I guess the Schiavo case is a very good example of religion making itself heard in the courts and elsewhere.

First off, I would like to say that in this case, it is a very good thing. Why? Because the issue is one that deserves discussion, and has a lot to do with morality. You can't seriously expect this to be purely judged on legal terms. Even so, the public will interpret it in a moral way, which is what has been happening.


Anyways, this is one in a series of instances recently that clearly show how much more forceful religious groups, conservative groups, and religiously-oriented organizations have become in pushing their agenda.

My view on this?

Ultimately, I think this is a healthy development. The United States is a religious country. At least 55-60% are practising Christians. That is a tremendous percentage, more so than any other Western/European country with the exception of Poland (75%; Italy 33%, Germany 10-20%-ish, France an abysmal 5%). That corresponds to 160m-180m people. I believe that religious observance among people of the Jewish faith is higher in the US than it is in Israel as well (correct me if I'm off), and Muslims are generally more observant than other religions anyways, so religion as a whole, not just Christianity, plays an important part.

So, those organnizations are giving voice to a considerable portion of the population.

Two important things: freedom of speech and seperation of church and state. Neither is to be compromised, under any circumstances. If you have those in place, then by all means let the conservatives voice their opinions.

I suppose we have been so used to a liberal media and entertainment industry that a conservative counterpart seems like a strange idea. But clearly, there is interest. Obviously, this doesn't have to come at the expense of the liberal media. It just means liberals will not have a monopoly when it comes to tv, etc. By 'liberals', I'm not referring necessarily to democrats, but those who hold what would be considered liberal ideas (say, gay marriage, etc.).

One of the things we here in Canada lack, aside from real freedom of speech (pathetic), is that we have no opposition to liberals. The conservative side is almost mute. That is not a healthy thing. Competition is always good, and if you let one side have all the say, whoever they are, that is bound to have negative effects.

A conservative living in Canada (bless their soul, why haven't they moved to the US by now??) might well feel that the laws or media impinge upon his/her right to raise their children in an environment that is secure for them. And so on.


So, to summarize, I am in support of the movement. As long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others (meaning, as long as freedom of speech and seperation of church and state are held intact; politicians generally impose their views, through voting, on their constituents, as well as the entire country), let them have a go at it.


What do you think?

There is no official liberal opposition in Canada, bc majority of people that vote are liberal

Now, also too, in terms of provincial representation, I believe that Canada is not as Liberal. And, historically speaking, the Conservatives (minus John A. Macdonald and Robert BOrden) have had horrible leaders! HORRIBLE!!

Aren't conservatives in canada really like a democrat in the states?

The problem, though, box, is that the movement eventually will impinge on other's rights. I mean, it already has with the gay marriage issue, and Roe v. Wade is as close to being overturned as it ever has.

The conservatives here in Canada are like neo-republicans. They really have no ideology here in Canada. Like the Liberals here, they are flip floppers. Sure they talk about disallowing certain things, but our canadian charter of rights and freedoms are above that of the government. So in essence the Supreme court of Canada has more power in terms of law.

Here is basically the trend in Canada: If the economy is okay or good then the Liberals are in Power. If there is a recession then the COnservatives are in power.

There you go. Yes they are.


Thing is, that is to our disadvantage. We are implementing laws that are radical by any measure, and they're not even being properly discussed!


Why is gay marriage ok? No really, why is it? Lay out some arguments, give proof, back it up, and give some valid reasons as to why this will make the world a better place for my children to grow up in. The thing is, it doesn't matter what side of the issue you are on. The fact that it's not even being discussed undermines any notion that this is something that Canada as a whole approves of.

Wrong, Canada as a whole does not approve of it. There are more conservatives than this country's image indicates. People that are from the Middle East, Africa (esp. Africa), Asia, and Latin America are not as liberal as Canadians would like them to be. The problem has been that this culture is such that, when anyone even dares to bring up the issue, they are immediately shot down with charges of being bigots.

Oh, you don't support gay marriage because you're a disgusting homophobe. Take your Bible and shove it. Yeah, what an agreeable culture, no?

My point is that, at the least, the issue (and there are many others), is the subject of a healthy discussion in the US. At the least, there, people can express their viewpoint, no matter what it is, without fear of being labelled hate-mongerers. If gay marriage is ever institued in the US as a whole, at least Americans will know that it did so after thorough discussion. In Canada, that is not the case.

And there are plenty of other examples, as I said. Abortion, etc.

You want a reason Box??

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/charte/const_en.html

For as long as freedom of speech and the seperation of church and state are held intact, that will not be the case.


If a liberal person does not like they way things are going, they can vote for a liberal candidate. If they do not wish to watch a conservative talk show, they can turn the tv off.

But at the least, there is someone who is conservative, whom the conservatives can vote for, and a tv show the conservatives can watch.

You have to admit that most of the media is liberal. So, why not even the playing field. The liberal media can stay, and thrive, it's just that in addition, you'll have something else catering to another group.

160-180m, that is a huge number. That corresponds to a group with an income of $6.4T. So obviously, there is a market for all those products, and if this movement takes advantage of it, and produces films, shows, etc. targeted at that group, well then great, that's more for everyone!

More reasons, warning, graphic image:


http://www.mindex.be/anamorf/images/holocaust9.jpg

I think you were just presenting how things should be done in Canada with the above statement (as far as having open discussions about the issue), but why is it not okay? Does everything that happens in this world have to directly effect you in a positive way for you to function? Allowing gay marriage will not have any impact on your life. The barring of it, however, does impact millions of homosexual's lives in a negative way.

And I agree with all those, neo.

Except, let's ask this question: why not have all couples be equal under the law by kicking marriage out, and viewing all relationships as being governmentally approved associations between individuals. Everyone gets the same benefits, is the same under the law, and so on.

Why does the change to the law have to be adding 'gay marriage' instead of removing 'straight marriage'. Have unions. Whether the couple is straight or gay won't matter; it's a union, and equal in the eyes of the law.


Anyways, I support gay marriage. But I should like for it to be discussed before it is implemented. It got approved not because Canada is oh so liberal, but because we're so apathetic. Nobody gives a crap. If they did, and were forced to choose, you might be surprised at the results. Large groups of people in the country are shockingly homophobic.

I actually agree with you about the importance of having all sides of the argument covered. I'm not looking to stop conservative radio or shut down the Fox News channel.

In my opinion, the dissolution of marriage has been a long time coming (and it has nothing to do with gay people), so I wouldn't have a problem with your idea.

Well first, changging the name doesn't matter. Call it whatver you want as long as they get the same rights. I'm sure most people don't see civil marriages in the same light as a religious service.

Now, you're making assumptions about Canadians being largely homophobic. Canada is a land of tolerance; particularly racial tolerance. Everyone in Toronto is so different racially and integrated @ work etc. IMO racism is not really evident in Toronto, for that reason of tolerance. Once people are tolerant for one thing, it's a matter of time before they are tolerant about other things.

Also, unless if the Government uses the notwithstanding clause, the decision as to rights in this country is left to the courts not the population. No tyranny of the majority in Canada. Our charter is above our consitution/laws.

Also, let me look for something that i read a while back... brb with another post i hope.

On the topic of the Holocaust.

I am completely against that Ernst Zundel thing, where he was deported.

Why?

2 reasons:

1) the whole issue gave him a notoriety he could only have dreamed of. The internet pretty much makes censorship in countries with internet access useless; you want to read about his views, visit the tens of thousands of anti-semitic websites. Or go to chatrooms or messageboards. Why is it that the most Jews-friendly country in history (aside from Israel), the US, has complete freedom of speech while has never had institutionalized anti-semitism on the scale of Europe or for that matter any other part of the world? The answer is in the question; because it had genuine freedom of speech. Morons like Zundl can say whatever they want, but at least the government isn't helping propagating his speech by, paradoxically, trying to shu him up. And of course, in a country like the US, plenty of people can stand up and express their outrage at what he says.

2) this won't prevent anti-semitism. Proof? Anti-semitic incidents in Canada shot up 38% last year, to 857. That's more than in France. Highest number in a good 20 years or so. It's also probably less than 1/10th of the actual, since much of it goes unreported. So, how do you reconcile that with the rules you have above? Are you going to try to silence people into submission, only to have them retaliate with more violence, or lay it out in the open and discuss why this is happening.

See in terms of anti-semetic incidents rising, i think that the stats you use are not valid. Due to the outcry of the passion, and the fear of anti-semitism, these crimes were over-reported by ppl bc they were on the lookout for them.

This kind of thing with the Shiavo case makes religious conservatives come off a lot better than the liberals.

No tyranny of the majority, you're right, but tyranny of politcial correctness, yes.

Also, how do you figure this country is so widely accepting?

Now, Canada is a tolerant country, no doubt. I love the fact that a country likes this exists, but it is not nearly as rosy as it is made out to be.

Racism does exist. In fact, some of the most racist people are immigrants themselves. Youd think that'd be different, but it's not. Of course, as with everything, it's a minority of the people, but it's there. My friend did an experiment once. She called the same employer twice. Once, she used her real name, which is African-sounding. The other time, she used a 'white-sounding' name (Smith, etc.). First time, she did not get an interview, second time she did. Same resume, just a change in the name. Studies have backed her up (studies independently of her). Anyways, so this was in Toronto.

And if you want homophobia, boy, go to high school. How many of them 'f's have you heard in your high school years? I lost count the first week, I think.



No, not really. The thing about prejudice is that people do not give another group a chance before deciding. They pre-judge them. Someone who is friendly towards gays might not be so kind when it comes to Asians, for example. And there are racist homosexuals, among other things. Tolerance of one group doesn't lead to tolerance of another.

But that means they still happened. If they did, that's an indication pf prejudice.

Btw, I agree that some accounts were not valid. For example, that Palestinian Apartheid week at U of T was considered anti-semitic, which is complete bullocks. But swastikas at Sid Smith are more obviously so.

Yeah they still occured, but so do other forms of crime/hatred. They will always exist, it's just our job to ensure that it doesnt get out of hand, or these views are not exhibited by political representatives.

And i'm stilll looking for something LOL

Here you go.. I dont know which opinion this one supports but it's a pretty reliable source i guess

No, but my point is that the environment should be such that, if you feel that this is affecting you in a negative way, you should be encouraged to speak out. Now, in Canada, you can speak out, of course, but put up the US against Canada- which place encourages it more?





My life, no, and your neither, because we're both ok with it. But to someone who is deeply devout, it's a real problem. The reason why religion is so strong a part of life is because it's deeply personal. People will put it ahead of their countries, families, spouses,and even themselves. What are martyrs and saints if not people who put religion above their own well-being?



It impacts the lives of those who want to marry, yes. Not all homosexuals want it, nor do all of them want it to be legalized. That's another thing that has not been discussed: dissent within the gay community. There are some who refuse to be classified according to a certain sexual orientation even. Do I fault them? No, it's their choice. Some might feel that legalizing gay marriage is a means of 'straight'ening the gay culture, which, vibrant and unique as it is, has always been on the fringes. Promiscuity, for example, is much more common among some gay circles (this goes beyond a stereotype; of course there are celibate homosexuals, but there are plenty that sleep around without inhibition).




I think it will stick around, but will drastically change. Aside from gay marriage, I think the 'till death do us part' will bite the dust itself. We could see contractual agreements between couples, agreeing to marry for, say 2 years, try it out, and if it works, extend the contract, and if not, terminate it. It'll make divorce so much easier.



Exactly. I wouldn't want to live in a world where I can't mercilessly and brutally bash Fox News and their 'fair and balanced' reporting. :razz:

Healthy discussion is not balck and white. Religion and conservative issues are not necessarily grouped in Canada, of this I'm not sure, but perhaps there wasn't much talk of gay marriage because people were too busy griping of Quebec's independence? If there's one thing to learn from the now libertarian movements is that discussions can go in many ways "liberals" (in the USA, a better terminology is Democrats, since far liberal groups have differing agendas as well) might not agree with. I understand you statement about lack of discussion. I remember after 9/11 Barbara Lee, rep from California was the only person in either the House or Senate that didn't write off the Congress' blank check for Bush. Not, she said, because she didn't want to deal with the Taliban, but she was troubled by how streamlined the process would become, with no voice of dissent as to how the War would be handled rather than if it should be handled at all. She was making the distinction when everyone else had collapsed the two.

Having that return criticism is essential, but might not come from where you are looking. I do not know Canada's federal statutes, but perhaps the government has not bothered with adressing gay-marriage because they already had disscussions about marriage being the private decision of respective religious institutions. That means at one point they were discussing if the government had any authority over the situation. I assure you, looking through the history of how church and state were navigated in Canada will procur as many people emphasizing the distinction from "conservative" groups as "liberal" ones. Now the discussion may have already shifted to government benefits for couples, and if the government, say, wanted to dish them based on significant others at all, or just treat everyone as an independant and youths as dependants. That too would be discussions about government handling of gay couples. Just not in the way we are used to overhere, where the dominant voices are still speaking in terms of "morality" rather than technicality. If Canada is dealing with the fine print rather than just waving red flags, its not going to sound the same at all.

As to abortion, I do not know what Canada has said. And I can argue that the previous conservative demand for state's rights will now be taken up by the liberals. So if not dealing with a direct issue, the debates between federal and states rights are clearly voiced with such issues as this in mind. Clearly. So these issues are in fact constantly being addressed, just not always in the blazing "relgious" way we expect. This is not to say there isn't a religious voice, and Bush is doing a good job collapsing religious ideals with "conservative" ones, while historically, conservatives have set part of the platform that allowed for gay marriages in MA while allowing for some other locales to ban it. Conservative vs. Liberal discussions are more flexible in how they play out because many of them can also deal with technicalities that manifest in different ways down the line. Religious clamoring (and yes this is a religious country, but now, I still consider this a slim part of the voting population that unfortunately has some very savvy leaders) to me is not the same thing. What the discussions are trying to implement are static even thorughout time rather than being maleable. Perhaps Canada is just dealing with maleable legislature, so the conversations feel very different even though they address the same thing? I think that's great. Thats the kind of discourse I want. I could care less if the religious fanatics are part of it.

Yes, but while we do that, let's make sure we don't impinge on the rights of others to disagree about our methods or keep us in check. What I mean by this is that political correctness can get out of hand. You actually end up limiting the rights on others in the process.

Say, for example, I am reading an article about (to stay on the subject) the opening of a new Holocaust museum in Jersualem, and I come across a speech by Sharon using the occasion to draw a connection between it and why Israel should exist. I would like to be given the freedom to criticize such associations if I feel they amount to using the Holocaust and its victims as political pawns in the political arena. But I don't want to make such a statement and find myself being called an anti-semite or an anti-Israeli. Can you see how someone could try to silence me by implying that I am either of those two? And if he/she convinces enough people, and I'm painted as such, can you see how that might discourage me from expressing my opinion on such subjects in the future?


Etc.

Canada's inclination towards viewing the issue of gay marriage as more of a technicality pretty much is the major reason why it is so drastically different in its policy making as compared to the US. The problem, however, is that those who view it as a moral issue here in Canada have not really been heard of. They are out there; neo just posted something about most being opposed. I'm positive many (most?) are motivated by a feeling that it's immoral or 'not right'. Where are they? Why have they not said anything? I know that such discussion has been happening in homes and among various groups, but where is the media to cover that?

...


One interesting, gay-related incident that happened a few years ago was when a gay student in the Catholic school system protested because he was not allowed to bring his boyfriend to the prom.oy, did they blow that damn issue up. Not only that, the gay guy was paraded (literally, paraded) around during the gay pride festivities. I suppose what they were celebrating was a person taking advantage of the spotlight to bask therein. Sooner than you could turn around and ignore the whole thing, a tv movie gets made, and guess what? The gay guy (played by an actor) is of course all goodie-goodie, and the Catholic school and its priest (chapeline?) were the evil guys. I wanted to write some kind of protest against such a portrayal, since I myself was in a Catholic school and knew them to be wonderful places (no less intolerant than any others), but it's not likely that would have changed anyhting. Sheesh, judging by what you saw, you'd think the whole school system was bad. Nevermind those teachers we had who preached about tolerance and social acceptance. Those of course don't make for good tv movies (not that tv movies are ever good, but you get my point).