"Finding homosexuality repulsive is a natural human instinct...

[SmoothedShredder]

So if someone publishes a cartoon depicting you receiving an award from Hitler, me telling you or anyone about it is the same thing to you?

I guess... If I drew it... but I'm not sure what you said was logical... or, definately I don't get what you're saying....

You played the Hitler card in the other muddy thread... It just seems to be a low ball,

I have said it though about the American system, the fashist thing... Two parties (not four significat ones like we have here) who seem to talk out of different sides of the same mouth... 16 years of Bush following a solid Decade of Reganomics... Ford and Bushes relation to the Nazi Party in the 20's and 30's... Fachism camps were trendy before WWII... that Sinclair quote "When Fasism comes the the states it will be waving an American Flag and holding the cross"... their tendancy to invade other countries... their tendancy to tell and have their population fall for the "big lie" i.e. how they got into Iraq (never mind if it should be done, but they crossed the line because THEY LIED)... still until the Special Forces take over Congress... it'll never Blossom thanks to those that drafted thier Constitution... oh Ben Franklin... is there anything you didn't think of?

Harper really just wants to fix the books. I can see why he questioned Martin so hard on going to Iraq... being the leader of the opposition... but if Harper was in power at the time, I as a conservative would of protested hard... and the size of those protesting in Canada would of been much larger than the anti-American marches I participated in (I'm not so sure about this, but I know what I would of done, and hope that it would be those against the war from what really happend + those who are so outraged at Canada's involment, at which point Harper would quickly be elected out of Office at the next available opportunity). I trust once again, like I ultimately do with the US system, that democracy would win, and cleary 60-70% of the Country were strongly against the war, particularly becasue of the "big lie"... the reason it's not working well in the States is becasue 60% have fallen for the "big lie", but Canadians all in all are much to smart for that. We're like a bunch of scientists... like K-Os says.

Now with the Gay Marriage issue, which I sense is where most of your mud is comming from...when elected, Harper may press the issue (lets not worry now about what the hell getting rid of the Not Withstanding Clause means)... but he will lose democratically. He's a cowboy... he's never really been to Ontario since it's become the ultimate in potential freedoms (Like a fresh Amsterdam if you will). There are alot of us here, and even though we may have conservative values when it comes to the Governments responsiblity... we don't really think Harper knows the big picture when it comes to some things which probably were ingrained gowing up living the lifestyle of an Albertan teenager in the 70's. On the plus side though, he has shown a dramatic ability to change, and listen to those in his team... even if it leads to many "save us with your acting Gary." moments... but man that guy did great in the French debates making strong points in French... we don't need more PM's from Quebec... we really should be represented more democratically... It's just time to go, and Harper isn't nearly as evil as the opposition paints him out to be... anyone who is willing to change and listen is alright in my books.

Back to the Gay marriage thing... I'd prefer to see Government back out of all these quasi-religous spiritual rituals and not give breaks for anyone that live together... I mean people who live together get to share the food, share the heat, always available for an emergency... having a kid is a huge responsibility, and the more they have to think about "is this the right thing to do" the better, and "oh we can get a tax break.": just doesn't seem to justify the decision or help make things clearer for the couple. The environment has clearly shown us that larger families are not the norm anymore. Perhaps there can still be some provisions for families with 2 or more kids... but the current subsidies are remnants from a more religous, agriculturally based time and government. So to me passing Gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction... and kinda not what anyone's talking about... but perhaps why there is democraticly speaking, a delay in getting this ramped through.

It's like those two straight guys who were going to get married just to take advantage of the system... and with divorce rates still way above 60% (which when you analyze that as a yearly rate with people just jumping in and out of marriage), there's cleary people who just play the date/ditch game... and alot of them... and that's real corruption. Straight people really don't deserve these benefits.

With suggestions that the world is over populated, and reproduction rates being lower than the replacement rate for Canadians, what is the REAL benefit to Canada for this.... Toronto needs less immigrats. Or rather... a higher percentage need to start going to places like Alberta (Fedearlly speaking) a) becasue their economy is growing like crazy, and they could maybe get some cool ass jobs instead of just driving a cab or washing the floors, and it would really give the native Albertans a kick in the pants. I'd rather see the money go towards helping new Immigrants into Canada than to marriage... Give immigrants money who move into place other than Toronto/Ontario and see what happens. We need to get less immigrants (as a percentage of the poplation) to land in Toronto, and more to go to Western Provinces, since we need to ensure their freedom of choice on where to go... It's not that I don't like Immigrants... but rather this is the Governments buisness, and I think it's a good idea... just even out the demographics accross the board especially so the religous right don't have so much power out West... we have to get rid of the old boys club.

But the beauty is they especially need to get to Alberta where the economy is (for an entity of it's size) one of the strongest of the world. And with movies about Gay cowboys, there's no telling what kinda makeover is set for Alberta and company over the next 15 years.

Don't get me wrong... I want to get married, and have a family, if even only one child... but I have alot of doubts because of my reasons to do so. Spirtually, a commitment of that level would be magnifficent... but I don't need the government to reward me for my spirtual/religous journey...

Anywho, these things get long... so much can be lost in the utterance of a single phrase... usually those short quotes are all about tone, and can be quite misleading (or quite useful at sparking a debate), Here's my argument (above) and here's my conclusion: I just don't think it's cool to play the Hitler card on Harper (or Martin).

[d_rawk]

Back to the Gay marriage thing... I'd prefer to see Government back out of all these quasi-religous spiritual rituals and not give breaks for anyone that live together... I mean people who live together get to share the food, share the heat, always available for an emergency... having a kid is a huge responsibility, and the more they have to think about "is this the right thing to do" the better, and "oh we can get a tax break.": just doesn't seem to justify the decision or help make things clearer for the couple. The environment has clearly shown us that larger families are not the norm anymore. Perhaps there can still be some provisions for families with 2 or more kids... but the current subsidies are remnants from a more religous, agriculturally based time and government. So to me passing Gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction... and kinda not what anyone's talking about... but perhaps why there is democraticly speaking, a delay in getting this ramped through.

Man, you are all about! the epic posts lately

Just a couple unsolicited thoughts here --

I don't think Harper has any interest in actually 'winning' a free vote in the house re: SSM. I don't think that he actually cares a whole hell of a lot either way. It is playing to the base, and I imagine he is banking (dare I say, *hoping*) that the social conservatives wouldn't win any such vote. (He'd be fucked and backed into a corner if they did -- where would he go, and what would he do? Nowhere and nothing, that's what)

As for the marriage thing, I do sort of see what you are saying, and I made a similar point in a thread awhile back (re: SSM might actually, in the long run, be the precursor to the end of state sanctioned marriage). I suggested that we should start looking towards what we are trying to reward through the economic and social priviledges we grant through marriage and start granting those things *directly*, if we still think they are important, rather than letting them be mired in the complexities of an institution that carries such enormous emotional weight that we lose sight of its actual benefit, or lack of benefit.

But I differ here with your desire to see such matters resolved through popular vote (as you expressed in a thread elsewhere). From a letter to Irwin Cotler last march (yes, I am a big fucking geek. Yes, I have written letters to the Justice Minister):

[opening omitted]

"The frequent public calls and demands for a referendum on the issue of same sex marriage have been a cause for some alarm, and the courage to resist such pressures and to press forward with a bill which has earned the support of both the NDP and Bloc Quebecois is refreshing. Premier of Alberta Ralph Kelin's recent attempts to publicly pressure the Federal government into holding such a referendum were effectively and quickly countered by your own willingness to bluntly observe that Klein was simply 'trying to do an end-run around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms'. I share your opinion on this matter, and believe that even beyond the usual concerns regarding referenda - that they are divisive, costly, and reduce complex issues to simple binary choices - in this case a referendum would have been of little value as it would not, regardless of result, have addressed the issue of the constitutional legitimacy of maintaining the status quo definition of marriage. Furthermore, I believe it to be inappropriate and dangerous to subject the rights of a minority to the whims of a popular vote; a sentiment which Prime Minister Paul Martin has reassuringly also expressed on Feburary 16 during his address to the House of Commons, stating unequivocally that 'the rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.'"

[much edited out, in order to fast forward to the next point, regarding the state conferring benefits through marriage]

"Equally pleasing is the mention within the proposed bill of the Parliament of Canada's jurisdiction over marriage alone, and of its lack of ability to define a seperate category of union for same sex couples (such as civil union). While a majority of Canadians support granting some form of union to gays and lesbians, a recent Compass poll suggests that most would prefer to keep 'marriage' between one man and one woman. I believe that if Canadians understood that the Federal Parliament does not have the jurisdiction over any type of relationship other than marriage, public support for Bill C-38 would grow. I do not believe that there is much appetite within the country to see legal unions fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces or to have the government of Canada abandon the institution of marriage entirely, either by supporters or opponents of same sex marriage.

I suspect that there will be mounting pressure to consider making use of the notwithstanding clause to circumvent the necessity of extending marriage rights to same sex couples. I am reassured by 'the Parliament of Canada's commitment to uphold the right to equality without discrimination,' and of the proposed legislation's insistence that such a commitment 'precludes the use of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deny the right of couples of the same sex to equal access to marriage for civil pruposes.'".

So yeah, either we get out of the marriage game, on a state level, *entirely* or else I don't see how we could refrain from what we did. It isn't so much moving backwards, as making the only movement possible or justifiable given the scenario.

It is the status quo (and I include same-sex marriage in the status quo, at this point. It isn't 'same-sex marriage', now. It is marriage), or the abolition of marriage. There is no in-between.

Ok, now you've got me doing epic posts, too.

[SmoothedShredder]

Here it is short and sweet... In general, I see no reason to subsidize marriage, but in light of the current laws, and the wording in the Charter, we have no reason NOT to give equal access to such subsidies. I have no problem with who gets it, just that it's given in the first place. And am willing to admit, that this could take 20 to 30 years to get a democracy to change it.

I appricate your ability to see into the grey areas... you seem like quite a good bridge builder Drawk.

~W