The new Tories, sleeping with Belinda Stronach

[Agathon]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Or Mulroney servicing Reagan:

" That tight enough for ya, Ron?"

Slightly inaccurate. Mulroney was the servicee.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I hope she's prolife like Harper.

Why do you hope for the new party to fail?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
4 years ago, Mr. Chretien affirmed that Marriage ought to be between one man and one woman. If affirming such a position today makes one a right wing extremist, what has changed so much in 4 years?

It doesn't make you a right wing extremist, it makes you a religious moron.

Please stop confusing the two, you guys give real right-wingers a bad name.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Slightly inaccurate. Mulroney was the servicee.

Why don't you read his quote a bit more carefully, Einstein.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher

Why don't you read his quote a bit more carefully, Einstein.

He's hetero, Asher. Have pity.

Aggie babes- does this make it more clear?:

Ronnie: 'You like that don't 'cha? Now shut up and suck, b!tch.'

Brian: 'MMpphhh. Schlurp.'

Preferably in a voice similar to Jeff Stryker's.

[Ben Kenobi]

It doesn't make you a right wing extremist, it makes you a religious moron.

Please stop confusing the two, you guys give real right-wingers a bad name.

You're so far on the left that you thionk you're right.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You're so far on the left that you thionk you're right.

The lefties think I'm right, and the righties think I'm left...

[Ben Kenobi]

So now I am a right winger?

[Asher]

You're a religious right-winger, and your social views are hampered by your social crutch and your desire to impose your morals on everyone else.

Real right-wingers actively advocate less government overall. Religious right-wingers are frauds, if only because most of the time they advocate lowering taxes but then imposing additional laws and measures to hamper social freedom.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The devil is in the details. Let's suppose you asked the question, do you believe that marriage should be redefined from one man and one woman to 2 men or 2 women, and see how well you do.

Heh. I thought you might want to avoid dragging that old thing called religious freedom into this. Makes it a tad more untenable, doesn't it?

However, it is there. Why should your sect be dictating to other sects? Why should the government favour the preferences of your sect over those of others?

I think that is why this issue will be a slam dunk for most Canadians. Most of us aren't overly religious, if we are at all. However, that some churches are trying to impose their views on all other churches, as well as gays, is something that most of us will not support.

[Ben Kenobi]

If all conservatives want a small government, why extend common-law benefits to homosexual couples, since that will increase the tax burden, and increase the size of the government?

[St Leo]

/me votes for Asher and Ben Kenobi to marry and live happily ever after in the La La Alberta Land

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If all conservatives want a small government, why extend common-law benefits to homosexual couples, since that will increase the tax burden, and increase the size of the government?

Because the goal is to limit government involvement and still give everyone equal rights.

If heterosexual couples get "common-law benefits", as should homosexual couples. I don't see how this would increase the size of the government.

If I had my way, "marriage" would be eliminated completely from the government, and would simply be a religious institution granted by churches alone.

"Common-law benefits" would apply to people who wish to register in a civil union.

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE:

Civil definition of marriage, not religious definition. Up until now, there have been no calls to change the civil definition.

Now, if the legislature wants to have any power, they will make a bill. Otherwise, you will have the courts making all the decisions here in Canada.

If you argue that Canada's civil definition falls under religious freedoms, then we have to allow for muslim men to have 4 wives.

[notyoueither]

Your religious definition, Ben. Not that of some other religious people. They have as much right to state recognition as you and yours do.

The polygamy argument is a red herring. There are some things that no religion is allowed in what we collectively consider to be a civil society. In that, all are being treated equally.