# The truth about the Conservatives



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

It's possible the first Conservative policy meeting could be MacKay's last. Part of the deal to merge the PCs and the Alliance parties was that all ridings would have equal say at party conventions, but that equality of ridings is under threat with Stephen Harper backing a plan to provide representation based on party member numbers, not ridings. Peter MacKay could resign over this since it places the old PCs in a very distinct minority.

Looks like the Alberta power base is trying to exert its muscle. The Conservative party is clearly just a thinly disguised version of the old Alliance. At this rate, the Conservative Party is destined to become the western Bloc.

Meanwhile, John Tory rollicked to victory in a staunchly Conservative Ontario riding. Unfortunately for the Federal Conservatives, his target is Dalton McGuinty, rather than Paul Martin.


----------



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

I heard of this possible change in their policy. The Conservative Party has two federal members of Parliament from NL, and such a move could swing against them in all of eastern Canada. We shall see.


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Looks like the Alberta power base is trying to exert its muscle. The Conservative party is clearly just a thinly disguised version of the old Alliance. At this rate, the Conservative Party is destined to become the western Bloc.


I always had that gut feeling ever since they first proposed the idea of a merger with the PCs. My impression was merging was only for the Alliance/Reform Party to 'get the Liberals out' and for the PCs to get more seats.

sigh... it doesn't matter which political party you talk about, there's just no proper leadership.


----------



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

Actually, sketch, a marriage of convenience of those two unelectable parties to create one which was electable was a very reasonable way forward. The problem is that at the last election it got less votes that the two parties had as separate parties in the prior election. Instead of consolidating, the old Alliance has body-snatched the PCs. Hence A + PC = electability is instead A + PC = A + pissed-off PCs = Liberals remain in power.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I think it's obvious that all of the Reform parties various incarnations were just an attempt to put sheep's clothing on the wolf. It hasn't worked and most Canadians still see the wolf underneath it all.

Most Canadians don't want to see the "United States of North America", which is where the wolf's policies inevitably lead. Unfortunately, because of First Past The Post, they have to choose the lesser of two evils, namely the Liberal Party of Canada, which, to stretch this metaphor into the surrealistic, is some kind of weird, half-wolf, half-sheep monster.


----------



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

I think you could describe the Liberals as sheep in other peoples clothing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think we are a little quick to jump to conclusions here. 

Based on the type of speculation going on, a person would have predicted that the Liberal Party would have exploded amongst their divisions (e.g. Quebec branch vs. Ontario branch and Martin vs. Chretien camps) before the previous election.

Could it be that this is just political postering? I think so.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The deeply divided Liberal Party is still fighting amongst itself as we speak...and there is a very obvious power vacuum at the top. Leadership is not exactly the Liberal Party's strong suit these days. To say the least.

Ask anyone. 

Plus, as we all know by now, the Liberals are deeply corrupt. And they are under widespread public investigation right now, in order to see just how far this corruption has actually spread throughout this party that used to hold so much power in Canada.

The Liberals are also not exactly good at managing public money. (Like this is Big News to anybody.)

Meanwhile...the latest Global poll shows the Conservatives to be within about five points of the shrinking Liberals. Given the margin for error, this would put them into striking distance of what is left of the shattered Liberal Party.

And the Martin Liberals haven't exactly distinguished themselves since they barely squeaked back into power. In fact...they've gone from crisis to crisis. And even the highly respected "Economist" magazine has publicly noted what all the rest of us have seen:

Paul Martin is NOT up to the job. Just not capable of being a good leader. Or even a competent one, really. He's always stammering before the cameras with a deer-caught-in-the-headlights look about him. While he attempts to explain away the latest Liberal scandal. Or to deal with the latest shocking revelation about a sitting Liberal MP. The Economist calls him "Mr Dithers".

Stuff is wasting away all around him, there is chaos in his own party, his respect amongst world leaders is almost entirely gone (as is that of Canada itself)...
And he just keeps on making new promises and spending masses of Canadian tax money to try and keep everyone happy. And not succeeding. He waffles and dithers on every single major decision. Trying, vainly, to not "piss anyone off". He is fiddling while Rome burns. What a mess.

Whats' the REAL "Truth about the Conservatives", as this thread is entitled?

The truth is that they will form our next government. Mostly because they fall under the heading of "NOT the Liberals" and are the next most popular choice. And that next election will come sooner than anyone thinks. It could happen at any time, given the current balance of power in Parliament.

As I said back when we had our last election...this is actually a two-part vote. The second half is just around the corner.

Watch and see.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> The deeply divided Liberal Party is still fighting amongst itself as we speak.


You know what'd be nice? If you didn't try and divert each and every conversation about something any other political party has done/is doing/may do by coming up with another "liberals BAD!" rant.



MacNutt said:


> As I said back when we had our last election...this is actually a two-part vote. The second half is just around the corner.


As I recall, you only said that after the Liberals won the election and your predictions of a Conservative majority were proven false.

Now, can we get back to the discussion about the Conservatives?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I was surprised by the outcome. As were so many people all across the country.

If you recall...a majority of Canadians were being polled and saying that "it was time for a change". This was true in poll after poll leading up to the election.

So what...is a different Liberal leader a "change"? Not hardly.

And the Liberal Partry IS deeply divided. Near as anyone can tell they are also deeply corrupt. The Auditor General of Canada seems to think so. As does most of the rest of the population.

So this is a factor when we talk about the Conservatives. Because they will likely get their next victory because they are "not the Liberals", as I noted earlier.

Most of the rest doesn't matter. Or won't be a factor, the next time we all go to the polls.

Watch and see.


----------



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

MacNutt, I suggest ehMax had a thread where you can post your standard rherotical answers but where no one can rebut them. That might satisfy you so that you don't feel compelled to paste those same-old, same-old arguments into every other thread, no matter what the topic. 

SINC started a nice little thread about the Liberals. This one is about the Conservatives. If the Conservatives can ONLY define themselves in terms of what they are NOT, I respectfully suggest they are letting the country down, big time, and are no better than the Liberals. I wonder why this is? It can't possibly be because the root policies of the Conservatives are known to be repugnant to mainstream Canadians - do you think?

I want to know what they stand FOR (excepting their stance on gay marriage, on which their position is clear). Instead they are acting like an eternal Opposition of rhetorical statements. They react but do not pre-empt. Unless they escape that groove and connect with Canadians, the Liberals will regain a majority in the next election. They are behaving like the Democrats in the 2004 US election and will be doomed to the same fate (gee - Stephen Harper and John Kerry, who knew?).


----------



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

Jim, I like your phrase "escape the groove". The Conservative party was once very proactive and even visionary when they proposed a $3 billion early childhood initiative back when Mulroney was PM. Sadly, they renegged upon that promise. If the conservatives are ever to regain power once again, they need to put some more progressive policies before the people of the country.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

The truth about the Conservative Reform Alliance Party is that it's a party founded in betrayal. They can't even keep the promises they make to each other. 

I wish I could say they are unelectable and will never be elected, but that's what everyone thought about Mike Harris's third-place Reform-a-Tories in 1995, and everyone was so very wrong. So if they ever figure out a way to speak to about ten seats' worth of Quebecers, Harper or his successor will be PM and we'll have a chance to see just what kind of scoundrels these people are. Could happen; wouldn't lay money on it.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

mackay was elected leader of the conservative party on the promise he would not merge with reform. the first thing he did was turn around and merge with reform. he has no integrity whatsoever.

also, please let us stop referring to them as the conservative party, which they are not. people are never going to call the skydome the 'rogers centre', so let's stop calling the reform party 'the conservatives'.

macnutt, when you were drilling for oil did you inhale the fumes?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> So [the liberals are] a factor when we talk about the Conservatives.


We're talking about internal Conservative policy and procedure! The Liberals have little to do with the subject except to be used a deflection tactic to derail discussion.

If you want to bitch about Liberals, start a thread called "bitching about Liberals" and do it there.Otherwise, can we please get back to the subject at hand?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> The truth is that they will form our next government. Mostly because they fall under the heading of "NOT the Liberals" and are the next most popular choice. And that next election will come sooner than anyone thinks. It could happen at any time, given the current balance of power in Parliament.


That won't happen so long as Harper is the leader of the Conserv-i-Alliance. If you think it ever will you are deluded.

Maybe, just maybe if the leader was Peter McKay or Belinda Stronach (more likely) then they might have a chance. The Conservatives will NOT win with an Alliance/Reform member at the helm. No how, no way.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Mr. United States of North America said: 

"Whats' the REAL "Truth about the Conservatives", as this thread is entitled? ... The truth is that they will form our next government."

You heard it here first folks. MacNutt's all-knowing prediction for the next election. Is he really an oracle or will his prognostication skills be thrashed as they were last year? Stay tuned, folks.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> It's possible the first Conservative policy meeting could be MacKay's last. Part of the deal to merge the PCs and the Alliance parties was that all ridings would have equal say at party conventions, but that equality of ridings is under threat with Stephen Harper backing a plan to provide representation based on party member numbers, not ridings. Peter MacKay could resign over this since it places the old PCs in a very distinct minority.
> 
> Looks like the Alberta power base is trying to exert its muscle. The Conservative party is clearly just a thinly disguised version of the old Alliance. At this rate, the Conservative Party is destined to become the western Bloc.
> 
> Meanwhile, John Tory rollicked to victory in a staunchly Conservative Ontario riding. Unfortunately for the Federal Conservatives, his target is Dalton McGuinty, rather than Paul Martin.



It looks to me like you were way off base with your speculation. My statement that McKay was only postering was correct. The vote was defeated by a ratio of 4 to 1. That shows the Alberta base of the party strongly supported keeping the original merger agreement in place.

Harper was strongly endorsed as a leader with 84% of the vote.

A proposal to regulate abortion was also defeated and this will play well with current supporters of the Liberal Party.

It looks to me like this convention was a great success and the party will be fairly united on their policies going forward.

The conservatives are doing well in the polls right now and are probably going to gain support after this convention. I think the huge deficit in Ontario ($6 bil) is also going to hurt the federal Liberals. 

It's time for a change!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I think the huge deficit in Ontario ($6 bil) is also going to hurt the federal Liberals.


Yeah the deficit brought to us by the Mike Harris, Ernie Eaves and the Provincial Conservatives...

No way will we see a conservative government in Canada while Harper and the alliance boys are at the helm.


----------



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

Vandave said:


> It looks to me like you were way off base with your speculation. My statement that McKay was only postering was correct. The vote was defeated by a ratio of 4 to 1. That shows the Alberta base of the party strongly supported keeping the original merger agreement in place.


Hey, it wasn't my speculation.... MacKay wouldn't have postured if there hadn't been the policy threat from the workshop. Is this guy feeling threatened, or what?



Vandave said:


> Harper was strongly endorsed as a leader with 84% of the vote.


That was the same level of support as Martin was given at the Liberal convention. Neither means anything.



Vandave said:


> A proposal to regulate abortion was also defeated and this will play well with current supporters of the Liberal Party. It looks to me like this convention was a great success and the party will be fairly united on their policies going forward.


From your point of view perhaps. We'll see how this duck-taped party holds together. Either they will truly integrate and become credible or they will be a band-aid solution. Still too early to tell.



Vandave said:


> The conservatives are doing well in the polls right now and are probably going to gain support after this convention. I think the huge deficit in Ontario ($6 bil) is also going to hurt the federal Liberals. It's time for a change!


The Conservatives should be doing *a lot* better given the state of the Liberals. Ontario was and is the key battleground. The question is whether the urban voters of this province can be convinced to vote for a party that derives its idealogy from the most right-wing province in the country. I think not.

The next 6-9 months will be interesting. If you guys can keep a gag-order on Stephen Harper and Ralph Klein and keep them away the press, who knows what'll happen (heck, that tactic almost worked last time until Ralph Klein managed to rip off his duck tape).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Hey, it wasn't my speculation.... MacKay wouldn't have postured if there hadn't been the policy threat from the workshop. Is this guy feeling threatened, or what?
> 
> 
> That was the same level of support as Martin was given at the Liberal convention. Neither means anything.
> ...


My point was that your speculation went too far. It was pretty clear to me that MacKay was only postering. Even if it didn't go through, I really doubt the party would have fractured apart. The reason MacKay was postering was to ensure the amendment would be defeated. It is obviously very important for Conservatives outside of the west.

This party isn't a band aid solution. The results of this convention show that all members are very willing to compromise and the social right wingers were willing to move towards the center. You can't downplay this fact. I am sure this has the Liberals very worried. 

I haven't been a member of the Conservative Party, but I donated to them during the last election. I think I will now join the party as their policy statements seem promising to me. 

So I guess we should discount the political opinions of people that live in a province that is further to the right. That's very inclusive of you and the Liberal Party. I guess some people still go by the Chretien theory of inclusiveness (i.e. don't do politics with people from the West).


----------



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

How can you call the Conservatives inclusive when they are not willing to consider the rights of homosexuals to marry? I'm not a member of the Livberal party and I don't believe in political donations so no one is getting any money from me. Indeed, any party will have to earn my vote. I'm perfectly willing to listen to the Conservatives, but I also think its important to walk the walk rather than just talk. I hope the party's far-right wing faction is effectively controlled. I think this is an essential element for electability. We will see over the next few months (true integration vs. political expediency). I must admit I'm very sceptical of this but am willing to be proven wrong (as we definitely need more than one electable party in this country).

BTW, I'm not discounting Albertans, just far-right wing Albertan politicians. For whatever reason, Alberta is the home to all of the most right-wing politicians in the country.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> This party isn't a band aid solution. The results of this convention show that all members are very willing to compromise and the social right wingers were willing to move towards the center. You can't downplay this fact. I am sure this has the Liberals very worried.


That couldn't be further from the truth... all the media is playing this as "division in the ranks" at this convention. That's what the Canadian public has heard.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The truth about the Conservatives is that Harper hopes that if they say they will win the next election enough times, they will. Harper himself said he didn't think Canadians are ready for an election right now. Translation: please don't let parliament end right away, because we can't win right now. They're hoping that with their policy convention behind them, they've now got something they can go out and sell.

Well, let's look at their policies. Abortion - the heathen, baby-killing moderate conservatives just barely won out over the anti-abortionists. They promise that they won't screw with abortion laws if they win. Does anyone believe this? This is just a campaign promise, anything can happen if they gain power. Anybody who is worried about change to abortion laws will not be comforted by this promise. 

"That's what a party is all about, that's what democracy is all about," said Mary Ellen, a delegate and spokeswoman for the anti-abortion Campaign Life Coalition. "We'll keep working until we change (Harper's) mind."

Same-sex marriage - 75 percent of the Conservatives voted to try and change, what is guaranteed by our Charter of Rights, equality under law. This would be an expensive disaster, if they ever got in and legislated it and would ultimately lose, because it wouldn't pass the test of equality. Belinda Stronach thinks that this resolution will hurt them at the polls.

Ballistic missile defence - here's where the pro-Republican sentiment of the Alberta Conservative base comes through, clearly. Canadians who don't believe in "deep integration" within the United States of North America and the quislings who support it, don't want anything to do with this bone-headed unworkable scheme. The real hidden agenda is here, endorsed by fiscal conservatives and corporate groups who would gladly sell Canada to the USA if their profitability could be enhanced.

Basically the Conservative strategy hasn't changed. They hope that the Liberals will shoot themselves in the foot and that scandal will keep many Liberal voters from bothering to vote. It could work this time, but I don't see how anything has changed at this point. Who knows what might happen whenever the election occurs. ( Well, except for MacNutt.  ) The fact that they still don't have any real support in Quebec, will also hurt them.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The truth about the Conservatives is that Harper hopes that if they say they will win the next election enough times, they will. Harper himself said he didn't think Canadians are ready for an election right now. Translation: please don't let parliament end right away, because we can't win right now. They're hoping that with their policy convention behind them, they've now got something they can go out and sell.
> 
> Well, let's look at their policies. Abortion - the heathen, baby-killing moderate conservatives just barely won out over the anti-abortionists. They promise that they won't screw with abortion laws if they win. Does anyone believe this? This is just a campaign promise, anything can happen if they gain power. Anybody who is worried about change to abortion laws will not be comforted by this promise.
> 
> ...


I don't think a 10% margin on the abortion issue is small. That means there are about 20% more Conservatives that support not changing the laws than people who do. If the Conservatives run with this in the platform are you seriously concerned about the laws changing? Seriously? I can't help but think this is fear mongering. I believe in a women's right to choose and I have no concerns about the Conservatives doing an about face.

Saying that same sex marriage is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a big stretch. I support same sex marriage because I think the government has no business being in people's bedrooms. The Conservatives are all for equality and support legislation that will give equal rights to gay couples. So, I don't think the label of intolerance is fair. Why are the Liberals proposing legislation if they believe it is enshrined in the CRF? If you are willing to put the issue to Parliament, by definition, you cannot believe it is covered by the CRF. The Liberals can't have it both ways.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

If I am following this thread correctly, it sounds as though the less conservative the Conservative party becomes, the more chances they have of being elected. I am sad to say that I believe this as well. I wish it were not the case, but it does seem to me that Canadians just aren't ready to cut the embellical cord that ties them to big governement looking after their every whim. Oh well. What could be sadder than a liberal in Alberta, is a Conservative in Québec. At last count I think we were about 200. Sad indeed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Seriously? I can't help but think this is fear mongering.


If you elect a Conservative government you will be electing a government that has many powerful members who are against abortion. It also contains members who are part of pressure groups that are dedicated to changing the mind of the slim majority who oppose it or who simply think that it is politically expedient to oppose abortion. I'd say rather than fear mongering, it's a realistic possibility. Politicians go back on their promises all the time. It's just a matter of who gets the ear of the powerful.



Vandave said:


> Saying that same sex marriage is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a big stretch.


I didn't say that same-sex marriage was enshrined in the charter. Equality is. This is why the various courts have been forced to open up marriage to gay folks. It's a matter of law, based on the fact that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore it is illegal to withhold the granting of a marriage license to a same-sex couple. 

If the Conservatives became the government and passed their proposed law, it would be challenged and found to violate the charter. The funny thing is that the Conservative leadership must be fully aware of this, but are pushing it anyway, to satisfy parts of the electorate that they think will elect them. Then they will launch into an expensive and messy issue, before finally having the courts throw it back to them. But they must figure that they can worry about that once they have the reigns of power.

But if the Cons ever get into power, they will preside over the sell off of the last vestige of Canadian sovereignty to the US. Mulroney's free trade push was just stage one, stage two has been the corporate Liberal wing's embracing and extending of it. Stage three will be implemented for sure, if Harper gets in.

Now you can accuse me of fear mongering.  But of course, this is also a very realistic possibility.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If you elect a Conservative government you will be electing a government that has many powerful members who are against abortion. It also contains members who are part of pressure groups that are dedicated to changing the mind of the slim majority who oppose it or who simply think that it is politically expedient to oppose abortion. I'd say rather than fear mongering, it's a realistic possibility. Politicians go back on their promises all the time. It's just a matter of who gets the ear of the powerful.
> 
> I didn't say that same-sex marriage was enshrined in the charter. Equality is. This is why the various courts have been forced to open up marriage to gay folks. It's a matter of law, based on the fact that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore it is illegal to withhold the granting of a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
> 
> ...


You can't just slide abortion legislation through under the radar. It doesn't matter if powerful members of the Conservatives are against abortion. If the party policy is against abortion, they would never introduce legislation on this issue. It would divide the party completely. I can't imagine this ever happening.

The Charter guarantees equality, but not gay marriage. A gay person has every right to marry a person of the opposite sex (not that they would want to) and a straight also does not have the right to marry a person of the same sex. So technically, everybody actually has equal rights. Again, if the Liberals really feel this issue is against the Charter, then they shouldn't be sending legislation to Parliament because it is unconstitutional. If you are willing to submit it to a vote, you have to accept that there is a legitimate opposing viewpoint. Therefore, your argument that the Conservatives are pushing it even though they know it is against the Charter doesn't make any sense logically as this is what the Liberals are doing. 

It seems to me that many Liberals are actually intolerant of other viewpoints. I happen to agree with allowing gay marriage, but I also respect the viewpoints of people who are against it. It's too late anyways as you point out since it is already legal in 7 of 10 provinces. I'm glad the Liberals showed such leadership on this issue to begin with.


----------



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

Vandave,

I think the gay marriage issue is decided. The Conservatives are preaching to the significant number of Canadian traditionalists who feel strongly that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples. This stand is in line with basic Conservatism so I can understand the stance, even though I disagree with it. Unfortunately, homosexuals are stuck in the middle while each party bounces this around in an attempt to gain votes on a "wedge" issue. I don't think the Liberals would have made this an issue if they felt it didn't give them the gloss of "taking the higher ground" and cloaking themselves in Charter Rights. So its a political game. The rights of gays and lesbians to marry is non-negotiable as they have the Charter on their side - this is what equality of rights is all about - no exceptions. We haven't heard the last of this, but the **** holding back the tide of rights issues will break - its inevitable.

In terms of the parliamentary vote issue, I think its really about clarity (as well as a political ploy). The vote is not only to protect the rights of homosexual people to marry and but also to protect the rights of churches to decline to marry whomever they please - precluding any couple (gay or straight) from forcing a church to marry them. The re-affirmation of the rights of churches to decide whom to marry is an important issue that is raised largely because of the recognition of the rights of same-sex couples.

The papers today seem mixed on the success of the policy conference. Personally, I think it was a success because Canadians now have a better sense of what the Conservatives stand for. I do find it interesting that many of the defining issues were in danger of not being discussed at the meeting. The fact that these issues were voted on, has to be seen as a good thing (even if you don't agree with them).

I still think the party's greatest impediment to electability is Stephen Harper.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> a straight also does not have the right to marry a person of the same sex.


May sound a bit odd, but why not? Granted, straight folk don't generally want to marry people of the same sex, but why should they be forbidden to? 

Shouldn't everyone be free to choose who they want to be with?

Just askin'.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> May sound a bit odd, but why not? Granted, straight folk don't generally want to marry people of the same sex, but why should they be forbidden to?
> 
> Shouldn't everyone be free to choose who they want to be with?
> 
> Just askin'.


Should we then let adults marry children? Or what if somebody who's into bestiality wanted to marry their dog? Let's not belittle the institution of Marriage which is the foundation of society after all.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

GWR said:


> Should we then let adults marry children? Or what if somebody who's into bestiality wanted to marry their dog? Let's not belittle the institution of Marriage which is the foundation of society after all.


Two words: informed consent. Neither the dog nor the child can provide it. Let's not devalue the debate with bad analogies.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Why is it that whenever anyone asks "why shouldn't we let two men (or two women) get married", someone brings up either bestiality or incest as a rebuttal?


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> Why is it that whenever anyone asks "why shouldn't we let two men (or two women) get married", someone brings up either bestiality or incest as a rebuttal?


Quite simply because the definition of "marriage" has always been understood to be the union of a man and a woman, for the purpose of begetting children. A naturally sterile union such as two men or two women does not fit this definition and it is similar to many sexual perversions such as bestiality or paedofilia. Of course there are certain cases when a man and woman cannot have children and this does not mean that theirs isn't a real marriage, so long as they are open to life. These are fundamental facts that have always been understood in every society. The begetting of children has always had a deep religious significance, in every society, and has been tied to certain rites and customs. 
Me and my room-mate living together will never equal this, even if we "love" each other.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

GWR said:


> A naturally sterile union such as two men or two women does not fit this definition


So what about a union between a sterile woman and a man... since the union is sterile it cannot be considered a marriage?

Give me a break... 

why bring out examples of children and animals... why not use something interesting... perhaps a light post? what about a fire hydrant?

Maybe something more intimate like a guy marrying his fleshlight... or a woman marrying her vibrator.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> So what about a union between a sterile woman and a man... since the union is sterile it cannot be considered a marriage?


Well, if you would have read my post, you would have seen that I have already dealt with that possibility. It is the _naturally sterile_ (sterile by nature) relationships that cannot be considered true marriages. You get it now?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> May sound a bit odd, but why not? Granted, straight folk don't generally want to marry people of the same sex, but why should they be forbidden to?
> 
> Shouldn't everyone be free to choose who they want to be with?
> 
> Just askin'.


I think you missed my point. I don't have a problem with allowing gay marriage, in fact I support it.

The point that I made was that an argument can be made that there is no inequality by not allowing gay marriage. The reason is that a gay person is free to marry a person of the opposite sex, which is the same right that a straight person has.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

GWR said:


> It is the _naturally sterile_ (sterile by nature) relationships that cannot be considered true marriages.


So, whenever a woman over the age of 45 or so gets married, it's not a true marriage?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

GWR said:


> A naturally sterile union such as two men or two women does not fit this definition and it is similar to many sexual perversions such as bestiality or paedofilia. Of course there are certain cases when a man and woman cannot have children and this does not mean that theirs isn't a real marriage, so long as they are open to life.


What exactly do you mean by "open to life"?



GWR said:


> The begetting of children has always had a deep religious significance, in every society, and has been tied to certain rites and customs.


But we live in a largely secular society.



Vandave said:


> The point that I made was that an argument can be made that there is no inequality by not allowing gay marriage. The reason is that a gay person is free to marry a person of the opposite sex, which is the same right that a straight person has.


A different argument would be that straight people are free to marry whomever they choose (as they only choose members of the opposite sex), whereas gay people are not, which is not equal.


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

GWR said:


> Well, if you would have read my post, you would have seen that I have already dealt with that possibility. It is the _naturally sterile_ (sterile by nature) relationships that cannot be considered true marriages. You get it now?


It also used to be _natural_ for black people and white people to have to stay the hell away from each other.

Give it up.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I think that the point here is getting missed and muddied up. 

Court rulings in various provinces have said that any law that prohibits same sex marriages is unconstitutional because it violates Charter protections of equality, which include sexual orientation. 

The Liberals aren't drafting a law to allow same sex marriage, - it's already legal, in provinces where unconstitutional laws have been challenged. The Liberal are drafting a law to clarify any laws about marriage, or any interpretations of those laws that would discriminate against same sex couples, are brought into line with this fact. As UTBJW said, the Liberals are also seeking to include wording that allows religious organizations to decide who they want to marry based on their faith. But for the state, granting legal marriage has to be in line with our laws against discrimination.

If the Conservatives brought in a law, that gay people could not marry each other, but have to settle for some other status, that would also be unconstitutional. Conservative party lawyers must be aware of this. The fact that their leadership is going ahead with this idea, means they are simply pandering to their base, irregardless of the consequences. If they ever did get into government, they would probably be forced to drop it by the courts or they would enact it, it would be challenged and lose. Not to mention the problem of telling many thousands of people that they are no longer married. I highly doubt if they're going to sit around and take that. The whole thing would be a stupid expensive mess.

All this stuff about "the traditional definition of marriage" is meaningless. At one time it was traditional to engage in all manner of discrimination, that was eventually struck down through legal challenge. It was illegal for different races to marry. It was illegal for Chinese Canadians to vote. It was illegal for Aboriginal Canadians to vote. It was illegal for women to vote. It was legal to own other people as slaves. The only way for opponents of same sex marriage to win, is to throw our Charter, as well as our equal rights laws in the trash.

Either we live in an equal society, governed by laws, or we don't. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

GWR said:


> Well, if you would have read my post, you would have seen that I have already dealt with that possibility. It is the _naturally sterile_ (sterile by nature) relationships that cannot be considered true marriages. You get it now?


What and some women and men in their child bearing years aren't naturally sterile? So I guess they aren't married... what about the children they've adopted? I guess they aren't a family then.

Get real...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

The Conservative Party is willing to grant the same RIGHTs to gay couples as heterosexual couples but the term that defines that unique union would be different. This is about "Rights" isn't it? Why wouldn't a union granting all the same RIGHTS but given a different name not meet the requirements of the Charter? The Supreme Court never ruled that the current definition of marriage was unconstitutional did they? The government would not be violating the Charter to leave the current definition as it stands if it granted all the same rights to gays under a different name.
If it is a violation of human rights to be considered equal but different then we're in trouble. With this line of thinking it should be unconstitutional to define a woman as a woman and a man as a man. We all know and accept that a woman is equal to a man despite the fact that she is identified as "woman". Maybe we should all insist on being called humans only and drop the unconstitutional use of gender terms to define us? 

Is it too late to change the term used to describe currently unionized gays from married to something else? I don't think so. In Ontario, my wife and I and millions of other Ontarians just had our relationship defining terms of wife and husband changed to spouse yet our rights are still the same.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> The Supreme Court never ruled that the current definition of marriage was unconstitutional did they? The government would not be violating the Charter to leave the current definition as it stands if it granted all the same rights to gays under a different name.


I believe the Supreme Court advised Parliament that it was a moot point, since it had already been ruled to be violating the charter by the provincial courts. Many believe that the Supreme Court, in their non-binding opinion on the government bill were signalling that they would prefer parliament enact a law, rather than rely on them for interpretation. It is believed that a ruling on this question by the Supreme Court would follow the same unavoidable logic that all the lower courts have and rule it to be discriminatory to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

Maybe this bears repeating. Same sex marriage is currently the law of the land in all but a couple of provinces where it hasn't been challenged in a higher court, yet. The debate is now about whether or not we deny rights that have already been granted. Whether or not we go back on our determination that some people should not have more rights than others. 

Some suggest using the notwithstanding clause. Even Harper has rejected that idea. This is because, for a Prime Minister to use that clause means that all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter from then on become only conditional. It means they can be taken away by the whim of politicians appealing to a voting block.

I was trying to think where I heard the phrase "separate, but equal", which is exactly what these proposals for civil unions are. Then I remembered, (with a little help from Google  ), the famous case of Brown V. Board of Education in the US. The Supreme Court there ruled that the argument for separate but equal, as it applied to segregation in the south, was discriminatory. It is discriminatory in this case too, because there is only one stated reason for denying marriage to one group and not the other. That reason is sexual orientation. That is what makes it discriminatory.

That line of thinking does not lead to changing the way we use language. We can still say man, woman, straight, gay, etc. What we can't do is say, "You can have this, but not this, because you are a man, a woman, straight or gay."

As for the "civil union" option, here is the opinion of Peter Hogg, former dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School and a constitutional expert, as reported in the Globe and Mail:


> Is "civil union" a possible solution to same-sex relationships? The idea, which has been adopted in some countries, would be to create a legal relationship that is not called "marriage" but has all the same legal incidents as marriage. The court held that this was not an option for Parliament. The problem is that Parliament's jurisdiction is restricted to "marriage," and relationships short of marriage come within provincial jurisdiction. In Canada, therefore, any national civil union would have to be created by the harmonious action of 10 provinces and three territories. We can safely forget that option.
> 
> Read the whole article here.


Again, I think that the Conservative support of this "civil union" idea, is only political posturing. They've read all the legal opinions and know that it won't fly. But they'd rather appeal to their base and pander to homophobia than do what is right.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

I guess it's largely useless to argue this point with people who actually think that society is advancing and not deteriorating. No civilisation has ever given total licence to homosexuality and survived. From Sodom in biblical times to the Roman Empire and, sadly, to our own days. Our civilisation is on brink of disintigration, while people bicker and quabble over petty issues.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

GWR said:


> No civilisation has ever given total licence to homosexuality and survived. From Sodom in biblical times to the Roman Empire and, sadly, to our own days. Our civilisation is on brink of disintigration, while people bicker and quabble over petty issues.


Well why don't you do something about it and stop your bickering. By your arguement we won't disentegrate then.

Do you really believe this? Do you really think that homosexuality leads to the downfall of civilization? If you do, and if there are others like you, you must never ever be allowed to be put in a position of responsibility or power.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

*("That line of thinking does not lead to changing the way we use language. We can still say man, woman, straight, gay, etc. What we can't do is say, "You can have this, but not this, because you are a man, a woman, straight or gay.")* 

Men take note, next time you go to the gym and the showers are not working in the mens locker room, just go over and use them in the ladies change room. They have no right to deny you access to those showers. To do so would be discrimination based on sex. Ladies, if your sick of waiting in line to use a toilet in the ladies room just skip over to the mens room instead.

Exactly what rights are denied by giving a different name to identify a union that is distinctly different? 
Which of these rights would the Conservative proposal deny? Spousal benefits, adoption, pensions, child tax benefits a wedding, power of attorney?
Could you please be specific as to the RIGHTS they'd lose being defined as a civil union or some other term?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

GWR said:


> I guess it's largely useless to argue this point with people who actually think that society is advancing and not deteriorating. No civilisation has ever given total licence to homosexuality and survived. From Sodom in biblical times to the Roman Empire and, sadly, to our own days. Our civilisation is on brink of disintigration, while people bicker and quabble over petty issues.


Global warming and related extreme-weather phenomena
Declining scientific literacy
Declining literacy, generally
Air pollution
Water pollution
Deforestation
Famine
Genocide
Massive U.S. debt + U.S. belligerence
Islamist fundamentalism/militance
Arabs & Jews still fighting like...Arabs & Jews
Major wars in Iraq and Congo
AIDS (mostly among heterosexuals in Africa)
Drug-resistant bacteria
Avian influenza
Over-fishing/near-extinction of major staple species
Over-reliance on fossil fuels (see global warming)
Teen pregnancy/teen STDs
Rampant crystal-methamphetamine addiction

...and you are worried about some hot man-on-man monogamy? That's called "fiddling while Rome burns."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

GWR said:


> I guess it's largely useless to argue this point with people who actually think that society is advancing and not deteriorating. No civilisation has ever given total licence to homosexuality and survived. From Sodom in biblical times to the Roman Empire and, sadly, to our own days. Our civilisation is on brink of disintigration, while people bicker and quabble over petty issues.


Like any complex system, society can be both advancing and deteriorating at the same time, depending on what aspect is under consideration and what criteria are used to measure 'advancement.'

I sincerely hope you are correct about the collapse of certain aspects of our current civilization. The rising anti-intellectualism, xenophobia and superstition in the 'red-state' culture is certainly something we'd be better off without.

Personally, I see the opposite trend with respect to the tolerance of homosexuality and civilization... the cultures on the brink of collapse are the ones thrashing about in panic over the healthy change occurring in the rest of the world. Antiquated churches and other inflexible aspects of our society will be unable to adapt to change, and will become increasingly irrelevant. I'm sure the dinosaurs gave mighty roars and stomped their enormous feet before they went extinct too. But 'adapt or perish' has always been the rule.

I won't miss the homophobes and other flat-earthers.

Cheers.


----------



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

Returning to the thread, let's see what we have. The "Conservative Party" (aka marriage of two apparently incompatible species) is backing a "traditional" (whatever that means) definition of marriage that imposes qualities only proscribed by certain religious organizations so that our society does not fall into the abyss. In other words, they are saving us from Hell and Damnation.

Sorry for paraphrasing, but I must have missed that part at the policy convention.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Exactly what rights are denied by giving a different name to identify a union that is distinctly different?
> Which of these rights would the Conservative proposal deny? Spousal benefits, adoption, pensions, child tax benefits a wedding, power of attorney?
> Could you please be specific as to the RIGHTS they'd lose being defined as a civil union or some other term?


You might want to ask the Supreme Court. 

What is being denied? The right to get married. The Conservatives are grudgingly saying that, yes you can have all the rights, you just can't call it marriage. Why? Because you're gay. Two drunk, but straight, fools can meet one night in Las Vegas and be married, yet a committed couple of lesbians or 2 gay men, who have devoted their whole lives to each other cannot call their union a marriage. Why? Because they're gay. That's discrimination. 

But, basically if the Conservative proposal is really all about semantics, what is the point? No, it's about saying there is something not quite as good about a same-sex marriage. That's discrimination.

When it was illegal for races to intermarry, mixed race couples lived together and loved each other anyway. During the battle against it, the same sort of arguments were heard, no doubt some even used Biblical references. How did the fact that eventually racial intermarriage was allowed, harm anybody else's idea of marriage?

A person who disagrees with mixed-race marriage, still has the right to believe that his or her marriage is somehow "better", based on whatever his beliefs happen to be. What he can't do is ask the state to make that distinction for him.

Besides all of this, and I'll say it again, we are not sitting at this moment in time, trying to decide whether we should allow same-sex marriage. It has already been allowed, it is the law. When our society started down the road of giving equal rights to gay people and ruling in many different circumstances that they could not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation, this led inevitably to the right to marry. We can't stop at one point, saying that you're completely equal ... except one little thing.

Conservatives, both small-c and large-c, are proposing taking away a right that already exists, a right that has been exercised by thousands. The legal opinion states that this will not fly. The Conservative party is misleading people into believing that their option will work, for the sole reason of using homophobia to gain votes. A few sensible Conservatives, such as Belinda Stronach, have advised that this will hurt their chances. We shall see.


----------



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

MacGuiver, I think the answer to your point about using washrooms is that using a facility that people expect is reserved for one sex denies those users an expected right to privacy. There are unisex toilets in which both sexes are aware of the rights of both sexes and they are designed to maintain privacy. Thus, using the wrong washroom has the possibility of contravening the rights of those who are using that washroom. In the case of same-sex marriage, I don't understand why anyone who is married should feel their rights are being denied to them as they are losing nothing whatsoever. If they feel the value of their marriage has somehow been undermined by the recognition of same-sex marriages, they can take that to court.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> If they feel the value of their marriage has somehow been undermined by the recognition of same-sex marriages, they can take that to court.


Hopefully, someone will do just that.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

How exactly would letting a same sex couple get married devalue straight marriages again? Would married straight couples be any less married? Would married straight couples not be able to love each other as much anymore? Would married (or even not married) straight couples stop being able to have as many kids?

Just asking.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Hopefully, someone will do just that.


Yes, hopefully someone will. When they lose the case, maybe it will stop this nonsense once and for all.


----------



## highapostle (Apr 21, 2004)

Personally, I cannot see how letting same-sex couples marry devalues opposite sex marriages. My girlfriend and I married this past summer, and while nothing is 100% perfect I know that she is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with. I look and see friends of mine who are equally dedicated to each other but are of the same sex, what makes my wife and I "better" or more "worthy" of marriage than them? I'm glad that these couples have the right both here in Toronto where I am a student and back home in Manitoba. 

And while civil unions do give the various governmental benefits, there are people in same-sex relationships who are religious and who belong to a supportive faith community who would be happy to marry them before whatever deity they believe in. So, if we deny these couples this right, we're denying them their religious freedom as well.

Like many others, I don't think that religions should be forced into marrying same-sex couples. However, the government should not perpetuate this discrimination based on past beliefs on what an "ideal" marriage or family should be.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> A few sensible Conservatives, such as Belinda Stronach, have advised that this will hurt their chances. We shall see.


Keep in mind that many members of the Liberal party take the same stance as the Conservative party. That's why Martin is going crack the whip on this issue, much like the NDP will.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It might be interesting to note here that many MANY of the Martin government's Liberal MP's are just as openly AGAINST same-sex marriage as some of the Conservative MP's in Parliament. It is a very divisive issue, no question about it. On ALL sides.

But, personally, I couldn't give two hoots who marries whom. And...I suspect that a whole lot of other people who consider themselves to be "politically conservative" also feel exactly the same way as I do.

Call it "a realistic response to reality" if you'd like. Call it "indifference" if that's what floats yer boat. Call it "libertarianism" even.

Call it whatever you want to.

Bottom line? For my money...it's none of anyone elses buisness whom you choose to spend your time or your life with. Find somebody you really like, and want to share your life with? From ANY segment of our human society? Then FINE...go for it!  

All you'll ever get from me on the subject is high fives and cheers. (And maybe even a bit of envy.)

Promise.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> And...I suspect that a whole lot of other people who consider themselves to be "politically conservative" also feel exactly the same way as I do.


Not enough of them, obviously.

But congratulations, MacNutt, on not swallowing the whole conservative agenda. There might be hope for you, yet.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> But, personally, I couldn't give two hoots who marries whom.


Remind me of this if I ever forget that you and I do agree on some things 

Cheers


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I support same sex marriage because I think the government has no business being in people's bedrooms.


Ah, I love it when conservatives paraphrase Trudeau. ;-)

For your reading pleasure, the actual quote. ""there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." 
December 21, 1967


----------



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

Sinc, re your "hope" concerning Jim's comment that "If they feel the value of their marriage has somehow been undermined by the recognition of same-sex marriages, they can take that to court.", be careful what you wish for in this area. If a court ever agreed to ban something like this based on the fact that your perceived "value" was undermined, then legally, we could start rounding up all visible minorities, those who are Hindu/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/etc, atheists, gays, persons with visible physical disabilities, those with diagnosed mental/emotional disabilities, people from different nations, et al. All this could, conceivably, be done in the name that it was determined that the value of a "way of life" was lessened by the presence of these people. I am not sure where you would put all of these persons, or what you might do with them, but I would rather live in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society that has the wisdom to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of one and all. 

You may not believe as I do, but I don't see why my beliefs, so long as they don't directly infringe upon you freedoms of belief, should be denied. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> You may not believe as I do, but I don't see why my beliefs, so long as they don't directly infringe upon your freedoms of belief, should be denied. Paix, mon ami.


Dr. G., I have no desire to deny anyone their beliefs. I simply believe that traditional marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Unions of two persons of the same sex are distinctly different and that being obvious, it should be called something other than marriage in my and many other Canadians opinion.

By all means grant those couples the very same legal rights as those of traditional marriage. No one is arguing that point. But to call those relationships equal in name by using the term marriage is simply not accurate.


----------



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

> SINC: I simply *believe* that traditional marriage is the union of one man and one woman


SINC, no one is denying your right to that belief. If you like, you can tag on the "traditional" rider whenever you wish if that makes you feel better. However, the concept of "equal but distinct" fails if those to whom it applies do agree to it. It is a question of respect for the wishes of others. Same-sex couples cannot force you to see their marriages as equal to your own, but they have the right to expect society to recognize their relationship as a marriage. In other words, you can believe whatever you want, but you do not have the right to force others to conform to your beliefs (or mine, for that matter).

BTW, I agree that this is not a Conservative vs Liberal issue. There are plenty on both sides who disagree with their parties official policy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> BTW, I agree that this is not a Conservative vs Liberal issue. There are plenty on both sides who disagree with their parties official policy.


Agreed UTBJ, but it appears more Canadians over the age of 50 as well as Canadians in the west in particular, oppose the change in the definition of marriage than support it. They have no issues with equal rights for same sex unions.


----------



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

SINC said:


> Agreed UTBJ, but it appears more Canadians over the age of 50 as well as Canadians in the west in particular, oppose the change in the definition of marriage than support it. They have no issues with equal rights for same sex unions.


If you're wondering, I've been married for 22 years, am 45, voted Liberal in the last election and from the "east". I don't know if my local MP is for or against same-sex marriage. Interestingly - AFAIK, she is the only muslim member of parliament.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> If you're wondering, I've been married for 22 years, am 45, voted Liberal in the last election and from the "east". I don't know if my local MP is for or against same-sex marriage. Interestingly - AFAIK, she is the only muslim member of parliament.


I didn't wonder, but for the record I am 60, have been married for 39 years, from the west, (although I lived in Ontario for 10 years). My local MP is John Williams who headed the adscam parliamentry inquiry and is a staunch supporter of traditional marriage. I voted Conservative in the last election.

Guess we could not be further apart could we?

That being said, I do respect your views and your right to them. I just don't agree _with_ them.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Thankfully... since the majority of those against same sex marriage are over 50... eventually they will die off, and as the younger (with more liberal attitudes) get older eventually this will become entrenched as a normal part of the culture...

Just like minority civil rights and womens rights...


----------



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

That's not a very liberal attitude da_jonesy. This country is strong because of its diversity and the contributions of all Canadians. Everyone should have a voice and a right to express an opinion (within some limits). My hope is that those that currently have a problem with same-sex marriage will come around - well before they die!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> That's not a very liberal attitude da_jonesy. This country is strong because of its diversity and the contributions of all Canadians. Everyone should have a voice and a right to express an opinion (within some limits). My hope is that those that currently have a problem with same-sex marriage will come around - well before they die!


LOL... I never said it was a liberal attitude. It is however a fact. Social issues like this inevitably get sorted out over time. I've had many discussions with my wife over this topic. 80-100 years ago it would have been very unlikely that we could ever have gotten married as our relationship would have been considered as Miscegenation (she being a visible minority... I hate that term, but it is what we use isn't it). Or if we had gotten married, that the marriage would never have been recognized as it wasn't performed in a church (or by a justice of the peace).

We have very strong feelings on the subject of gay marriage as you could imagine. The recogniztion of our marriage (well similiar marriages) didn't happen overnight unfortunately, I wish it did or could have but it did not. That right was won over time.

I value diversity and in some regards I am more right wing in my thoughts (specifically when it comes to real defence issues... not star wars crap) in others I am very left wing (when it come to social issues). From the point of view of certain traditions I value a more conservative view of things (specifcally when it comes to the nature of our democracy being a constitutional monarchy which I fully support). Part of the problem is that the Conservative/Alliance is in fact not conservative at all... just right wing and there is a difference.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> (specifcally when it comes to the nature of our democracy being a constitutional monarchy which I fully support).


Just one more difference in the opinion of people by age. I say dump the monarchy and its twisted and perverted family, while you who are younger want to keep it?

Astounding .


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Just one more difference in the opinion of people by age. I say dump the monarchy and its twisted and perverted family, while you who are younger want to keep it?
> 
> Astounding .


It is the very nature of our constitution. Our head of state IS the Queen of England. End of story. 

I understand a group of people who disagreed with them over two hundred years ago is living to our south. I invite you to go for a visit or extended stay. 

And it's not like we know of any twisted or perverted heads of state nearby right?

Sorry I'm not prepared to open up the books to throwing out the constitution. Canada is a damn fine place to live, anyone who doesn't like it can ship off as far as I am concerned.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Canada would remain the same "damn fine place to live" if we dumped Liz and her merry ban of misfits.

The monarchy is no more than a figurehead at best, and serves no real purpose in our everyday government. Other than her representative costing us millions for needless trips and lavish spending, etc.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Canada would remain the same "damn fine place to live" if we dumped Liz and her merry ban of misfits.
> 
> The monarchy is no more than a figurehead at best, and serves no real purpose in our everyday government. Other than her representative costing us millions for needless trips and lavish spending, etc.


Typical, the monarchy is a symbol of how we define our rule of government. It is at the very heart of what it means to be Canadian.

To quote Eugene Forsey

_"Canada is a democracy, a constitutional monarchy. Our head of state is the Queen of Canada, who is also Queen of Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and a host of other countries scattered around the world from the Bahamas and Grenada to Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu. Every act of government is done in the name of the Queen, but the authority for every act flows from the Canadian people.

When the men who framed the basis of our present written constitution, the Fathers of Confederation, were drafting it in 1867, they freely, deliberately and unanimously chose to vest the formal executive authority in the Queen, "to be administered according to the well understood principles of the British constitution by the Sovereign personally or by the Representative of the Queen." That meant responsible government, with a Cabinet responsible to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons answerable to the people. All of the powers of the Queen are now exercised by her representative, the Governor General, except when the Queen is in Canada"_


----------



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

Sinc, I was not clear in my concluding comment that "You may not believe as I do, but I don't see why my beliefs, so long as they don't directly infringe upon your freedoms of belief, should be denied. Paix, mon ami." I was using the universal "you" rather than the you/you. What I should have written is that I don't see why the beliefs of those gay/lesbian couples that they could have a loving marriage, which will in no way affect your marriage or my marriage, should be denied this right. People have been in non-formal unions far longer than the traditional form of church-sanctioned marriages.

Maybe we could settle the whole issue this way -- let all gay and lesbian marriages be called "marriage" and let all heterosexual marriages, like you and I have, be called "unions". Or, we could call our thing "whizpops", or "marlaps", and what gay/lesbian couples want "rimpops" or "liptoms". The point I am trying to make is that the word is not the thing. What you share with your wife, regardless of what we call it, is still what you share with your wife. The same goes for me, Jim, et al............even the gay couple across the street from me who, while not legally married, are still a loving and kind couple.

So, sorry for the confusion. Still, I don't want to see a Canada where the courts decide that you or I, or any gay or lesbian couple, cannot share a marriage together because someone else feels that these unions have devalued the word "marriage".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> When the men who framed the basis of our present written constitution, the Fathers of Confederation, were drafting it in 1867, they freely, deliberately and unanimously chose to vest the formal executive authority in the Queen, "to be administered according to the well understood principles of the British constitution by the Sovereign personally or by the Representative of the Queen." That meant responsible government, with a Cabinet responsible to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons answerable to the people. All of the powers of the Queen are now exercised by her representative, the Governor General, except when the Queen is in Canada"[/I]


Yep, and the result is a GG run amok in the form of Clarkson and her sanctimonious husband.

Time to cut the cord and be ourselves methinks.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I don't really know a whole lot about our previous Governor Generals, but is it the post or the person in it being irresponsible (for lack of a better term)?


----------

