two-day marriage
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Musi...rs.wedding.ap/

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

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

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


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> The Canadian court system bears the mark of more than 10 years of Liberal rule, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said today.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060118.wharper0118/BNStory/specialDecision2006/

Excuses from Harper already or should I infer that he will be appointing partisan "key personnel"? 

"God bless all of you, God bless Canada!”, Now I'm sure that Harper is sending a message by ending all his speeches with that phrase or should I say pandering to his friends?

What I find ironic is that Harper and the Cons seem to hate Canada. Why else would he want to dismantle Canada and it's values.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> What I find ironic is that the Librals and Martin seem to hate Canada. Why else would he want to dismantle Canada (seperatist sentiments are at a all time high after a dozen years of Liberal rule) and it's values (nothing like having the party in power involved in numerous theft corruption and bribery charges as a way to preserve Canadian values, eh?).


With apologies to AS for my small edits.


----------



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

The legal definition of marriage in Canada is explicitly not limited to heterosexual couples. It does not deny heterosexual couples from marrying. It does not change their status. The only thing that the legislation does do is to allow two people of the same sex to be married.

Numerous courts in the land have ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar same sex couples from marrying. These courts have nothing to gain from their decisions and the definition will prevail.

SINC, by the time the tide goes out, the King will have long been drowned.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> SINC, by the time the tide goes out, the King will have long been drowned.....


More than likely correct in future UTBJ, but if a man gives up trying to live by his beliefs, he is less a man.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> You did what you felt you had to, given the laws of the day. :clap:
> 
> I too am doing what I feel I have to, given the laws of the day.


And what are the laws of the day now!

Bill C-38 passed by a 158-133 margin, with support from most Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. 

The bill became law less than a month later, on July 20, 2005. After being passed by the Senate, the same-sex marriage legislation received royal assent as Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, acting in her role as deputy governor general, signed it into law. Canada become the fourth country to recognize gay marriage, after the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain.

You knew that right? Since it is now the law of the land I guess you support it right? Congrats Sinc, thanks for your support on this issue


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Congrats Sinc, thanks for your support on this issue


Nice try at putting words in my mouth. 

Read this:

As long as I can draw a breath, I will continue to attempt to right the wrong imposed by the Liberal Party of Canada that changed the traditional definition of marriage.


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

from your cold, dead hand?

next up NRA…


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Because a same-sex union is NOT one man and one woman which is the traditional definition of a marriage.


So you'd give them something that looks, acts and smells like a marriage but not let them be married? How discriminatory.

If we really want to talk about equal rights for these people, it should be all or nothing. Let them be married, or not. None of this "almost but not quite because there is more (or less!) than one penis involved' crap.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Government could always get out of marriage, and leave it purely to religion. Government would then just approve binding contracts between adults. Very binding. Choking, suffocating-type binding. Sorry, I've got a case of bacheloritis.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

If I'm not mistaken, what Stephen Harper has said he would do is to allow a free vote on the question of allowing same sex marriage to be called marriage. I've heard nothing about removal of any rights.

That means that each MP that we elect this monday, no matter what party they belong to, will be able to vote on this while representing their riding. And the results of a majority will become the new rule. Whichever way it goes.

This sounds like democracy to me.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think it is also important to point out that should such a vote pass, Harper would immediately forward it to the Judiciary. The Judiciary exists to protect rights. If any new legislation violates the rights, it would then become null and void.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

That's what I keep hearing.

So why the big flap?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> That's what I keep hearing.
> 
> So why the big flap?


It's definately a touchy issue and is very important to many people, particularly gay people. Many of these people have been discriminated against historically and are very leary of the religious right. I understand where they are coming from and why they feel that way. 

But, nobody is advocating a loss of rights. The Supreme Court will have the final say on this issue.

So the debate is really about terminology, rather than rights. Personally, I am happy with the current definition and I would rather have an inclusive society. But, I wouldn't call somebody a bigot if they didn't agree with me, nor do I have a problem voting for a party that allows multiple points of view on the subject.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> As long as I can draw a breath, I will continue to attempt to right the wrong imposed by the Liberal Party of Canada that changed the traditional definition of marriage.


Just want to get a clear understanding of where you draw the line for traditional marriage.

Are you Islamic? Is this how you treat your wife?


> As for those from whom you fear refusal of obedience, admonish them and [if this does not effect their behavior then] leave them alone on their beds and [if even this does not effect their behavior then] *beat them.*" Qur'an (4: 34)


http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/spot_full_story.asp?service_id=793

Christian?


> *Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands*, as unto the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in everything.


Ephesians 5:22
http://www.bible.ca/f-husbands-responsibility.htm

Jewish?


> When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins.


http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/hebrew_law.html

How about older laws?

Maybe you like Friar Cherubino of Siena's Ruels of Marriage from the 1400's


> beat her, not in rage but out of charity and concern for her soul, so that the beating will redound to your merit and her good.


http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/History.html



> in medieval Welsh law, under certain specific stringently defined conditions, a man might strike a woman with a stick as thick as his middle finger and as long as his forearm, but only three blows were allowed, anywhere on the body but the head


http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah/factoids.htm#thumb

Is this your tradition of marriage and how a man and woman can be joined together?


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> If I'm not mistaken, what Stephen Harper has said he would do is to allow a free vote on the question of allowing same sex marriage to be called marriage. I've heard nothing about removal of any rights.
> 
> That means that each MP that we elect this monday, no matter what party they belong to, will be able to vote on this while representing their riding. And the results of a majority will become the new rule. Whichever way it goes.
> 
> This sounds like democracy to me.


Didn't we already do this once?

Democracy is now keeping going at an issue until you get the result you want?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Let's fast forward one week here...

IF we have a brand new government after jan 23rd (and most everyone thinks we will) then we will have collectively demonstrated that we all want some things to change.

Democracy is asking everyone we elect to represent us to actively vote on lots of different things. New government means we didn't like the old one. Time to look at all sorts of stuff that the former government did and decide, collectively, if we will let it stand as is...or do we want to reject it?

Just as we've rejected that previous government. By majority vote.

No majority? No new government? Then that would indicate that we all want things to stay the same. Collectively, we will have indicated this.

That's democracy.

We'll have to see how it goes five days from now.


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

so this election, the second one in how long, is about the definition of a word?


If this were a true democratic process wouldn't we then ALL be allowed to vote on the definition of the word?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Wouldn't it be nice if they quit squabbling over the meaning of one word, and got onto more pressing issues, like:

Health Care
Poverty
Safety and Violence
Unity

Why are they wasting tax dollars fighting over whether lesbians get "married" or "civilly united"?


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

I am sure the Crebas are more concerned about the true definitation of marriage.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

teeterboy3 said:


> Didn't we already do this once?
> 
> Democracy is now keeping going at an issue until you get the result you want?


Your almost right.
Democracy is when you keep going at an issue until you get the result the "majority" of people want. In a democracy, whipping your MPs to vote against the wishes of their constituents isn't being democratic.

So, would you have me believe if the traditional definition of marriage had been upheld by parliament the gay lobby would have shrugged their collective shoulders and walked away from the issue forever? As if!

Why would you realistically expect that from someone else?

We've established that marijuana and other drugs are illegal in this country. Why do people keep going at that issue until they get the results they want? I don't here any complaints about revisiting that old issue much around here. I guess the legal drug crowd should just shut up and move on? We dealt with it. Laws were passed by parliament and the whole bit.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Your almost right.
> Democracy is when you keep going at an issue until you get the result the "majority" of people want. In a democracy, whipping your MPs to vote against the wishes of their constituents isn't being democratic.
> 
> So, would you have me believe if the traditional definition of marriage had been upheld by parliament the gay lobby would have shrugged their collective shoulders and walked away from the issue forever? As if!
> ...


:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Too bad nobody else gets it. :-(


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

Richard Dean Anderson,
Are you suggesting that if we revisit the issue, conservative style, that is going to be the desire of the majority?

Please don't tell me this WHOLE crap heap waste of time election is over the definition of one word, or more correctly that we allowed "other" kinds into the secret confines of its antiquated definition…

Especially since it was so recently just voted on and decided.

Cause if it is. Scrap the election and just have the Canadian voters vote on their support or lack of the new definition of the word and then leave the results as is until the times again change and we need to inlude people from outer space.

If you think democracy happens in parliament, then why are so many people angry with the current state and want change? No party in power will ever truly represent the democratic want of all the masses of which they govern.


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

SINC said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap:
> 
> Too bad nobody else gets it. :-(


I think I do, in MY perspective.
Perhaps you should allow that others could be as right as you?
And that your opinion equals no more a majority than mine.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

teeterboy3 said:


> No party in power will ever truly represent the democratic want of all the masses of which they govern.


Especially the Liberals. If there ever was an opportunity for a vote by all Canadians on individual issues, I suspect many things the last Liberal government passed would be rescinded.


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

Two words: Mul & Roney.

Thing is I am trying to remember how the Liberals were in power for so long… do you remember how they got there?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

teeterboy3 said:


> Richard Dean Anderson,
> Are you suggesting that if we revisit the issue, conservative style, that is going to be the desire of the majority?
> 
> Please don't tell me this WHOLE crap heap waste of time election is over the definition of one word, or more correctly that we allowed "other" kinds into the secret confines of its antiquated definition…


Teetertotterboy,

No, the whole election is not about gay marriage but for many on this board they're ready to vote for the red devil they know to assure that the definition of the word marriage maintains its latest trendy makeover. There was this thing where the devil we know (the Liberals) had this elaborate scheme to steal money from Joe taxpayer to line their own pockets. They had this big inquiry into the whole affair where the judge concluded the current devils had this "culture of entitlement". In fact the pro-gay marriage NDP and Bloc were so outraged by the scandal, even they voted to have this election. Surely Serge and Bob getting a marriage certificate wasn't the reason they voted this government out?

I'd agree that this election would be a waist of time if we got the same results as we had before it. However, it appears that won't be the case.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

Teeter Totter… now there's two I would have never thought of putting together. And I think that's the first time I've heard that, too! You couldn't seriuously have been that urked by the Richard Dean Anderson, could you have?

And I want to thank you for the recounting of the part about the scandal. You know, I just googled it, and it turns out you're right. Apparently there is another issue in this election… and I was shocked. Politicians I gather are corrupt. From what I read on the internet, using this method called history, I couldn't ascertain which political party was guiltiest. But I guess every new one that comes in, likes to claim they are cleaning up the previous party's problems seeminlgy to make way for their own. And then some time later they are voted out, because of discontent.

I couldn't qualify if this was another trendy makeover or just a respin of the past old, outdated ideas.

Maybe you can help me?


But bare with me, I am bored with this thread and going to bed.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

teeterboy3 said:


> Teeter Totter… now there's two I would have never thought of putting together. And I think that's the first time I've heard that, too! You couldn't seriuously have been that urked by the Richard Dean Anderson, could you have?
> 
> And I want to thank you for the recounting of the part about the scandal. You know, I just googled it, and it turns out you're right. Apparently there is another issue in this election… and I was shocked. Politicians I gather are corrupt. From what I read on the internet, using this method called history, I couldn't ascertain which political party was guiltiest. But I guess every new one that comes in, likes to claim they are cleaning up the previous party's problems seeminlgy to make way for their own. And then some time later they are voted out, because of discontent.
> 
> ...


Actually I found your Richard Dean Anderson quip funny to be quite honest. Sorry you didn't see humor in my teeter totter rebuttal. I'll retract that if you like and offer an apology but feel free to call me Richard Dean Anderson. Shows you have a sense of humor and so do I.

Back to issues. You seem to be alluding to the waist of time it is to change governing parties since they're all corrupt anyway. Fair enough. There's an island off the tip of Florida where they seem to share your idea. Well... the government does anyhow. They seem to conclude elections are just as pointless so they just don't bother.

Cheers
Richard D. Anderson


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

So, we both agree that Richard Dean Anderson was better than yours… I'll give you time to come up with a better one. In fact I'll give you the evening.

As for that Isle… I heard they have good stogies.

Okay, really its past my bed time.

Peace, out.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

teeterboy3 said:


> So, we both agree that Richard Dean Anderson was better than yours… I'll give you time to come up with a better one. In fact I'll give you the evening.
> 
> As for that Isle… I heard they have good stogies.
> 
> ...


LOL!!!

Yeah its been fun but its time to hit the hay.

Cheers
RDA (aka MacGuiver):yawn:


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

teeterboy3 said:


> Two words: Mul & Roney.
> 
> Thing is I am trying to remember how the Liberals were in power for so long… do you remember how they got there?


A brief history on how the Liberals got there:

http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/government/pms.html

D


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Too bad nobody else gets it. :-(


What I get is a bitter man that thinks that because in his day "marriage" was one woman/one man would like to go back to the old glory days because in his mind that somehow affects him. Someone who is ready to negate rights of individuals. 

As you seem inclined politicize this debate - the Cons are only using a backdoor to revisit an issue where it's members views are known. Free vote is meaningless, it is a diversion to further the Con agenda. It is dishonest. And, the question has been asked - the response that we see from Con members is that they will likely vote against SSM from personal conviction and not what their constituents would like. 

The gay marriage is only one issue about the Cons that seem unsavoury on. The platform that the Cons have put forth is one that is diametrically oppose to centrist Canadian values. Sugar coating it with marketing goobily-**** or distilling it to be more palatable does not change the gist of it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> What I get is a bitter man that thinks that because in his day "marriage" was one woman/one man would like to go back to the old glory days because in his mind that somehow affects him. Someone who is ready to negate rights of individuals.


How many times do I have to state no one is trying to negate ANY rights? All we are trying to do is negotiate a definition for marriage. The rights are not negotiable.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC, I understand that you believe that. I even respect that their is some validity in your statement. What you aren't hearing, is that there is another perspective. You don't need to agree with it, but it would behoove you to hear it. The courts, and those who are directly affected have clearly stated that access to the term "marriage" is an issue of rights. Again, I respect your right to disagree, but the occasional statement that even acknowledges the existence of the other position would go a long way to building credibility for you and your position.

I actually believe that if a government wants to find a way out of this, their best bet is to not use the term marriage anywhere. We would adopt a European model, where marriage is strictly a religious affair, with equal, and equally described, civil unions available to all. Especially since the courts have ruled exceedingly clearly that so long as a church/synagogue etc. operates in a way that is consistent with it's own rules, it may restrict access to it's rites and rituals.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt, I appreciate that the courts have ruled, but I am tired of judges making law. It is time the people are heard through their elected representatives who then should enact a law. Courts CAN be wrong.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> RevMatt, I appreciate that the courts have ruled, but I am tired of judges making law. It is time the people are heard through their elected representatives who then should enact a law. Courts CAN be wrong.


Sinc... IT IS LAW. The Bill was passed in parliament, approved by the senate and enacted by the Governor General.

What part of that don't you understand?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> RevMatt, I appreciate that the courts have ruled, but I am tired of judges making law. It is time the people are heard through their elected representatives who then should enact a law. Courts CAN be wrong.


Actually, I agree that courts can be wrong. All I asking, is that you start with that statement. It would make it a lot easier for me, at least, to be able to talk to you about the issue in general. See, then we can have a constructive discussion about why the courts are wrong in this particular case. I don't believe they are, but the majority of people that I work with in my employment feel the way that you do, and even if I am feeling fairly firm in my opinion, I want, in fact need, to better understand yours.

edit - I realise that not everyone here is going to be willing to listen to you without devolving into nasty attacks. But if you promise to ignore them, I do too


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap:
> 
> Too bad nobody else gets it. :-(


Sinc... I just wish you could "get it". :-(


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> Actually, I agree that courts can be wrong. All I asking, is that you start with that statement. It would make it a lot easier for me, at least, to be able to talk to you about the issue in general. See, then we can have a constructive discussion about why the courts are wrong in this particular case. I don't believe they are, but the majority of people that I work with in my employment feel the way that you do, and even if I am feeling fairly firm in my opinion, I want, in fact need, to better understand yours.


Revmatt what I don't understand anymore is that this is NO longer an "issue" to be decided in the courts. Bill C-38 passed and was enacted into law. This argument seems to be moot now.

And when we were discussing the issue as it relates to the Charter... it was pretty clear that the charter grants people the freedom NOT to be discriminated against based on sex.

I think that the burden of proof should be reversed now... how do heterosexual couples that wanted to be married feel that they are discriminated against by allowing same sex marriages to be recognized? What right of theirs are being prevented by allowing same sex marriage?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> Actually, I agree that courts can be wrong. All I asking, is that you start with that statement. It would make it a lot easier for me, at least, to be able to talk to you about the issue in general. See, then we can have a constructive discussion about why the courts are wrong in this particular case. I don't believe they are, but the majority of people that I work with in my employment feel the way that you do, and even if I am feeling fairly firm in my opinion, I want, in fact need, to better understand yours.
> 
> edit - I realise that not everyone here is going to be willing to listen to you without devolving into nasty attacks. But if you promise to ignore them, I do too


Fair enough. To be clear, in spite of those who think I don't understand how the law was born, I clearly do.

And to be clear, I know that I and others who share my beliefs have to seek a change in that law following the appropriate legal path.

Having said that, there are literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians who believe the courts are wrong. They further believe that the democratic process was subverted by the "follow the party line" directive issued by Paul Martin. That in our minds took the option of a free vote away from legally elected MPs who disagreed with the law as it was presented. It was an order by a dictator-like PM.

We believe that the first step in trying to enact change is to elect a government willing to hold that free vote, and if the result of that free vote is clearly in favour of present law, then we have no option but to accept the ruling and carry on with life.

If however, the result of that vote is in favour of the traditional definition of the word marriage, we would mount a campaign to have the government of the day permanently change the law by whatever means at their disposal including using the notwithstanding clause, many times over if need be.

I don't know how much more clear I can be, but that is my posiiton and I know it is of many others. Our cause is being spearheaded by Hon. Dr. Grant Hill, P.C., and is called Defend Marriage Canada.

In a free and democratic country, we believe it is our right to try and effect change when we object to laws made by forced votes in parliament.

Many on this board keep attacking me and others for that position which only reflects their own bigotry towards our cause and that is the saddest part.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Many on this board keep attacking me and others for that position which only reflects their own bigotry towards our cause and that is the saddest part.


Sinc... I am still at a total loss as to how someone using the term marriage to describe their relationship in anyway impinges upon your freedom and rights as defined under Canadian law and the Charter.

Please demonstrate to me how your rights (or any other of your hundred of thousands of Canadians) are impinged by allowing someone else to use the term marriage to describe their relationship.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> In a free and democratic country, we believe it is our right to try and effect change when we object to laws made by forced votes in parliament.


A free democratic country once imprisoned Japanese enmass... was that right?

A free democratic country once prevented women from voting... was that right?

Just because we live in a democratic society doesn't mean that the mob rules and can ignore individuals rights. Or did I miss something in the definition of a free and democratic society somewhere along the line?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> RevMatt, I appreciate that the courts have ruled, but I am tired of judges making law. It is time the people are heard through their elected representatives who then should enact a law. Courts CAN be wrong.


The law should be independent of political influence. Mob "rules" indeed.
If you let the politician decide what is and what is not law, then you may as well let special interest groups run the country. 

Should we remove women's suffrage also, I mean in Quebec at the provincial level women only received that right in 1940. Still not too late....

You are being "attacked" on this board because your views are narrow-minded, exclusive, and intolerant.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Revmatt what I don't understand anymore is that this is NO longer an "issue" to be decided in the courts. Bill C-38 passed and was enacted into law. This argument seems to be moot now.
> 
> And when we were discussing the issue as it relates to the Charter... it was pretty clear that the charter grants people the freedom NOT to be discriminated against based on sex.


It is pretty clear to me that few people are asking that the issue be resolved in the courts. They are asking for the courts to be overruled. There is, however, the legitimate point that the Supreme's have never expressly ruled on the basic issue. I'm not clear how it would be possible to get that ruling, given that appeal opportunities have all been passed on, but since the political powers that be in this argument have refused to explain how they think a change can be accomplished, and since I am far from an expert, I am open to the fact that there is some mechanism available that I and the experts I have read are unaware of.



da_jonesy said:


> I think that the burden of proof should be reversed now... how do heterosexual couples that wanted to be married feel that they are discriminated against by allowing same sex marriages to be recognized? What right of theirs are being prevented by allowing same sex marriage?


I agree that that is the case once the initial question is settled. What I am hearing, and what SINC said just below this post of yours, is that there is a distinct feeling from a significant number of people that the initial question has not yet been settled. Arguably, it never will be to everyone's satisfaction. But I am not unsympathetic to the argument that we haven't made the best possible effort.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You are being "attacked" on this board because your views are narrow-minded, exclusive, and intolerant.


That's your choice to attack on that basis. I usually  don't 'attack' the narrow-minded, exclusive and intolerant views here (views we would likely define differently)...I try to draw them out into a reasonable discussion away from their unsupported rhetoric, or just not bother with them if they don't want to. Why attack? Because he's there?

[Edit: In case I wasn't clear, the intention is to look beyond a Sinc-focussed world into one where a number of others demonstrate so-called 'narrow-minded', 'exclusive' and 'intolerant' views.]


----------



## med8or (Jan 18, 2002)

SINC said:


> RevMatt, I appreciate that the courts have ruled, but I am tired of judges making law. It is time the people are heard through their elected representatives who then should enact a law. Courts CAN be wrong.


Sinc:

Courts don't make laws, but they are required to evaluate all laws based upon our constitution. There is a very sound legal process to ensure that all laws are held accountable to the consitution. 

There are those who would prefer not to have a constitution and perhaps this is the point that needs to be debated?

If you support the consitution, but honestly believe that judges are not applying it correctly, could you site some examples of where you feel logic failed and in which courts could be sited as "making laws"?

If we are to hold the constitution as the law of the land, we cannot pick and choose what we apply it to or don't. Laws often reflect what we want society to be (or should be), not necessarily what public opinion says. If our wants, desires and opinions are not in line with the Consitution and specifically the Charter of Rights, I would question whether those opinions are, and please forgive for lack of a better expression, morally valid. In my opinion, nothing is more important then basic human rights/natural law.

Jason


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Fair enough. To be clear, in spite of those who think I don't understand how the law was born, I clearly do.
> 
> And to be clear, I know that I and others who share my beliefs have to seek a change in that law following the appropriate legal path.
> 
> Having said that, there are literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians who believe the courts are wrong. They further believe that the democratic process was subverted by the "follow the party line" directive issued by Paul Martin. That in our minds took the option of a free vote away from legally elected MPs who disagreed with the law as it was presented. It was an order by a dictator-like PM.


Firstly, thanks.
This is, from what I have seen, the crux of the issue. Those who disagree with the change in definition hang all of that on the fact that the vote was not a free one. My problem with this, is that I see it as a partial fallacy. It was not a free vote, but by the standards of parliament, it was far more free than normal. It's fine to say that you want a free vote on this issue, when voting by party lines defeated your view point, but would you support a truly free vote on abortion? On tax cuts? At what point do the free votes stop, and does party discipline return? There is certainly no indication that free votes are to become the norm, only for this one issue. Like it or not, party dictated votes are at the core of our system. If the push for a new, free vote on marriage were connected to a general push to reform parliament, I could find it easier to support. As it is, it sounds a little like sour grapes.



SINC said:


> We believe that the first step in trying to enact change is to elect a government willing to hold that free vote, and if the result of that free vote is clearly in favour of present law, then we have no option but to accept the ruling and carry on with life.


This is disingenuous, SINC, because it makes it sound like there is a party somewhere who is generally neutral on the issue. The reality is that that is not the case. A free vote, even if it is genuinely free, led by a Conservative majority will have a predictable outcome. Just as a free vote led by an NDP majority would. Arguably, a free vote by the split Liberal party would be the closest to an actual representation of the national opinion. And yes, I recognise that it wasn't actually free last time, so we have not yet had such a vote.



SINC said:


> If however, the result of that vote is in favour of the traditional definition of the word marriage, we would mount a campaign to have the government of the day permanently change the law by whatever means at their disposal including using the notwithstanding clause, many times over if need be.


I appreciate your honesty here, and I respect it. I only wish that the political party you have chosen to support in this drive were as honest. Again, if Harper would simply tell us how he intends to respond to the results of the free vote, he would gain a lot of respect from me. I may still disagree with him, but at least he would be open and honest, which would put him above the other actors here (save, perhaps, Duceppe).



SINC said:


> I don't know how much more clear I can be, but that is my posiiton and I know it is of many others. Our cause is being spearheaded by Hon. Dr. Grant Hill, P.C., and is called Defend Marriage Canada.
> 
> In a free and democratic country, we believe it is our right to try and effect change when we object to laws made by forced votes in parliament.


All laws are made by forced votes in parliament. That said, it is your right, and everyone's right, to protest laws that they feel are unjust. You are being very clear, the party you are working with is being unclear to the point of dishonesty. That is a major part of the problem, frankly.



SINC said:


> Many on this board keep attacking me and others for that position which only reflects their own bigotry towards our cause and that is the saddest part.


That is partly true, but again only partly. The dishonesty of the political masters your cause works with (arguably serves) is another major stumbling block to being able to have intelligent debate on the issue. The inability of your cause to make an objective case that can stand in this secular, post-christendom age, is another. Frankly, the biggest stumbling block, I believe, is the continued lack of clarity about how religion is to relate in this new world. It applies to conservative religious people, and liberal ones, as well. More so for folks on my end of the spectrum, since we don't have any party willing to talk to us


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> That's your choice to attack on that basis.]


Attack was placed in quotes - not because I feel I'm attacking SINC, because he's perceiving that. I have tried to place the context of SSM as one of rights.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The law should be independent of political influence. Mob "rules" indeed.
> If you let the politician decide what is and what is not law, then you may as well let special interest groups run the country.
> 
> Should we remove women's suffrage also, I mean in Quebec at the provincial level women only received that right in 1940. Still not too late....


Many have made this point. And it is a valid one. The majority is not always right. That is why our system has the checks and balances that it does. The point of SINC's that needs to be heard, however, is that the manner in which this issue was decided lacks credibility. Arguably, that should tell us that our whole decision making structure is flawed. I would be the first to jump on that bandwagon, in fact. But the point that you and other have made that the majority is not always right is an excellent one.

Are you aware in making that argument you are arguing against modern democracy, however?



ArtistSeries said:


> You are being "attacked" on this board because your views are narrow-minded, exclusive, and intolerant.


That is partly true. It is also fair to say that he is being attacked because others have equally narrow-minded and intolerant views. Attacking and personal defamation is virtually never the response of the open-minded.

edit - bad codeage


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

med8or said:


> If you support the consitution, but honestly believe that judges are not applying it correctly, could you site some examples of where you feel logic failed and in which courts could be sited as "making laws"?


This is one of the stumbling blocks, I believe. Not everyone believes that logic is the ultimate criteria. Sometimes decisions must be made on a basis other than that. And clearly, whenever the courts discard one law, they are making another. Well, OK, except for the rare time that they create a vacuum (abortion). But most times, that is not the case. The discard of the old law usually comes with instructions about what the new one should be, at least in part.



med8or said:


> If we are to hold the constitution as the law of the land, we cannot pick and choose what we apply it to or don't. Laws often reflect what we want society to be (or should be), not necessarily what public opinion says. If our wants, desires and opinions are not in line with the Consitution and specifically the Charter of Rights, I would question whether those opinions are, and please forgive for lack of a better expression, morally valid. In my opinion, nothing is more important then basic human rights/natural law.


That is your lens. There are others. And it is arguable whether the Charter is totally consistent with human right and natural law. It is an excellent approximation, and one that the majority of Canadians have agreed to adopt. But it isn't perfect.
It is often said that my rights end at the end of my arm, and yours begin at the tip of your nose, if you follow the analogy. Unfortunately, when there is no actual measurable contact, how do we balance emotional impact?
For the record, I mostly agree with your statment, however.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

med8or said:


> Sinc:
> 
> Courts don't make laws, but they are required to evaluate all laws based upon our constitution. There is a very sound legal process to ensure that all laws are held accountable to the consitution.
> 
> ...


Good post. 

I'd add as options: amending the constitution and the implications/morality of having the notwithstanding clause as part of the Charter...using it is completely constitutional. Interesting topics.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Attack was placed in quotes - not because I feel I'm attacking SINC, because he's perceiving that. I have tried to place the context of SSM as one of rights.


In a respectful relationship, there is always give and take between what you intend, and how your actions are percieved. Is it possible to re-examine how you phrase your comments, and consider if they can be expressed in a way that won't be recieved as attacking, without compromising what you want to say? Which is not to say that a sharp condemnation is not warranted some times. But you want to do so intentionally, not accidentally. Otherwise it loses it's power.

And I don't mean to pick on AS, here. Many others around here, myself including, could use a step back. Although AS and his arch-nemesis are arguably the most in need of it


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Attack was placed in quotes - not because I feel I'm attacking SINC, because he's perceiving that. I have tried to place the context of SSM as one of rights.


My misinterpretation. Sorry.

My comments on intolerant, exclusive and narrow-minded still seem relevant though, considering some of the discussion that goes on for non-rights topics (where the intolerant of intolerance argument is not applicable).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> This is one of the stumbling blocks, I believe. Not everyone believes that logic is the ultimate criteria.


Interesting posts here RevMatt, thanks for your very valuable contributions.

On the quote, I think that due to the diversity of society (not just cultural) and diversity of personal views and emotions, that overarching rule must be logic-based because it is the only common ground that cuts across every individual. Every individual may not have the same logic, or like the results, but it's the only common framework for decision making that doesn't empower, for example, 'squeakiness'.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej, I agree. But in terms of world history, this modern reality is very, very new. And the old ways of deciding things are very fresh in people's minds. Not everyone is yet ready to accept the primacy of a logical discussion, nor, for that matter, is everyone able to participate in that discussion. They don't have the training.

To be clear, I make the decisions that I make for my own reasons. Being who I am, my religious beliefs affect my decisions, but other factors do, too. BUT I recognise that before I can argue for my beliefs to be a part of our secular culture, I must find a way to present them independent of the personal factors (religious or otherwise) that lead me to that point.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

Yes, honesty would be nice, but in politics, is it realistic?

A lot has gone on since the beginning of this thread, and I have read every posting in which there are some very good coments and arguments.

Sinc, I think I understand now where you're coming from. You do not intend to discriminate by refusing the use of the word marriage to SS couples because marriage is what it is in your mind. But keep in mind, and most writers know this, words are very powerful. 

Take for instance the word secretary. Most would come up with the image of a woman sitting behind a desk, taking phone calls, and notes. The word secretary, unless at a high level such as secretary of state, is not generally used for a man. A man would be given some sort of assistant title and with it a higher salary because he's *not* a secretary. These differences in words creates not only a difference in stature socially, but financially as well. And yet, the two are the same. 

Someone also recently, believe it or not, used the *N* word when talking about a black man. When I argued it, their response was "Well that's what they are called." And they meant it Sinc. They actually didn't realise the word they used was hurting anyone.

I know I'm showing you extreme examples here, but when dealing with SSM and refusing the use of marriage (a merry time of union) somehow that takes the merriness away. It takes the magic away. You denying SS couples the excitement of having a magical cerimony of partnership, because they all grew up believing getting married was a beauiful exciting day and getting a civic union was something companies did. Not quite the same.

On top of everything, RevMatt is right we don't know what Harper and his flock are planning to do with this vote, but it was made clear before this election was called that Harper did not agree with SS couples receiving the rights to marriage either.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Sinc... I am still at a total loss as to how someone using the term marriage to describe their relationship in anyway impinges upon your freedom and rights as defined under Canadian law and the Charter.


So am I.

I'm at a total loss as to how heterosexual unions being defined as "marriage" impinges upon the freedom and rights of gays as defined under Canadian law and the Charter any more than defining my wife as a "woman" impinges upon her rights since she can't claim to be a man. By your own admission, ownership of the term "marriage" is clearly not a human rights issue. We do agree on that.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

singingcrow said:



> Yes, honesty would be nice, but in politics, is it realistic?


All it takes is one party or leader to blink, and for that person to be rewarded by the electorate. As I believe they would be. Is that likely? Hell no. But hope springs eternal


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> So am I.
> 
> I'm at a total loss as to how heterosexual unions being defined as "marriage" impinges upon the freedom and rights of gays as defined under Canadian law and the Charter any more than defining my wife as a "woman" impinges upon her rights since she can't claim to be a man. By your own admission, ownership of the term "marriage" is clearly not a human rights issue. We do agree on that.


There is a quantifiable difference that explains why your wife cannot be a man. What is the quantifiable difference between a hetero union and a **** one, other than the individuals involved, since that is the issue at stake? IF marriage only counted when it produced children (the Roman Catholic view, applied equally to hetero and **** unions), then you would have a point. But what is the quantifiable difference? To put it another way, what is it that makes a man and a woman living together become a marriage, and what of those things cannot be achieved by two members of the same sex?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Although AS and his arch-nemesis are arguably the most in need of it


I feel left out not having an arch-nemesis. Can you me mine?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> I feel left out not having an arch-nemesis. Can you me mine?


Hehe. I think productivity is our joint arch-nemesis, given how much time we both spend posting here


----------



## med8or (Jan 18, 2002)

Thanks RevMatt: Thought pervoking. My initial thoughts on what you've said:



> This is one of the stumbling blocks, I believe. Not everyone believes that logic is the ultimate criteria. Sometimes decisions must be made on a basis other than that. And clearly, whenever the courts discard one law, they are making another. Well, OK, except for the rare time that they create a vacuum (abortion). But most times, that is not the case. The discard of the old law usually comes with instructions about what the new one should be, at least in part.



Yes, I agree that there are many opinions on governance. I would argue that laws need to be somewhat flexible, based upon the situation, etc. I would be the first person to say on an issue that doesn't involve human rights, that the will of the people should be reflected in any law and any interpretation of that law. Really, this is the basis for common law.

I'm not so sure that by deciding whether a law is constitutional and striking down legislation is creating law, but perhaps it's a matter of symantics. All laws are 'suppose' to be created to appease the conditions of our constitution. In my opinion, the courts are simply the double check of whether a law actually does meet these conditions. While some would see courts as making law, perhaps the other side is that our politicians are to blame for not creating law properly in the first place?

I think it's also important to note (sorry to state the obvious), it was the legislature who created the constitution. So really, if the courts are simply interpreting a document made by the legislature, in my opinion, the legislature can be seen as having created all laws, regardless of whether it has come about by passing of a law or a court challenge.




> That is your lens. There are others. And it is arguable whether the Charter is totally consistent with human right and natural law. It is an excellent approximation, and one that the majority of Canadians have agreed to adopt. But it isn't perfect.
> It is often said that my rights end at the end of my arm, and yours begin at the tip of your nose, if you follow the analogy. Unfortunately, when there is no actual measurable contact, how do we balance emotional impact?
> For the record, I mostly agree with your statment, however.


Point taken. I DO agree with you that the Charter isn't perfect, but of course perfection would be utopian. "What" natural law is, is difficult. I think it's a bit easier to define human rights, but again, I'm not so sure there is a universal answer. That said, even though it's sometimes difficult to define these rights, it often is very obvious when you see it or it is lacking somewhere.

My rights are not to infringe on anyone else's rights and vice versa. This is the best that we can hope for to explain the space between us. I'm a supporter of this notion.

I DO agree that we need to be cognisant of the various impacts, but to what end? Is the emotional impact of an issue enough to infringe on human rights of others? Do we really want to allow tradition and customs to outweigh things like the right to equality or not to be discriminated against?

Jason


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> And I don't mean to pick on AS, here. Many others around here, myself including, could use a step back. Although AS and his arch-nemesis are arguably the most in need of it


If you have noticed, as of late, I've let stupidity run rampant around here.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Let's see what we have here.

1. The Charter of Rights in our constitution is our supreme statement of Canadian values. It was entrenched by Parliament and the legislatures of 9 provinces. The 10th legislature, a separatist Quebec government, did not formally sign on for political reasons, but it is clear that Quebec society also embraces the principles of the Charter.

2. The Charter states that all Canadians are entitled to equality under the law. (the nuances of section 15 of the Charter were discussed detailed in detail in the Trudeau thread, and need not be repeated here).

3. Several senior Canadian courts have held that denying the fundamental institution of marriage to gay couples violates their rights under the Charter. 

4. Sinc has a singular obsession with this issue. He can call these Courts wrong all he likes, but it is apparent that he has not read any of the decisions and does not care what they say - all he knows is that he disagrees with the outcome. He elevates his uninformed opinions by maligning judges and accuses them of making law. The reality is that the Charter is the law, and Sinc doesn't like the Charter when it leads to a result that doesn't appeal to his personal views.

5. No matter. Even if Sinc were right, even if judges were legislating from the bench, Parliament has passed legislation that has the same result that Sinc finds so unpalatable. 

6. The law opens up an institution that Sinc obviously considers precious and meaningful to others who obviously feel the same way, but have been barred from it.

7. Sinc persistently protests that he is not anti-gay, yet he continues to obsessively write reams of posts against gay marriage. I believe that his endless, virulent postings on this subject outnumber all of his postings on other issues — quite a number considering how prolific he is. Moreover, his rhetoric is disturbing, for example


SINC said:


> we would mount a campaign to have the government of the day permanently change the law by whatever means at their disposal including using the notwithstanding clause, many times over if need be.


And this, for a law that has no negative effect on his own life. 

SINC, the views you express on this issue, and the way you express them, cannot be reconciled with the person you want to be perceived as.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> They further believe that the democratic process was subverted by the "follow the party line" directive issued by Paul Martin. That in our minds took the option of a free vote away from legally elected MPs who disagreed with the law as it was presented. It was an order by a dictator-like PM.


Uh, ok, then how do you explain the NDP and the Bloc voting yay on the bill?

If I recall, it was only the Conservatives who voted nay, and the PM can't force anyone outside his own party to vote with him. Also, I don't think Martin specifically could.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> I'm at a total loss as to how heterosexual unions being defined as "marriage" impinges upon the freedom and rights of gays as defined under Canadian law and the Charter any more than defining my wife as a "woman" impinges upon her rights since she can't claim to be a man...


Consider what people affected by the issue say about it. These following people filed evidence on the Halpern case (Ontario Court of Appeal). These quotes, from their affidavits, were cited in the judgment.

Julie Erbland


> I understand marriage as a defining moment for people choosing to make a life commitment to each other. I want the family that Dawn and I have created to be understood by all of the people in our lives and by society. If we had the freedom to marry, society would grow to understand our commitment and love for each other. We are interested in raising children. We want community recognition and support. I doubt that society will support us and our children, if our own government does not afford us the right to marry.


Carolyn Rowe:


> We would like the public recognition of our union as a "valid" relationship and would like to be known officially as more than just roommates. Married spouse is a title that one chooses to enter into while common-law spouse is something that a couple happens into if they live together long enough. We want our families, relatives, friends, and larger society to know and understand our relationship for what it is, a loving committed relationship between two people. A traditional marriage would allow us the opportunity to enter into such a commitment. The marriage ceremony itself provides a time for family and friends to gather around a couple in order to recognize the love and commitment they have for each other.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

nxnw:

What impacts, if any, are there as a result of a lack of legal recognition of marital status on same-sex relationships when it comes to things like spousal benefits and succession rights? Something tells me you know much more about that stuff than I do.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I'm at a total loss as to how heterosexual unions being defined as "marriage" impinges upon the freedom and rights of gays as defined under Canadian law and the Charter any more than defining my wife as a "woman" impinges upon her rights since she can't claim to be a man.


As other have said... and has the courts said "different but equal is not equal". By that logic we institutionalize second class citizenship. Any other groups you'd like to disparage? 

I take offense to your position because 15 years ago my marriage wasn't recognized because East Indian ceremonies and priests were not Chistrian Church ceremonies.

Thankfully that situation has changed, as has the situation for SSM.

Dude... Gender equality is assured under the charter... actually your wife can claim she is a man... in fact she can go through a procedure to become a man, while still being biologically a female. She can even claim to legally be a man.



MacGuiver said:


> By your own admission, ownership of the term "marriage" is clearly not a human rights issue. We do agree on that.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


If you are NOT in favour of the current SSM laws then you and I do NOT agree. Your poor inference does not even apply, ownership of a term is not what is at issue here. Unless you hold a copyright or trademark, no one can "own" a word (my suggestion is that you rush out now and register your term of marriage with the PTO and then you can define who can you the word and who cannot). Anyone marrying another person can legally define their relationship as a marriage under the laws of Canada. Everyone has those rights under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Mac Yak said:


> nxnw:
> 
> What impacts, if any, are there as a result of a lack of legal recognition of marital status on same-sex relationships when it comes to things like spousal benefits and succession rights? Something tells me you know much more about that stuff than I do.


It doesn't matter... anything but full recognition of SSM as the same as a heterosexual marriage is making second class citizens out of those individuals who enter into a same sex marriage.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy, I see the SSM issue just one aspect that a Con majority would like to "revisit". I do think their social agenda that turned away many Canadian is still festering below the surface. How else explain certain statements such as abortion is "too complex to explain to Canadians"
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...in_harper_060119/20060119?s_name=election2006
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060119.welmartin0119/BNStory/Front


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> da_jonesy, I see the SSM issue just one aspect that a Con majority would like to "revisit". I do think their social agenda that turned away many Canadian is still festering below the surface. How else explain certain statements such as abortion is "too complex to explain to Canadians"
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...in_harper_060119/20060119?s_name=election2006
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060119.welmartin0119/BNStory/Front


I absolutely agree with you... 

How can anyone voting conservative look at a woman or a gay straight in the eye and tell them we plan on making you second class citizens... "step to the back of the bus and do what we say"... so much for a philosophy of valuing personal freedoms.

I wonder if the neo con supporters here can tell us what "freedoms" the left wants to take away from them? (I imagine the gun crowd a front and center)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

...How can anyone voting conservative look at a woman or a gay straight in the eye and tell them we plan on making you second class citizens... [/QUOTE said:


> You know....judging by what we now know about the Libs and their culture of "entitlement" (not to mention the ongoing corruption that helped to pay for it all)...it would seem to me that any Canadian who wasn't tied closely to their private gravy train could have been considered a "second class citizen".
> 
> If we commit serious crimes like this, we go to jail. Mostly.
> 
> ...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> To heck with fearmongering and the rhetoric. Look at the reality. ALL of us were second class citizens under the Liberals. tptptptp


Fine then... some people will end up being third class citizens then.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> How can anyone voting conservative look at a woman or a gay straight in the eye and tell them we plan on making you second class citizens... "step to the back of the bus and do what we say"... so much for a philosophy of valuing personal freedoms.


Here's 2 things to consider, 1 based on more political demonizing, 1 based on a very real possibility. These aren't the only 2 things to consider, but maybe they'll provide some insight.

1) If you have to choose between approving criminal activity and the Conservatives, how can anyone who approves the criminal activity look anyone in the eye? (political demonizing, I don't agree with this or your original statement)

2) What if the local Conservative candidate supports samesex marriage?

There's usually more to someone's voting choice than what you or I feel are the ultimate considerations.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm not sure I understand the inferences of your two examples.
The first one is vague.
The second one is almost a moot point - very few, if any, Conservative candidates support same sex marriage. We had the answer from the Stoney Creek area candidate that said "I'll vote against because I'm catholic" and to Peter Mackay "I believe that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that word should reflect that definition", to Vic Toews (Toews said he supports the use of the notwithstanding clause to reverse court decisions favourable to same-sex marriage.) -- these votes and views are personal views and none have said that they would ask their constituents what they think*

And the question is not one of SSM as much as Rights. 
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=343789&postcount=102



* http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...t_060116/20060117?s_name=election2006&no_ads=


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The first one is just a jab at demonizing others' views.

The second one may be moot, but I'm not sure. A handful of MPs voted for samesex marriage, and their ON and QC candidates are likely more moderate than their last batch of MPs. I wouldn't dismiss it, at least for Eastern voters.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Fine then... some people will end up being third class citizens then.


Only if you re-elect a government that considers itself and it's behavior to be above the rest of us. And has done for more than a decade.tptptptp


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Only if you re-elect a government that considers itself and it's behavior to be above the rest of us. And has done for more than a decade.tptptptp


Ummmm no... that what we get if the Conservatives get elected. If the Liberals (amd I doubt this) hang on... then we are as you say all second class citizens (by your argument).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Ummmm no... that what we get if the Conservatives get elected. If the Liberals (amd I doubt this) hang on... then we are as you say all second class citizens (by your argument).


I have no idea what you mean by this. I suspect that some others might be confused by this statement as well.

Care to illuminate us?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> I have no idea what you mean by this. I suspect that some others might be confused by this statement as well.
> 
> Care to illuminate us?



Dude forget it... next time keep up


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Whatever.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Ummmm no... that what we get if the Conservatives get elected. If the Liberals (amd I doubt this) hang on... then we are as you say all second class citizens (by your argument).


The Cons always send the wrong message.
When Sheila Fraser red flagged the Sponsorship Program, Paul Martin did something about it. He fired those close to the scandal, removed the bums from plumb positions, recalled an ambassador. Paul Martin got the RCMP involved and had a conservative judge setup a judicial inquiry. Paul Martin did something no other PM would of done in trying to show that his government was clean and had nothing to hide. Without even waiting for the final results, the Cons started a smear campaign calling all Liberals criminals and corrupt. Even here, we see Con lap-monkeys repeating this ad nauseum. Martin even went so far as to say that the reports should be delivered to Parliament to ensure transparancy. The Liberal Party of Quebec has paid back any money ill-received and some are being sued. Canada has a strong economy and low unemployment. The Cons are already finding excuses as to why their agenda will not work (Liberal judges) and I'm sure blame what will be their poor fiscal management on the Liberals. A Con majority will be a downward spiral for Canada.

And what is the message? Well, it seems that honesty and transparency as well as accountability will not be rewarded. Deception and lies will be....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS: a good and valid point about Martin, in my opinion. 

Politically dumb, at best, but it does indicate a true desire to clean things up and/or real hatred of the Chretienites. The 'right' political approach would have been to let the legal process ensue in all of its sluggish and private splendor. It should at least be considered that Martin did the right thing for, quite possibly, the right reasons. The issue remains of him turning a blind eye to problems while he was Finance Minister, but non-partisan consideration should be given to what he did about it as PMPM.

As to lap-monkeys, they come in many colours.


----------



## razz (Sep 21, 2003)

It's really nice to see people who just happen to be straight as concerned about this issue as we gays are. Thank you.

The naming issue bothers me. If the word "marriage" applies only to heterosexual couples, and gays and lesbians everywhere in Canada only have a 'union' with their partners, then that mean we're not equal with our heterosexual counterparts. It's second best, and second rate.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

razz said:


> It's really nice to see people who just happen to be straight as concerned about this issue as we gays are.


 Martin Niemöller:


> _First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
> because I was not a communist;
> Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
> because I was not a socialist;
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The issue remains of him turning a blind eye to problems while he was Finance Minister,


That has bothered me somewhat. Until you realize that the money may have just looked like numbers to him. For example, when you run a company that has a budget of 20 000 000 a year in expenses, you don't really micro manage every payment/expenditure. Some sales staff may have inflated expenses but you will not know that unless you question every single invoice. So I'm ambivalent or whether of not he could of done a better job in finding out quicker.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Martin Niemöller:
> First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
> because I was not a communist;
> Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
> ...





> Stephen Harper says outlawing gay marriage won't be one of his top priorities if elected, and that efforts by the Senate to block such a bill would amount to an "abuse of power.''
> "I think it's obvious that an abuse of power by the Senate would bolster my argument for the necessity of elected senators.''
> Much of Harper's core power rests on a socially right-wing base that is counting on him to reverse gay marriage.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...e_060119/20060119?s_name=election2006&no_ads=


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So I'm ambivalent or whether of not he could of done a better job in finding out quicker.


I lean slightly towards willful ignorance, but pretty close to 50/50. 

Much of Federal expenditure is automatic transfers and requires little to no attention. Programs are around $70B, and $100 million would have been noticeable to someone diligent. 

Someone focussed on bigger (vote getting) items or willfully avoiding associating with an item could avoid it. I don't think it's definite by any stretch, but at least questionable.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> 4. Sinc has a singular obsession with this issue. He can call these Courts wrong all he likes, but it is apparent that he has not read any of the decisions and does not care what they say - all he knows is that he disagrees with the outcome. He elevates his uninformed opinions by maligning judges and accuses them of making law. The reality is that the Charter is the law, and Sinc doesn't like the Charter when it leads to a result that doesn't appeal to his personal views.


I gather you are a lawyer. Good for you. But please, get one thing straight.

One of my best friends sits on the bench as a judge in the Provincial Court of Alberta in Edmonton. Previous to that he sat in the City of Fort McMurray and has in total spent more than 20 years on the bench.

While he and I have had many discussions centred around the topics on this thread, he has never once lowered himself to call my rhetoric as disturbing.

We have discussed on many occasions the difference in sentencing that he chooses over fellow judges in the same jurisdiction.

He openly admits there are good, and bad judges, all the way to the Supreme Court.

One thing you sir, need to accept is that judges are only people. They are not Gods, although given the number of people these days who have no belief in a God, that too might be a stretch.

A judge is simply another human being who has been appointed to render their particular opinion upon the masses. Some of them deserve no respect and others deserve the utmost respect. To blindly state that every single one of them is somehow superior to an average citizen smacks of the very worst kind of discrimination.

Any human is fallible, as are each and every judge. Placing them on a pedestal in an ivory tower to boot is just plain ridiculous.

I choose to believe my friend the judge over any idol worship you demonstrate for what you consider the aristocracy that a judges appointment seems to hold for you.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> One of my best friends sits on the bench as a judge in the Provincial Court of Alberta in Edmonton…While he and I have had many discussions centred around the topics on this thread, he has never once lowered himself to call my rhetoric as disturbing.


Perhaps you don't say disturbing things to him. The particular quote that I called disturbing warranted my comment, particularly in the context of your extraordinarily prolific obsession with the topic of gay marriage.


SINC said:


> He openly admits there are good, and bad judges, all the way to the Supreme Court.
> 
> One thing you sir, need to accept is that judges are only people. They are not Gods, although given the number of people these days who have no belief in a God, that too might be a stretch.
> 
> ...


Your statements here are mostly reasonable and measured, and it makes for a refreshing change from <a href="http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=322132&postcount=67">this</a>. The only place we differ on what you say here is where you say that some judges deserve no respect. The office deserves respect, no matter who inhabits it.

Of course judges can be wrong, and often are. I understand that much better than you, I think, having been on both sides of decisions I believe were not correct. What you do, that I consider objectionable, is attack judicial decisions you have not bothered to read or understand, and attack the integrity of the judges that made the decisions, simply because you don't agree with them.


----------

