It will be a free vote, meaning the Conservatives have taken no official stance other than to open the legislation to a free vote. I think you'll be surprised at how many Conservatives will vote to allow gay marriage.
if that is the case - why have the vote? ... why is this an issue??
It will be a free vote, meaning the Conservatives have taken no official stance other than to open the legislation to a free vote. I think you'll be surprised at how many Conservatives will vote to allow gay marriage.
sure, and i guess some Liberal will vote against gay marriage, and i know one Bloc MP who's also against it. But my point is he got booed for Harper's stance even if he disagree with it (was sacrified), but he probably don't care since he's already a senator, job for life ...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
sure, and i guess some Liberal will vote against gay marriage, and i know one Bloc MP who's also against it. But my point is he got booed for Harper's stance even if he disagree with it (was sacrified), but he probably don't care since he's already a senator, job for life ...
Yeah, there were actually quite a few Liberals who admitted that they opposed the idea.
sure, and i guess some Liberal will vote against gay marriage, and i know one Bloc MP who's also against it. But my point is he got booed for Harper's stance even if he disagree with it (was sacrified), but he probably don't care since he's already a senator, job for life ...
I think the booing said a lot more about those in the crowd than the man on stage. Just the fact that there is a gay games is pretty discriminatory. I could only imagine the uproar if there were a straight games.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I think the booing said a lot more about those in the crowd than the man on stage. Just the fact that there is a gay games is pretty discriminatory. I could only imagine the uproar if there were a straight games.
It's not discriminatory, but i've read or heard that stance somewhere, i guess it's ok to think it is discriminatory, and i would agree with you, only problem is that some competitor need to have "anonymous 1" or "anonymous 2" as their name, cause being gay in their country is a crime...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
It's not discriminatory, but i've read or heard that stance somewhere, i guess it's ok to think it is discriminatory, and i would agree with you, only problem is that some competitor need to have "anonymous 1" or "anonymous 2" as their name, cause being gay in their country is a crime...
If non-gay atheletes can compete then it's not discriminatory. But once they exclude anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation it is discriminatory, unless they've changed the definition.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I can see voting against gay marriages....but I cannot see why you could not support gay unions....to me I think in the strong position of SEPERATION of church and state....
Meaning that since marriage is a RELIGOUS term that has been classified between a man and a woman it should remain that way as we desire seperation of relgion and state.....However we should have gay union as it is the States duty to ensure equal rights among its populace...not giving homesexuals the ability to create a "union" that would carry the same weight as the term "marriage" would be discrimatory.....
Continuing all members of churches who perform marriages would therefore have a right to perform a gay union or not as they belong to the church and do not represent the government...however government officials should be required as they represent an entity that is separate from the chruch......
Its funny cause in the end it all comes down to just the word marriage...also I believe any arguement that states "it says in the Bible" should not be considered in law creation.....because that shows biais to one side and erases the line of separation...all in all gay people should be able to "marry" just call it a union since marriage is a religious term.....and let the ministers decide if they want to perform....
I can see voting against gay marriages....but I cannot see why you could not support gay unions....to me I think in the strong position of SEPERATION of church and state....
Meaning that since marriage is a RELIGOUS term that has been classified between a man and a woman it should remain that way as we desire seperation of relgion and state.....However we should have gay union as it is the States duty to ensure equal rights among its populace...not giving homesexuals the ability to create a "union" that would carry the same weight as the term "marriage" would be discrimatory.....
Continuing all members of churches who perform marriages would therefore have a right to perform a gay union or not as they belong to the church and do represent the government...however government officials should be required as they represent an entity that is separate from the chruch......
Its funny cause in the end it all comes down to just the word marriage...also I believe any arguement that states "it says in the Bible" should not be considered in law creation.....because that shows biais to one side and erases the line of separation...all in all gay people should be able to "marry" just call it a union since marriage is a religious term.....and let the ministers decide if they want to perform....
I'm with you. I was very dissappointed that this was not the solution presented by Martin and co. I had such high hopes for Martin and he ended up being just abysmal.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I can see voting against gay marriages....but I cannot see why you could not support gay unions....to me I think in the strong position of SEPERATION of church and state....
Meaning that since marriage is a RELIGOUS term that has been classified between a man and a woman it should remain that way as we desire seperation of relgion and state.....However we should have gay union as it is the States duty to ensure equal rights among its populace...not giving homesexuals the ability to create a "union" that would carry the same weight as the term "marriage" would be discrimatory.....
Continuing all members of churches who perform marriages would therefore have a right to perform a gay union or not as they belong to the church and do represent the government...however government officials should be required as they represent an entity that is separate from the chruch......
Its funny cause in the end it all comes down to just the word marriage...also I believe any arguement that states "it says in the Bible" should not be considered in law creation.....because that shows biais to one side and erases the line of separation...all in all gay people should be able to "marry" just call it a union since marriage is a religious term.....and let the ministers decide if they want to perform....
If non-gay atheletes can compete then it's not discriminatory. But once they exclude anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation it is discriminatory, unless they've changed the definition.
EVERYONE can participate, it's an amateur level contest, no discrimination allowed, they exclude nobody, you pay the entry fee, you're in, it's just that real gays are allowed to participate (as gay) cause of accomodation that are presented to them, so they won't get hang when going back in their country...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I'm with you. I was very dissappointed that this was not the solution presented by Martin and co. I had such high hopes for Martin and he ended up being just abysmal.
In all honesty I do not know how it cannot be the solution....makes everyone happy and follows the "rules" on how we are supposed to govern...if a gay man is upset it is not legally defined as marriage that is him erasing the line of separation....
In all honesty I do not know how it cannot be the solution....makes everyone happy and follows the "rules" on how we are supposed to govern...if a gay man is upset it is not legally defined as marriage that is him erasing the line of separation....
I thought the law was saying exaclty what you're saying, that gays marriage/unions were legal, but it's up to the priest on a personal belief, to accept or refuse to marry gays, so that leave them the option of a civil unions, i don't know but i thought that was already what was happening.
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I thought the law was saying exaclty what you're saying, that gays marriage/unions were legal, but it's up to the priest on a personal belief, to accept or refuse to marry gays, so that leave them the option of a civil unions, i don't know but i thought that was already what was happening.
I was under the impression thats not how it was working...I may be wrong though....I am kinda of over this whole gay marriage debate.....its kicking a dead horse....
Comments
if that is the case - why have the vote? ... why is this an issue??
sure, and i guess some Liberal will vote against gay marriage, and i know one Bloc MP who's also against it. But my point is he got booed for Harper's stance even if he disagree with it (was sacrified), but he probably don't care since he's already a senator, job for life ...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Yeah, there were actually quite a few Liberals who admitted that they opposed the idea.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
It's not discriminatory, but i've read or heard that stance somewhere, i guess it's ok to think it is discriminatory, and i would agree with you, only problem is that some competitor need to have "anonymous 1" or "anonymous 2" as their name, cause being gay in their country is a crime...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Meaning that since marriage is a RELIGOUS term that has been classified between a man and a woman it should remain that way as we desire seperation of relgion and state.....However we should have gay union as it is the States duty to ensure equal rights among its populace...not giving homesexuals the ability to create a "union" that would carry the same weight as the term "marriage" would be discrimatory.....
Continuing all members of churches who perform marriages would therefore have a right to perform a gay union or not as they belong to the church and do not represent the government...however government officials should be required as they represent an entity that is separate from the chruch......
Its funny cause in the end it all comes down to just the word marriage...also I believe any arguement that states "it says in the Bible" should not be considered in law creation.....because that shows biais to one side and erases the line of separation...all in all gay people should be able to "marry" just call it a union since marriage is a religious term.....and let the ministers decide if they want to perform....
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Pretty good summary of my thoughts on the issue.
EVERYONE can participate, it's an amateur level contest, no discrimination allowed, they exclude nobody, you pay the entry fee, you're in, it's just that real gays are allowed to participate (as gay) cause of accomodation that are presented to them, so they won't get hang when going back in their country...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
In all honesty I do not know how it cannot be the solution....makes everyone happy and follows the "rules" on how we are supposed to govern...if a gay man is upset it is not legally defined as marriage that is him erasing the line of separation....
really ... marriage/union ... whatever ... this should be a non-issue ...
I thought the law was saying exaclty what you're saying, that gays marriage/unions were legal, but it's up to the priest on a personal belief, to accept or refuse to marry gays, so that leave them the option of a civil unions, i don't know but i thought that was already what was happening.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I was under the impression thats not how it was working...I may be wrong though....I am kinda of over this whole gay marriage debate.....its kicking a dead horse....