The Party

Canadian Issues - Gay Marriage
capebretoner - Sat Jan 22, 2005 4:40 pm
Post subject: Gay Marriage
What do you think about gay marriage? Do you think that it should be allowed? Why or why not?

Also if you don't want to call it marriage, how about union.
jryan - Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:38 pm
Post subject:
Sure, Why not?
capebretoner - Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:32 pm
Post subject:
Anonymous wrote:
If only the government was as concerned about everything else as they are about this gay marriage thing. Don't really understand why there is so much fuss about it all. Can't see how it will hurt anyone.


You took the words right out of my mouth....This is not an issue that should be on the front page of the papers on a regular basis. Or advertisements ebing aired.
capebretoner - Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:49 am
Post subject:
It turns out that the leader of the Conservative Party put on the Gay marriage ads without discussing it with his caucus. He didn't even mentino it to the man who betrayed his old party to form the Conservative party, Peter MacKay. I am not sure that it is wise to leader a party like this so agresive. It may happen that they will crash like the last time that they tried to merge.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/01/23/907983-cp.html
eastern capitalist - Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:11 pm
Post subject:
Meh...if anyone wants to marry and it does not impact my life, why should I care.....

The Conservative Party is still "one" party. Social issues are not matters of Party policy, but it is up to each member. Mr. Harper is expressing where he and a good majority of the MPs stand on this issue.

May be Belinda hid the memorandum from MacKay?
profiler - Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:17 pm
Post subject:
Well, my first post...
I see a cpl of u have this "i dont care" attitude. "As far as it's not about me, why shud i care?" Well, I'd tell u that u ought to care cos we live in the same society regardless of our sexual preferences. Down the road, in about 10-20yrs time, u'll end up having to fill forms about ur sexual preference, believe it or not...not that it matters, but it wud become a norm that new born babies wud think it's normal to look at ur same sex and the other sex as well.

From the tone of my first paragraph, u'd have probably guessed my position on this issue...and yeah, i'm against it. Be not deceived. Homosexuality is NOT normal....that's why u have the penis and vagina and that's why two males or two females cannot reproduce a kid. Nature has made it such that the union of a man and a woman gives birth to a new life....now do we accept homosexuality as a result of our selfish sexual fantasies and abandon our responsibilities as humans in preserving life? Afterall, preserving life aint a big deal cos if our fore-fathers refused to be joined to our mothers, we wont be born today and we wont have this problem. But hey, everyone is entitled to his/her sexual preference and fantasy...it ought to be a free world afterall...and that's why i'd also advocate that if gay unions are allowed, incests, necrophilia (sex with corpses), etc shud be allowed as well....it's a free world and everyone shud adopt the "i dont care attitude" and not frown at those pple who choose those sexual preferences.

When it comes to marriage, that's a different case all together. There's what they call "the sanctity of marriage". Our fore-fathers knew what that meant but today, heck, anyone can call a justice of peace and recite a few incantations without knowing the meaning and it's done. U can go as far as asking Brittany Spears how she did hers. Ever wondered why the divorce rate has risen over the decades in the western world? If u have some time, do some research about the divorce rates in developing countries (whateva that means) like India or even African countries...the difference wud be glaring. Why? Is it that those pple in the developing countries recognise what marriage is better than us in the supposedly developed world? Why wud u want to marry someone based on the fact that the sex is great? Does that mean that when the person can no longer give u great sex, u loose interest and divorce almost immediately? It's an awful trend in the society today and it pains me when i work into a factory and see old men working their socks off cos they had at least one divorce case at a point in their life and are trying to make ends meet. Hey, it's become a way of life that i'm sure some of u think i'm yapping crap....but take a minute or two to punder on these. Now, why wud u want to introduce gay marriages? As a gay couple, u cant produce children. You may argue that u can do things together, quite alright...but u can also do the same things together as friends...so why the point of getting married? just for the heck of it? And i hear some gay cpls going as far as adopting children...why wud u want to corrupt the younger ones with ur selfish sexual acts? If u wanted a kid, why not go make one? At least, someone went thru 9mths for the kid u're trying to adopt....
Too bad, this on-going debate about gay unions raises lots of questions and it's sad that lots of answers that fail to define common sense logic have been implemented. At the end of the day, it's a free world...so why shud i care?
eastern capitalist - Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:26 pm
Post subject:
Profiler,

Why does the actions of other people concern you so much? I can think of a lot worst conditions from children to be raise under than two loving women (or men) that are in a strong, committed relationship.
profiler - Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:33 pm
Post subject:
eastern capitalist wrote:
Profiler,

Why does the actions of other people concern you so much? I can think of a lot worst conditions from children to be raise under than two loving women (or men) that are in a strong, committed relationship.

Look up the words, "Community" and "Society". Your profile says u're in the goverment and u're interested in politics. Do u really understand the essence of a "government"? Cos if u did, u wont ask that question.

In simple terms, the actions of others bother us cos we leave in the same community or society. We ought to have the same sense of belonging!
eastern capitalist - Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:12 pm
Post subject:
Well, I can think of a lot of things that people do in a community that bother me, none of which I would want to use the force of the state to correct.

It is not the job the government to create and model society, its role is limited to ensuring that laws are upheld, not cultural norms.
capebretoner - Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:53 pm
Post subject:
eastern capitalist wrote:
Well, I can think of a lot of things that people do in a community that bother me, none of which I would want to use the force of the state to correct.

It is not the job the government to create and model society, its role is limited to ensuring that laws are upheld, not cultural norms.


Society as it is today has implicitly affected the laws of the land as they stand today. It is fair to say that the laws have also affected cultural norms.

The laws of the land over the years has reflected the culture that they were written to serve. If the governments hadn't changed laws, rewritten them, or taken them off the books altogether society would be in a stand still. At some point, we can imagine, a bunch of guys sat down and said "we're going to make all these rules and call them laws". These reflected the ideals at the time, and must change to reflect the expressed interests of today's society.
eastern capitalist - Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:41 pm
Post subject:
Yoou sort of hit on my point, in the past governments have tried to control society. As a freedom loving individual, no matter how good the intentions, the state has not business trying to tell me how to live.

As long as the rule of law in terms of property are upheld, the state should leave people free. Whether it is marriage or some other social issue, the state should only be there to uphold property rights.
HickoryStick - Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:34 am
Post subject: Nanny, nanny, nanny
Governments should definitly not be trying to mold society into its own liking!

Government's role should be, and only should be, to protect individual property rights of its citizens. Nothing more.

When government tries to interfere, we get nanny-state's.

Nanny-state = BAD!!!
capebretoner - Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:13 am
Post subject:
eastern capitalist wrote:

As long as the rule of law in terms of property are upheld, the state should leave people free. Whether it is marriage or some other social issue, the state should only be there to uphold property rights.


Free to kill, maim, have sexual relations with minors, etc...

All of these things are extreme examples of what is not exceptable in our society that are protected under the law, which do NOT deal with property
profiler - Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:47 am
Post subject:
capebretoner wrote:
eastern capitalist wrote:

As long as the rule of law in terms of property are upheld, the state should leave people free. Whether it is marriage or some other social issue, the state should only be there to uphold property rights.


Free to kill, maim, have sexual relations with minors, etc...

All of these things are extreme examples of what is not exceptable in our society that are protected under the law, which do NOT deal with property

Capebretoner, God bless you. At least, someone is seeing one of my points. That's why i said initially, if we accept that the govt shudnt care about gay unions, then they shud as well allow everyone's sexual fantasy and preference to materialise. There are lots of sick minds in today's society that's why we hear of sexual relations with minors which i think most pple wud have a problem with and that's why we all have an entrusted responsibility in our government to curb it....then why being selective? Believe it or not, every law that is made, changed, nullified or modified in a society affects every member of the society directly or indirectly.
profiler - Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:49 am
Post subject:
eastern capitalist wrote:
Well, I can think of a lot of things that people do in a community that bother me, none of which I would want to use the force of the state to correct.

It is not the job the government to create and model society, its role is limited to ensuring that laws are upheld, not cultural norms.

Sorry sir, that statement is seriously flawed.
eastern capitalist - Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:24 am
Post subject:
capebretoner wrote:
Free to kill, maim, have sexual relations with minors, etc...

All of these things are extreme examples of what is not exceptable in our society that are protected under the law, which do NOT deal with property


Actually they are properety rights. Your life is your property and no one has the right to tkae that away. Your body is your property as well and if you do not want to have sexual relations, you should not be forced into it. Likewise, in Canada, children are considered property as well....

Negative rights vs postive rights. The government should enforce the former and stay away from the latter.
eastern capitalist - Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:26 am
Post subject:
profiler wrote:
It is not the job the government to create and model society, its role is limited to ensuring that laws are upheld, not cultural norms.

Sorry sir, that statement is seriously flawed.[/quote]

Yes because the greatest examples of the state trying to create a society is Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cuba and North Korea. I would toss in China, but according to my PM, they are progressing very well on Human Rights.
Moishey - Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:39 am
Post subject: uhhh...
A few points:

1. Hickorystick, oversimplifying the role of government to property rights leaves an inapplicable ideology. Should everyone be in charge of their own sewage, as long as it doesn't affect others? Well, perhaps its easier to have it run municipally. And, I hope protecting the environment is under the realm of citizien property rights - because the line about leaving the market to determine everything but property and personal protection fails in the environment, where the market is ill-equipped to deal with the issue, since there is no cost to degrading the environment, beyond ones own personal displeasure at looking at it, which is surely compensated by the money made from the degradation.

2. Profiler, your stand against homosexuality is odd. First, you're concerned with having to fill out a hetero/homo checkbox on your tax return... Then you're concerned that it shouldn't be encouraged because its not normal. Either this is the stand of some high-school homogenizer, or I'm misunderstanding - everything I do must be accepted as socially normal? Sounds a bit fascist. And your logical interpretation that gay unions should open the door to necrophilia and incest? Homosexual unions are for the right to officially recognize the union of two same-sex individuals, and this recognition does not harm anyone. Incest typically involves the sexual assault of minors, which certainly hurts people, and necrophilia involves either killing people, or digging people up from their graves. These actions both hurt people. You'll find that most sexual acts which do not exploit or harm others are permissible, regardless of your notion of normality.
capebretoner - Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:28 am
Post subject:
eastern capitalist wrote:
capebretoner wrote:
Free to kill, maim, have sexual relations with minors, etc...

All of these things are extreme examples of what is not exceptable in our society that are protected under the law, which do NOT deal with property


Actually they are properety rights. Your life is your property and no one has the right to tkae that away. Your body is your property as well and if you do not want to have sexual relations, you should not be forced into it. Likewise, in Canada, children are considered property as well....

Negative rights vs postive rights. The government should enforce the former and stay away from the latter.


Just wondering, how do you define, negative and positive rights?
capebretoner - Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:55 am
Post subject:
An interesting article that I thought I would post:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/01/27/911547.html

It seems that a lot of people see nothing wrong with gay couples having the same benefits, but don't want to call them "married". Sounds fine with me, I never put much effort in terms as long as they get the same benefits, and the only difference in the definition is marriage is between a man and a woman, and a union is between two people of the same gender.

Since this is figured out, how does a gay couple get a divorse, or de-unioned?
profiler - Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:49 pm
Post subject: Re: uhhh...
Moishey wrote:
A few points:

1. Hickorystick, oversimplifying the role of government to property rights leaves an inapplicable ideology. Should everyone be in charge of their own sewage, as long as it doesn't affect others? Well, perhaps its easier to have it run municipally. And, I hope protecting the environment is under the realm of citizien property rights - because the line about leaving the market to determine everything but property and personal protection fails in the environment, where the market is ill-equipped to deal with the issue, since there is no cost to degrading the environment, beyond ones own personal displeasure at looking at it, which is surely compensated by the money made from the degradation.

2. Profiler, your stand against homosexuality is odd. First, you're concerned with having to fill out a hetero/homo checkbox on your tax return... Then you're concerned that it shouldn't be encouraged because its not normal. Either this is the stand of some high-school homogenizer, or I'm misunderstanding - everything I do must be accepted as socially normal? Sounds a bit fascist. And your logical interpretation that gay unions should open the door to necrophilia and incest? Homosexual unions are for the right to officially recognize the union of two same-sex individuals, and this recognition does not harm anyone. Incest typically involves the sexual assault of minors, which certainly hurts people, and necrophilia involves either killing people, or digging people up from their graves. These actions both hurt people. You'll find that most sexual acts which do not exploit or harm others are permissible, regardless of your notion of normality.

Moishey, quite a valid arguemen i must say.
I totally agree with your first point.
On your second point, yeah, u probably misunderstood me. I stated the obvious about filling forms, etc to show that someone, changing or modifying existing laws affect everyone in the society, hence we shud all be concerned and not put up the stance of "I dont care as far as it doesnt bother me". I also buttressed my point by stating the fact that we live in a community. Also, the last time i checked, I dont see how sunday shopping in NS hurt anyone...infact, it helps to boost the economy, however, majority NS voted against it. BTW, U think the official recognition of gay unions doesnt affect anyone? Think again....i can give u several reasons how they affect (or hurt as u wud put it) us. This is the same society that my kids and urs wud grow up in....Furthermore, it's no brainer that when gay unions are preferred to heterosexual unions that the population growth is stunted and thus affects the economy. Why cant we keep our sexual fantasies and acts in the bedroom? Why do we have to officially recognise them? Very soon, we wud have to officially recognise 3some and 4some couples. And hey, incest is frowned on in the society...why? does it hurt anyone? I can also tell u that in today's society, over 70% of minors fantasize over sleeping with "over-aged daddies"....why dont u allow them? Someone said it's "property"..so?
profiler - Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:51 pm
Post subject:
capebretoner wrote:
An interesting article that I thought I would post:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/01/27/911547.html

It seems that a lot of people see nothing wrong with gay couples having the same benefits, but don't want to call them "married". Sounds fine with me, I never put much effort in terms as long as they get the same benefits, and the only difference in the definition is marriage is between a man and a woman, and a union is between two people of the same gender.

Since this is figured out, how does a gay couple get a divorse, or de-unioned?

Capebretoner, that's my point....do whatever u want in the bedroom...no one cares...but dont come out to redefine the laws cos u want to be recognised as a gaylord.
capebretoner - Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:55 pm
Post subject: Re: uhhh...
profiler wrote:
Moishey wrote:
A few points:

1. Hickorystick, oversimplifying the role of government to property rights leaves an inapplicable ideology. Should everyone be in charge of their own sewage, as long as it doesn't affect others? Well, perhaps its easier to have it run municipally. And, I hope protecting the environment is under the realm of citizien property rights - because the line about leaving the market to determine everything but property and personal protection fails in the environment, where the market is ill-equipped to deal with the issue, since there is no cost to degrading the environment, beyond ones own personal displeasure at looking at it, which is surely compensated by the money made from the degradation.

2. Profiler, your stand against homosexuality is odd. First, you're concerned with having to fill out a hetero/homo checkbox on your tax return... Then you're concerned that it shouldn't be encouraged because its not normal. Either this is the stand of some high-school homogenizer, or I'm misunderstanding - everything I do must be accepted as socially normal? Sounds a bit fascist. And your logical interpretation that gay unions should open the door to necrophilia and incest? Homosexual unions are for the right to officially recognize the union of two same-sex individuals, and this recognition does not harm anyone. Incest typically involves the sexual assault of minors, which certainly hurts people, and necrophilia involves either killing people, or digging people up from their graves. These actions both hurt people. You'll find that most sexual acts which do not exploit or harm others are permissible, regardless of your notion of normality.

Moishey, quite a valid arguemen i must say.
I totally agree with your first point.
On your second point, yeah, u probably misunderstood me. I stated the obvious about filling forms, etc to show that someone, changing or modifying existing laws affect everyone in the society, hence we shud all be concerned and not put up the stance of "I dont care as far as it doesnt bother me". I also buttressed my point by stating the fact that we live in a community. Also, the last time i checked, I dont see how sunday shopping in NS hurt anyone...infact, it helps to boost the economy, however, majority NS voted against it. BTW, U think the official recognition of gay unions doesnt affect anyone? Think again....this is the same society that my kids and urs wud grow up in....Furthermore, it's no brainer that when gay unions are preferred to heterosexual unions that the population growth is stunted and thus affects the economy. Why cant we keep our sexual fantasies and acts in the bedroom? Why do we have to officially recognise them? Very soon, we wud have to officially recognise 3some and 4some couples. And hey, incest is frowned on in the society...why? does it hurt anyone? I can also tell u that in today's society, over 70% of minors fantasize over sleeping with "over-aged daddies"....why dont u allow them? Someone said it's "property"..so?


If you are going to insist that homosexuality is a "sexual fantasy" please give us some reference to this. If this is the case why were there homosexuals in the past when this was frowned upon, I think that most of these people would of preferred to be hetro just so that they would not be ridiculed.
Moishey - Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:35 pm
Post subject:
Quote:
ver 70% of minors fantasize over sleeping with "over-aged daddies"....why dont u allow them?


First I've gotta say that I'm skeptical of your statistic there - some sort of source would be appreciated. Secondly, we as a society have recognized that minors can be coerced into sexual situations which they are not fully able to make decisions to keep them from harm. Thus, we protect them with laws.

And, to further Capebretoner's point, it really is ludicrous to insist that homosexuality is nothing but the culmination of an erotic fantasy. BDSM, roleplaying, etc, are fantasies. Homosexuality is a *sexuality*. To reduce the gay union/marriage debate to one of 'keeping sexual fantasy in the bedroom' is to imply that hetero unions are simply for procreation and erotic sex. There is much much more to the union of two people by law, than a proclamation of thier ability and willingness to engage in homosexual sex.

Also, your suggestion that homosexuals having unions harm you because you have to live in the same community as them - watch out - it sounds like bigotry to me. Do you not like gay people? Or do you not give them any credit for their announced sexuality?

To reiterate, incest relations hurt people because offspring are typically handicapped, and incest relations often involve the exploitation of one (or more) persons.

Lastly, who is saying that society is moving towards 'preferring' homo unions to hetero ones, thus jeapordizing our ability to sustain the population? I don't think heterosexual people are going to start getting into gay unions because they're available!

Moishey
eastern capitalist - Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:43 pm
Post subject:
capebretoner wrote:


Just wondering, how do you define, negative and positive rights?


Sure:

A Positive right is a right, to be provided with something so that it is incumbent upon another to act.

A negative right which is a right to not be subject to the action of another. ther shoudl be no coercion to any action.

Some examples of positive rights:
The right to an education, places the claim on someone that they must teach. The right to housing places a claim on someone to build that home. The right to food implies that someone must grow that food.

Negative rights:
The right to life implies that no one has the right to harm you.

Basically postive rights proscribes action, while negative rights prescribes action.
eastern capitalist - Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:00 pm
Post subject:
Now here is the problem I have with the gay lobby:

Quote:
The Knights, adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple's deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall's address for their reception had been mailed.
That was in September, 2003. In October, the couple complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case last week. A decision is not expected for months


The KofC went out of their way to accomidate the lesbian couple, but it seemed that was not good enough for them. I hate when people have to push the issue to such a degree. There has to be middle ground on these types of issues. I just hope that the liberal media gives Harper's view a fair voice.
All times are GMT - 3 Hours
Powered by phpBB 2.0 .0.11 © 2001 phpBB Group