Fil Canadien D'Élection (Partie Trois)

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by optimus2861

Now that I didn't expect.

What I find surprising is that the majority of Western Canadians rejected the Conservative party.

Even in Alberta, support for the Cons fell to 61% from the combined PC/Alliance 71% support in 2000. Support for the Greens and NDP in Alberta increased by 10% in this election.

About four out of 10 Albertans voted Lib, NDP or Green.

So much for the idea that Westerners are predominately conservative.

Conservative support
Manitoba 39%
Saskatchewan 42%
Alberta 61%
BC 36%

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not all provinces have it.

Just BC, Ontario and Quebec.

Nice attempt to evade. Do you object to the idea of civil marriages between same sex couples?

[Ben Kenobi]

What I find surprising is that the majority of Western Canadians rejected the Conservative party.

Even in Alberta, support for the Cons fell to 61% from the combined PC/Alliance 71% support in 2000. Support for the Greens and NDP in Alberta increased by 10% in this election.

These provinces have had a strong conservative voice, so those who were of the Progressive Conservatives, would be the progressive wing.

It's hard to increase your vote from 61% to 71%.

BC's a little hard to explain, since the support has dropped a fair bit, but during the polls, no one expected them to get 40% let alone the 48% they got in the last election.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you object to the idea of civil marriages between same sex couples?

Yes.

What does that have to do with the previous point of the dictionary stating the change in how people use the word marriage?

[St Leo]

What's the religious sense of "marriage"?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes.

What does that have to do with the previous point of the dictionary stating the change in how people use the word marriage?

Why do you object to civil marriages for same sex couples?

It has to do with me wondering why the definition of marriage is so controversial.

[St Leo]

Marriage was defined as this for a while:

m(x, y) = x + y such that g(x) != g(y)

Someone looked at that and said that the g(x) != g(y) part is arbitrary, stupid, and unfair. Pretty fast everyone agreed around the world.

The new definition is:

m(x, y) = x + y

Unfortunately, that's too simple for a certain breed of reactionary and they want to bring back the arbitrary restriction.

Hmm.

I wonder if it is legal for me to marry myself. That would be way cool.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by St Leo

I wonder if it is legal for me to marry myself. That would be way cool.

I'd pay to see it consumated.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Wezil
I'd pay to see it consumated.

Whoo, Wezil wants to pay my way through college. Sure thing, sugar daddy.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi And continue splitting votes with the Liberals. Now you have the Greens receiving Federal funding, so they will have an even higher profile, and split the left even more.

Greens are a right-wing Red Tory movement in Canada.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd pay to see it consumated.

As would I.

[Ben Kenobi]

Greens are a right-wing Red Tory movement in Canada.

'right wing' and 'red tory' are antonyms.

Red Tory literally means on the progressive, rather than the conservative side of the old PC party.

The progressives are not right wing any more than the NDP are right wing.

What differences are there between the greens and the ndp?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why do you object to civil marriages for same sex couples?

It has to do with me wondering why the definition of marriage is so controversial.

The key is in the word 'persons'.

Marriage, up until now, has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Ergo, by changing the definition, one completely obliterates the original meaning of the term.

Now, it's just a contract made for financial reasons, under this new definition, which is much less meaningful than the original.

[notyoueither]

Couldn't one say the same about slavery and the definition of a 'man'? Society evolves. Definitions change. Recognising the fundamental humanity of people other than whites did nothing to debase the definition of 'human'. Indeed, it enriched it a great deal.

How can marriage between two adults who respect each other, and who want to share the rest of their lives with each other in ways that only married people can, be an obliteration of the 'original meaning of marriage', but some hill-billies who want to run a concubine ranch with 5 of their friends and have 49 teenage, ignorant, practically enslaved, wives is not?

Do you really think that same-sex couples get married for financial reasons alone?

Most importantly, in what way is a civil marriage between same sex couples less meaningful than 'the original'? What is 'the original' as far as civil marriages is concerned? In what way is any civil marriage not 'just a contract made for financial reasons?'

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The key is in the word 'persons'.

Marriage, up until now, has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Ergo, by changing the definition, one completely obliterates the original meaning of the term.

Now, it's just a contract made for financial reasons, under this new definition, which is much less meaningful than the original.

Are you saying that originally it was "a contract made for financial reasons" but "between a man and a woman"?