Not many surprises here since the motion was trounced quite handily - even though Dion allowed each of his MPs to vote according to his / her conscience. That hadn't happened under Martin but the real news is that Peter MacKay voted against Harper's proposal to reopen the debate. Harper obviously had to do this to fulfill some illogical but strangely significant promise he'd made to the family values brigade but at least it is over. So now we can all rest easy until Harper's next wacko religious test / requirement / promise reveals itself. Hopefully there will be no animal sacrifices or idol worship rituals.
Same Sex Marriage
- Thread starter slowpoke
- Start date
Good, now we can get on with finding out why Day knew that Zaccardelli had lied, told no one, and still continued to support the bastard.
I've been reviewing those 10 commandments, and while I can find "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour", I can't seem to locate the "marriage" one ... maybe the religious nut cakes can concentrate on things their religion consider real sins rather than making up their own commandments based on some fear that if homosexuality were to become acceptable that they would not be able to resist the temptation.
I've been reviewing those 10 commandments, and while I can find "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour", I can't seem to locate the "marriage" one ... maybe the religious nut cakes can concentrate on things their religion consider real sins rather than making up their own commandments based on some fear that if homosexuality were to become acceptable that they would not be able to resist the temptation.
Well put woolf.
I think it's in Deuteronomy though, something about "man laying with man", although I've heard it's open to interpretation.
Didn't their guy Jesus (originally one of our guys) say something about he who is without sin casting the first stone? At lot of stone-casters in that there Conservative junta.
I think it's in Deuteronomy though, something about "man laying with man", although I've heard it's open to interpretation.
Didn't their guy Jesus (originally one of our guys) say something about he who is without sin casting the first stone? At lot of stone-casters in that there Conservative junta.
Yeah, there are some things in "the books" that can be taken as being against homosexuality if you try hard enough, although it's probably easier to make a case for screwing your daughter, and sacrificing your eldest son ... but the 10 commandments are pretty clear and "in your face", so one would think they would remember that other supposed biblical quote ... something about "the speck that is in your neighbor's eye, and the beam that is in your own eye."
175 to 123 doesn't mean anything. Take out the NDP and Bloc heads, and it would be up for debate again. Jack told his minions to vote against, and so did Gille. I don't call that a free vote. At least Stephanie Dion told his bum buddies they could vote freely.
Woolf raises a good point here. If God had strong feelings against same sex marriage, she would for sure have included a commandmend against it and thus would have given Moses 11 commandmends. Nobody will question her ability to fit one more commandmend on the tablets.woolf said:
As there are only 10 commandmends, we are safe to assume that the protests against same sex marriage is merely a neo-conservative ploy.
DonQuixote said:Totally agree. Heteros totally trashed marriage
with a 50% failure rate. Lets share the pain.
Beside, attys need the divorce work to keep
the industry growing.
Heres a conundrum for heavy Jesuit thinkers:
If an attorney handled the divorce of two gay men and both were happy, could you still say he got a bum deal???
Why does the government have to recognize ANYONE's marriage? Why should the personal decision of remaining single or getting married affect your public duty to pay taxes? Why penalize or reward marriage if it is a personal and religious decision?
I would suggest that the whole business of marriage and divorce should be handled by private industry, the same way your relationships with creditors, landlords, etc. are handled.
I would suggest that the whole business of marriage and divorce should be handled by private industry, the same way your relationships with creditors, landlords, etc. are handled.
Woolfe raises no intelligent point and your no smarter for agreeing with him. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and god. Not between a man and a man, not between a woman and a woman, not between a man and his pig. I'm not anti-gay, but Iam anti-gay-marriage.danmand said:
It says that (a) the two wings of the party do not share monolithic views on all issues; and (b) a certain homophobic attitude abounds within the Alliance wing of the Conservative caucus.bbking said:
Neither of these points should come as a surprise to anyone.
To me it says there is a small minority of "Progressive" MPs in the CPOC ranks. The rest of them must be nuts. This gay marriage thing has cost the taxpayer about 20 times as much as it should have. It would be interesting to know exactly how much it cost for the house to go through this debate and vote. Then Harper should write a cheque to the treasury to cover the cost of time wasted.bbking said:
Actually yesdanmand said:
She is a powerfull lawyer recruted before her last year of law school. And he is well, thinking about tax law.
As long as they are occupied debating such trivial nonsense, it keeps them from doing greater damage. Remember, no one is safe when Parliament is in session.slowpoke said:
Only an indefinite adjournement would have been better than this "wasted" time in the House.
we usually don't agree on much...but here I have to say I do agree with you. This whole same sex non issue, is just that..a non-issue.johnhenrygalt said:As long as they are occupied debating such trivial nonsense, it keeps them from doing greater damage. Remember, no one is safe when Parliament is in session.
Only an indefinite adjournement would have been better than this "wasted" time in the House.
Glad to see though, that everything else seems to be fine...why else would we waste our tax dollars on such nonsense.
Don, you hopeless romanticDonQuixote said:Sadly, I had that chance and blew it.
What could have been, but will never be.....
It is never too late to pick up the phone, so for long as she draws breath.
You've certainly asked the right question. However, it isn't rhetorical.ig-88 said:
The traditional answer is that it is in the best interests of Canadian society that Canadians give birth to children in order to replenish the labour pool. That's why a number of Canadian laws gave preferential treatment to heterosexual marriages - because they were viewed as the cornerstone of this process of raising the next generation of Canadian workers.
While we can debate whether Canadians should give such a high priority to the birth and raising of children (after all, immigration is an equally effective way of replenishing the labour pool), it's very difficult to say that gay relationships serve the same purpose in Canadian society.
In fact, the movement to recognize gay relationships as marriages is not founded on the assertion that these relationships serve the same social purposes as heterosexual relationships. Gay people simply want to feel "normal" in society. Presumably, many of them don't feel "normal" without having society confirm, in a variety of ways, that they are "the same" as straight people.
Obviously, it's become important to straight people, for reasons I can't comprehend, to want to tell gay people that they are the same as straight people.
