Why I will vote liberal ........

[ottawasub]

THE LIEBERALS STRIKE AGAIN!!

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003406.html

Has this been verified by a reputable news agency instead of the inbred redneck blog? Love some of those comments:

Stephen Harper is a saviour from god (praise be to him).

Well that proves it. Just like God sent Jesus to the world over 2000 years ago, now apparently He`s sent Stephen Harper to save us. He sure doesn`t make Messiahs like He used to.

the more I wonder about other ridings with a strong, uh, ethnic core.

Heaven knows if the Conservatives don`t win a riding, then those damned etnics must`ve been up to something trying to hurt the good, decent white voters.

the Edmonton Sun shot of Harper I believe is a Liberal plant...(taken of him sideways showing his gut)

Will the crackhead conspiracy theories (with no proof, big surprise) never end. Next it`ll be the Liberals fault Harper has a gut.

 

[JoyfulC]

Jeez I hate this type of comment! Could you at least put forth a decent argument about what YOU THINK Harper will do, or not do?
This country is great, but has some "management" problems.
Every once in a while, a new management team needs to be put in place and set out a new agenda.
so wrong hole...what in heavens name ARE YOU afraid of?

Sure, that's always a good strategy when you have a winning team: replace them with someone unproven.

We should try the same thing with our Olympic team. If we have someone good in there -- someone proven capable of carrying us to victory -- we should replace them with someone unproven. Or our National Hockey team.

We have it good right now. So let's change it!!! Let's let the Conservatives -- who contributed ZERO to it being this good -- step in now and syphon it all off for their cronies. After all, that's only fair, isn't it? It's the Liberal cronies against the Conservative cronies. That's what this about.

..c..

 

[Bearlythere]

Diode my friend, I sympathetic to your arguments the last 14 pages. IT is clear that our libreal friends here have bought all the spin.

It is also clear that those who think Harper is scary will think that even if he never goes near Abortion, SSM never comes up in this parliament and he hands out the dough to the taxpayer in large unmarked bills!!

Harper is NOT a social Conservative. HE is a policy guy who is an Economics expert. Lets examine this...he likely is pretty neutral on abortion on SSM and since he is the leader, ultimately the hard right minority in his party will not get much traction with him or the rest of the more moderate members. All he was stating on SSM is that there never was a free vote. Before anyone climbs down my ass about the "Right" to be married, may I repeat, anyone can be married, to a member of the opposite sex. Gay people can live together and GET all the rights of being married except they cannot legally call it THAT. THAT is it...that is the change. Why is this bad? Well, Martin claims religious groups who disagree will not be forced to marry gay couples, but you know that wont last. A Knights of Columbus hall was sued after a gay couple tried to rent it for a reception after their marriage. Private groups CAN be forced into court the way things are now. You say this looks good on em? Fine, until you are in court for some belief you hold dear.

Britain handled Same Sex marriage perfectly. THey called it a civil union and said all legal couples were in Civil unions. Marriage is performed by churches and it is a religious ceremony. I know no one in here is a big church going type but trust me, this is where the resistance is. They do not want to be FORCED to marry someone that violates their religious principles. I don't care if a gay couple claims they are "married" but damn it, you drag a church into going against this and you are just being stupid. It is WRONG. Religion is not telling Gays to die, they are not killing gays, they are not saying anything than they don't approve. So they don't, I think they should be real careful, but religious principles are just opinions and beliefs, and that is that.

As for Harper being inexperienced, well Joyful, by your thoughts, we would never change government. Well let me tell you, the last economist who ran this country was a guy who most of you Libreal types worship as "god"...Pierre E Trudeau. He was a laywer, but he also studied at the London School of Economics. I predict Harper will likely be a great disappointment to many on the hard right of this country, and to the moderates in the middle, they will have to make up reasons not to like him.

This country has been taken advantage of by the party in power, much of the policy they did come up with sounded hokey and thought of on the fly (notwithstanding clause anyone?) and for that they deserve to be punished.

As for the guy said he is tired of hearing us whine about Libreals, we stop TODAY!!!! You guys will be happy to hear I don't want to hear about you whine about Tories no more either...

 

[The Fruity Hare]

Sure, that's always a good strategy when you have a winning team: replace them with someone unproven.

We should try the same thing with our Olympic team. If we have someone good in there -- someone proven capable of carrying us to victory -- we should replace them with someone unproven. Or our National Hockey team.

We have it good right now. So let's change it!!! Let's let the Conservatives -- who contributed ZERO to it being this good -- step in now and syphon it all off for their cronies. After all, that's only fair, isn't it? It's the Liberal cronies against the Conservative cronies. That's what this about.

..c..

Unfortunately too many people seem to forget the reason the Liberals have such a huge surplus of our own money is because of over taxation and turning health costs over to Provincial governments while returning fewer tax dollars to these same provinces.

Instead of reducing the UIC premiums, returning the money to those who paid into it, or investing more in the health system they claim to hold so dear, it is spent, mis-managed and wasted on the HR boondoggle(2 BILLION) the Long Gun registry(2 BILLION AND CLIMBING), the cancelled helicopter deal(500 MILLION IN CANCELLATION PENALTIES), 750 MILLION on leaky and rusted submarines, Adscam and any other number of projects we may not know of.

What could they have done with over 5 BILLION DOLLARS? How many hospitals could have been built, how many nurses and doctors could have been retained, how many new police recruits could have been hired in this now important fight on gun crime?

We keep hearing how the baby boomers will be a drain on our health system, that there are not enough young people coming into the work force to cope with those retiring and there will be no CPP for many who have paid into it. All these things could have been addressed with the surplus(over taxation) but the Liberals always seem to have other ideas on how to spend our money.

For those people who say things are good and they don't want to risk a Conservative government...How much better do you think this country could and should be without the Liberals wasting OUR money instead of investing where we need it. They have had 12 years to get to this point, arrogant in their thinking, telling us they know what is best for us.

A number of ideas Martin has come up with lately were taken from Reform platforms of the past including reducing income taxes. Didn't Chretien and Martin claim they would remove the GST if voted to power...then went on to boast to the British that it was a great idea?

Fallen heroes...suggested last November not by the Liberals, only 69 of them voted for it, on crime, Cottler remained adamant that mandatory sentences did not work, now less than 2 months later says he thinks they are a good idea. These Liberals will say anything to get re-elected and end up just like the last time...making the same promises they have for 12 years without following through.

It must be great to have a short memory. Your Liberals promise the world, get elected, do nothing for their duration in office, then make the same promises which remain unfulfilled and the same thing into the next election.

Read the little Red Book Chretien so often waved around in 1993. Martin is making many of the same promises now, only 13 years later. If they had carried through then, they would have a lot more credibility now.

I was actually pleased when Martin took over the Liberals from Chretien, but after seeing him in action, I say a change is needed for the better.

 

[ottawasub]

Can you guys please tell me exactly how much more money I`ll have in my pocket if the Conservatives win? After a year of Harper in power, exactly how much more money will I have? Please tell me. $5? $50? $500? $5000?

Also, since you`re so confident about Harper then you`ll have no problem guaranteeing me the money yourself if he doesn`t come through, right?

 

[A-ROD]

Can you guys please tell me exactly how much more money I`ll have in my pocket if the Conservatives win? After a year of Harper in power, exactly how much more money will I have? Please tell me. $5? $50? $500? $5000?

Also, since you`re so confident about Harper then you`ll have no problem guaranteeing me the money yourself if he doesn`t come through, right?

A better question... How much more money will come out of my pocket and into some new scam if the Liberals win???????????????

 

[arclighter]

Get over the Quebec thing already. Replace the word Quebec with Jewish and see how your post sounds. If a Quebecer managed to become PM, then that's because he had the brains and drive to do it. So be it.

If you insist.

• Because I believe in the extent to which the Official Languages
Act is carried out and enforced; that every public servant even in the
most remote part of B.C. should be fluent in the French language, but
that government business in Jewish should be in unilingual French.

• Because I believe that only lawyers from the province of Jewish
are qualified to be prime minister of Canada.

• Because I believe that the federal government should be completely
controlled by the province of Jewish.

• Because I believe that all criminals are just poor misunderstood
victims of society and can all be easily rehabilitated in a very short
period of time; and that only they have "rights"; not the victims of
their crimes.

• Because I believe that hardened criminals like Karla Homolka
should be pampered by living in a "cottage" with her own key and be
allowed to have pajama parties and go out on shopping trips; and that
killers in prison "resorts" on the Pacific coast should eat filet
mignon, have barbecues, go whale watching and have their own golf
course, while our senior citizens have to eat left over Kraft Dinner.

• Because I believe that mass murderers under the age of 18 should
be protected by the Young Offenders Act and the rest of us law-abiding
citizens do not have the right to know who they are.

• Because I believe in bringing hundreds of thousands of unskilled
people into Canada from third world countries every year so we can
support them on welfare and so that they will vote Liberal; and that
this number should be increased every year.

• Because I believe that it is fair that the province of Jewish is
the sole province allowed to be in charge of its immigration policy;
that they receive 5 times the amount of federal immigration money than
does Ontario, even though Ontario has to teach those people how to
speak English whereas Jewish only allows immigrants to enter who
already know the French language.

• Because I believe that we do not have a right to own land in
Canada, as this right is specifically left out of our constitution.

• Because I believe it is only fair that Liberals steal as much tax
money as they can from us; through every conceivable means from the
HRDC boondoggle to the 2 billion dollar gun registry that does not
work.

• Because I believe that if my family is the victim of a home
invasion I should not have the right to protect them in our own home.

• Because I believe in huge government bureaucracy and extremely
high taxes, as I believe that the government knows how to spend my
money better than I do.

• Because I believe in having essentially no military because
everyone loves us and we will never be called upon to protect our
country.

• Because Jack Layton is not a lawyer from Jewish so he is not
qualified to be prime minister; besides, he smiles too much.

• Because Stephen Harper is not a lawyer from Jewish and he and the
Conservative Party of Canada have a hidden agenda and they are very
scary people.

• Because I believe that we should alienate our neighbours to the
South because all Americans are morons and know nothing about Canada;
and that we should continue to align ourselves more closely with our
true friends, France, China and Russia.

• Because I believe everything that the Liberal controlled media
tells me, especially the CBC.

• Because I believe that no one should ever be held responsible or
accountable for their own actions in today's society. It is always
someone else's fault.

• Because I believe that we should not expect newcomers to our
country to accept or adapt to our culture and traditions and customs;
and that we should not wish each other "Merry Christmas" in case it
might be offensive to some.

• Because I have the IQ of a doorknob and am easily sucked in by
Liberal scare tactics and propaganda; and am easily bought off with my
own tax money.

Sounds pretty silly. What is your point?

 

[ottawasub]

As for the guy said he is tired of hearing us whine about Libreals, we stop TODAY!!!! You guys will be happy to hear I don't want to hear about you whine about Tories no more either...

So we`re allowed to criticize the Liberals and hold them accountable for broken promises, but if the Conservatives win then we`re not allowed to do it with them??

Anyone want to bet that the first broken promise (likely in defence spending) Harper will somehow blame on the previous government? Of course the kool-aid drinking sheep who whack off to Harper pictures will believe it no questions asked.

 

[Diode]

No marriage is not fundamental but discrimination based on sexual preference is. That's the distinction. It's OK to marry someone of the opposite sex but not one of the same.



That's fine with me. But us as heteros have to stop using the word also



.

Part A: Yes...its ok to marry the opposite sex. Everything else is different.
(not bad, not evil, not unusual, BUT different)

Hertos and gays can share the "word".
If they marry opposite sex partners.

Look we use differnt words for gay and straight don't we?
What's the big differnce using different word for gay vs hetro partnerships?

 

[Bud Plug]

Completely Wrong!

Discrimination based on sexual preferences is. If we let the majority have the last word then:

• Women would still not be allowed to vote,
• Blacks would still be working on the plantation,
• Disabled people [like myself] would still be living in a dark far off instituiton,
• People over 60 would be shunned,
• People of race would still be interned,

All of these things have been done by the majority over the minority. Thank god there are many more people who knew these practices to be wrong. It falls upon right-minded people in the majority to protect the rights of the minority. So no we cannot just let the majority rule.

All of these practices were instituted by a majority (or a minority with the acquiescence of a majority) and terminated the same way, by a majority! They are not examples of how a minority, with or without the support of the courts, was able to supplant majority rule. Your examples prove that democracy works. However, the lesson of democracy is that real change can't happen until people want it. You can't force change on people. Lobbying and litigation sometimes lead to a change of public opinion, and sometimes they don't. You can't win every political battle. In a democracy, you've got to accept your losses along with your wins.

You should have more faith in people, and more than that, more respect for their wishes.

 

[superquad1968]

All of these practices were instituted by a majority (or a minority with the acquiescence of a majority) and terminated the same way, by a majority! They are not examples of how a minority, with or without the support of the courts, was able to supplant majority rule. Your examples prove that democracy works. However, the lesson of democracy is that real change can't happen until people want it. You can't force change on people. Lobbying and litigation sometimes lead to a change of public opinion, and sometimes they don't. You can't win every political battle. In a democracy, you've got to accept your losses along with your wins.

You should have more faith in people, and more than that, more respect for their wishes.

I think you're jumping from Point As to Point C forgetting that there is a point B in the middle. Yes, at some point in time the majority have to accept the change as being just. But until then what? Accept the injustice?

I will NEVER believe that solely being in the majority makes it morally right or OK. This is more than a political battle and, as such, fighting for a right is never a loss. Women's suffrage did not happen overnight. It took a process of convincing one person then the next, then the next, etc. Until the majority believed it to be just. Imagine if the first person to suggest the women's vote accepted that loss and just gave up, would a woman's right to vote have happened earlier or later? (rhetorical question, of course later) Or as you suggest we should have waited until democracy worked and the majority came around to the idea that woman are indeed persons? Democracy does, at times, need to be pushed and prodded into doing what is right. Just waiting doesn't work.

I have asked this question a mutlitude of times but what does a heterosexual lose by having the gay and lesbian community have the ability to marry? Answer: NOTHING

I have also asked the question which group has upheld the ideals of marriage better? Answer: THE HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY

I have also asked the question what is the heterosexual community protecting? To which I have no answer.

Respect for other's wishes only works when the with they hold does notcome at the expense of others. People once held the belief that African-Americans were not people should their wishes be repected? Hell I hope not. Just as every racist now should be pointed out.

 

[red]

All of these practices were instituted by a majority (or a minority with the acquiescence of a majority) and terminated the same way, by a majority! They are not examples of how a minority, with or without the support of the courts, was able to supplant majority rule. Your examples prove that democracy works. However, the lesson of democracy is that real change can't happen until people want it. You can't force change on people. Lobbying and litigation sometimes lead to a change of public opinion, and sometimes they don't. You can't win every political battle. In a democracy, you've got to accept your losses along with your wins.

You should have more faith in people, and more than that, more respect for their wishes.

its easy to say that those in the minority should just wait for the majority to come to their senses. but in the meantime they are being discriminated against

 

[Diode]

Super-dupre squad: I have asked this question, With no-one dare answering it.

Since when, has a Gay/ Lesbian person, EVER ( In Canada) been denied the right, to marry ( An opposite sex person)?????
Farking NEVER! Right???!!!
Now, if that person chooses to have, an other type of relationship???
WooooP deeDOO!!!!
Have Fun.
Still , it is not the same as marriage. It can never be.

Now we don't allow brothers an sisters to marry. Should two brothers, or two sisters be allowed to?

 

[Bud Plug]

I think you're jumping from Point As to Point C forgetting that there is a point B in the middle. Yes, at some point in time the majority have to accept the change as being just. But until then what? Accept the injustice?

I will NEVER believe that solely being in the majority makes it morally right or OK. This is more than a political battle and, as such, fighting for a right is never a loss. Women's suffrage did not happen overnight. It took a process of convincing one person then the next, then the next, etc. Until the majority believed it to be just. Imagine if the first person to suggest the women's vote accepted that loss and just gave up, would a woman's right to vote have happened earlier or later? (rhetorical question, of course later) Or as you suggest we should have waited until democracy worked and the majority came around to the idea that woman are indeed persons? Democracy does, at times, need to be pushed and prodded into doing what is right. Just waiting doesn't work.

I think it's interesting that your post acknowledges the very argument I'm making.

I think it's your position that wants society to jump from A to C. However, I agree with your post in part. The reason why we allow lobbying and litigation is to allow for change in our society. However, not all lobbying will be or should be successful. That would be "squeeky wheel" democracy which would leave most people dissatisfied.

In short, I don't have any problem with people who want to lobby for new rights. However, I expect these people to respect democracy if they can't persuade the majority to their view. Put another way, I really don't care at all about the rights of any group who don't have a fundamental respect for the democratic system we live in.

So, go ahead, lobby and debate. If you succeed in convincing the majority, I guess I'll have to live with it. There are plenty of laws I can think of that I don't like, the GST to name but one! But if you don't succeed, shouldn't you have to live with that result? That's what wrong here, gay rights activists are demanding immediate change to society simply because a few unelected court officials agree with them. They are not bothering to convince the majority of society that there needs to be change, or perhaps they just recognize that they would be unsuccessful in the attempt.

 

[maxweber]

Hey! I stole it, so I get to keep it!

Anyone want to bet that the first broken promise (likely in defence spending) Harper will somehow blame on the previous government? Of course the kool-aid drinking sheep who whack off to Harper pictures will believe it no questions asked.

He'll huff, and he'll puff, and countless rednecks will cheer. But he won't blow any houses down. My guess is the one social-conservative promise he'll keep will be scrapping the gun registry--if that's easy. He'll bother with the rest in his spare time, if at all. No, Harper's the same kind of man as Bush (I & II), Reaga, Harris: "tax cuts for the wealthy isn't everything, it's the only thing." You'll see.

MW

 

[superquad1968]

Super-dupre squad: I have asked this question, With no-one dare answering it.

Since when, has a Gay/ Lesbian person, EVER ( In Canada) been denied the right, to marry ( An opposite sex person)?????
Farking NEVER! Right???!!!
Now, if that person chooses to have, an other type of relationship???
WooooP deeDOO!!!!
Have Fun.
Still , it is not the same as marriage. It can never be.

Now we don't allow brothers an sisters to marry. Should two brothers, or two sisters be allowed to?

Perhaps you don't get the point of being gay or a lesbian. Apart from hiding who they are, they wouldn't "marry" a member of the opposite sex. They're not attracted to them. So to deny them something they don't want is rather moot.

We don't allow brothers or sisters to marry for biological reasons, to not narrow the gene pool and avoid the spread of disease. Moreover, to avoid a concentration of power. And we don't allow children to marry because they don't have the capacity to understand what love is. But still rather lame arguments. If that's the best reason you can come up to discriminate then I can't help you.

More interested in why marriage between two members of the same sex can never be the same as members of the opposite sex? Is love not universal? Is compassion, care, intimacy, and fidelity sex dependant? If a church deems it fit to provide a setting where the values that make a marriage strong should we stop it? Marriage is also to commit to strong families, and strong families create a strong social system. Are any of these requirements solely in the domain of man and woman and not man and man or woman and woman?

Now that I've answered your questions can you answer mine?

 

[superquad1968]

I think it's interesting that your post acknowledges the very argument I'm making.

I think it's your position that wants society to jump from A to C. However, I agree with your post in part. The reason why we allow lobbying and litigation is to allow for change in our society. However, not all lobbying will be or should be successful. That would be "squeeky wheel" democracy which would leave most people dissatisfied.

In short, I don't have any problem with people who want to lobby for new rights. However, I expect these people to respect democracy if they can't persuade the majority to their view. Put another way, I really don't care at all about the rights of any group who don't have a fundamental respect for the democratic system we live in.

So, go ahead, lobby and debate. If you succeed in convincing the majority, I guess I'll have to live with it. There are plenty of laws I can think of that I don't like, the GST to name but one! But if you don't succeed, shouldn't you have to live with that result? That's what wrong here, gay rights activists are demanding immediate change to society simply because a few unelected court officials agree with them. They are not bothering to convince the majority of society that there needs to be change, or perhaps they just recognize that they would be unsuccessful in the attempt.

Interesting that you equate the GST, simply a tax, with the rights of a person to live without persecution. If you feel that the two are the same then I won't convince you.

Gay rights is not an overnight sensation. This has been a process that has taken years.

What your arugment boils down to is that we the majority don't like it, therefore it must be wrong which I will reply with my original statement about woman's rights, racial equality, disabled rights, and other rights that WASPs felt were theirs and theirs alone.

Don't deny yourself, as in the inital case of woman's right to vote initially the courts did not agree with women. Only after petioning the House of Lords, the highest court at the time, was a change made. And guess what we lived with it and I guess it's been pretty successful.

Democracy has never been about protecting solely the wishes of the majority. It's also about protecting the rights of the minority. Without the two you have anarchy.

 

[maxweber]

new candidate for most moronic poster

Substitute "God"for "Earth"
Sounds like religious bullshit to me! Many people on this board don't like the idea of "relgious people'telling them what to do with their lives. Fine, but please accept that I don't want environment types telling me what to do with my life...

And I don't want "legal" types telling me what to do with my life--like those pricks with the stupid blue suits, who get in my face when I go through stop signs.

There's been a lot of trash argument around here, but this takes the cake. "Environment types" are NOT "telling you what to do" with your wretched life; they're just telling us all what will happen if we keep listening to lying sons of bitches like Rush. Or, for that matter, the ID crowd. Sooner or later, civic irrationalism is anything but a victimless crime.

MW

 

[Cyberite]

My two cents....

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, well the essence of it anyway was to ensure the rights of the minority was not oppressed by the majority.

With that being said, gay people deserve the fundamental right to get married. But here is what I think the problem is....

Here is a little anecdote I heard about symbolism. See if you get the idea....

Priest: Hey Rabbi, hows it going?
Rabbi: I'm good, yourself?
Priest: I'm good too. Hey, guess what. We want to use the Star of David as our religious symbol now.
Rabbi: Ummm... No. You can't do that!
Priest: Why not? Do you hate Christians or something?
Rabbi: Well no, it's just that The Star of David means something to us and we don't want it to be used as a Christian religious symbol
Priest: Well I don't care. If you don't let us, then we will fight you to use it and if you don't support us, then you must hate us....

Marriage is a religious word, and because of that it is a SYMBOL to the people who believe in it. Humans have fought for symbols all their lives... Flags, religious symbols, People.... This is nothing new. Most people opposed to gay marriage are against them using the WORD marriage because it means something to them. They do not hate gay people, but they also don't want their sacred word to be used for something outside of what they believe in.

To keep the essence of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the only equitable way to do it would be to make marriage a "Civil Union" for everyone. Straight and gay alike. Take the term marriage out of the law books completely. Keep marriage as a symbolic ritual to be performed and respected in the church, but the legal side of it call it a union for everyone. In this way, everyone would be equal under the law which is the essence of the Charter anyway.

What do you think?

 

[Bud Plug]

Interesting that you equate the GST, simply a tax, with the rights of a person to live without persecution. If you feel that the two are the same then I won't convince you.

Read my posting history. I'm not a fool and I don't make foolish arguments. Do you know what a straw man argument is? Don't bother with these pointless tactics or I won't bother to debate with you.

Gay rights is not an overnight sensation. This has been a process that has taken years.

It should take years to change the rights structure of society. It takes years for society to change and social values to change. However, the length of a campaign doesn't determine it's worthiness. Despite the length of the "gay rights" campaign, the majority of Canadians are unconvinced that gay unions are "the same" as heterosexual marriages. You can go around yelling "the majority are wrong" or you could accept that the arguments that have been put forward are unconvincing.

What your arugment boils down to is that we the majority don't like it, therefore it must be wrong which I will reply with my original statement about woman's rights, racial equality, disabled rights, and other rights that WASPs felt were theirs and theirs alone.

I'm not debating wrong and right with you. I doubt we have a common point of reference to have that debate. We're debating democracy. Democracy is about law making, and is not necessarily aligned with everyone's view of wrong or right. I don't have the last word on on what is "right", and neither do you.

Don't deny yourself, as in the inital case of woman's right to vote initially the courts did not agree with women. Only after petioning the House of Lords, the highest court at the time, was a change made. And guess what we lived with it and I guess it's been pretty successful.

Democracy has never been about protecting solely the wishes of the majority. It's also about protecting the rights of the minority. Without the two you have anarchy.

Your analysis of the women's vote issue, and of minority protection is, in my view, erroneous. The majority is mindful of minority interests, for a least a couple of reasons:

• Some political issues have more than 2 answers. Obviously, in the these circumstances, any of the solutions may be associated with a minority, rather than a majority view.
• The majority generally believe in peaceful government. As a result, if minority interests can be accomodated, thereby eliminating the potential for disruptive social unrest, they are accomodated. As a result, we provide welfare to the poor to stop them from robbing us. We tolerate a gay pride parade with public nudity and sexual conduct that would not be permitted in the heterosexual community so that the more militant gay voices quiet down for a while each year, etc...

No one is concerned that there will be a gay "revolt" if gay marriage is not recognized in Canada. The motivations behind the pursuit of this right, and similar gay rights, do not run so deep that gay people will feel that they cannot continue to function in our society and therefore revolution is the only option. Let's remember, we are not talking about a disadvantaged group here. For the most part, gay people enjoy a higher than average lifestyle and benefit well from Canada just the way it is.