9. Why this issue is even being discussed in parliament befuddles me.To me, a silly left-minded individual this seems like progress, we are adapting to a changing society. The direction we progress in is up to the people, if the people didn't like it, they wouldn't vote have voted Liberal. THIS is how democracy works.
This issue was brought up in parliament in 1999 because of court decisions resulting from charter challenges. Traditional marriage won. The radical left just keeps bringing it up and bringing it up until they finally feel the government ‘got it right’. An unelected, unaccountable judiciary has decided this – despite their own findings as recently as 1995 that marriage is ‘one man one woman’. The government is no longer allowing free-votes on this issue of conscience. This is not how democracy works. This is how dictatorships work.
A person might have voted Liberal because they preferred their stand on child-care or health-care. Their re-election is not implied endorsement of every policy they have – or else you would be saying that Canadians endorse corruption, theft and lies and we all know that’s not true, right?
10. Your right, wanting to ban same-sex marriage doesn't make you "intolerant" it makes you a fascist.
Do you even know what fascist means? Don’t throw words around because you think it makes you look clever. Go, look it up. Who’s the fascist? Also, don’t resort to name-calling. It weakens what little argument you have.
11. Oh, and Canadianna, in regards to your worry that they will "main street" same-sex marriage, same-sex couple have already been granted the right to marry in 10 provinces.
Again, you have misread me. I said –If gay-marriage is not the domain of the radical left, what is? And whatever it is, watch out, because it won't be long before they main street it.
When all things are marriage, nothing is marriage. If it is discrimination to exclude same-sex, then by the same logic it is discrimination to exclude polygamy, incest, child-adult unions. Don’t say ‘but that’s different’. To those whose ‘rights’ are being denied, it is exactly the same. They will do as the militant gays have done. They will lobby, they will ridicule, they will scorn – until their ‘rights’ are recognised. It may not happen in my lifetime. It took over forty years for the gay agenda to be advanced. But it will happen. There’s no stopping it once marriage becomes a ‘rights’ issue.
Now I will begin to address your comments to my guests:
12. Chris, you are way off bat, so far off in fact that your opinion is offensive and dangerous. Just for your information, the first establishment to perform same-sex marriage in my city was a synagogue, don't drag us into this, as I can assure you, a majority of Jewish people do not agree with you.
So, if the synagogue performed a same-sex ceremony, then SSM can’t be against the Judaism. Therefore, when a SS couple wants to get married in a synagogue where the rabbi does not believe in SSM, if the couple wants to challenge it under the charter, it can and would likely win. If something is against a ‘religion’ then all arms of the religion – each temple, each rabbi, must be following the same book, right? See the slippery slope we're on?
Never speak for the majority, Peg. You’ll find you’re very much alone.
Just a few more folks.