By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Do you approve your president/prime minister?

 

Do you approve your president/prime minister?

Yes 36 23.08%
 
No 103 66.03%
 
Not sure 14 8.97%
 
Total:153
fordy on 02 August 2011
Joelcool7 said:
fordy said:
Joelcool7 said:

Also civil servents have the right to their religious beliefs as well.

I'll illustrate this another way. A vegetarian who works for a company is brought to a BBQ. At that BBQ everyone in the company eats meat they ask the Vegetarian to eat a hot dog, the Vegetarian doesn't want to eat the hot dog and declines, so that Vegetarian is then fired for declining the hot dog.


Hah, they're entitled to their religious beliefs, but should not be allowed to push them onto others.

In order to reword your analogy, your stance implies that the vegeterian doesn't eat the hotdog and then starts to forbid others from eating hotdogs too. See how it works?

Joelcool7 said:

Their are plenty civil servents and pastor's who would be fully willing to do a gay marriage, so why force those with opposing beliefs to do them? Infact why change the definition of a word because a minority group finds the word offensive?

Can you make up your mind? Are you against gays gettng married, or forcing people to marry gays? Personally, I'm against the second one. However, if this is a civil servant, paid by the government who has to cater to the rights of EVERYBODY, I'd call that not being able to do your job properly.

Joelcool7 said:

Canada, USA, Britian we are all democracies that supposedly respect free will and freedom's of religion and speech. Seperation of church and state does not mean that religious people shouldn't have any Government rights. Also a minority group in a democracy does not have the right to change the laws against the majority of people's views.

See, you really should do your research. That's the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. The US constitution has what is known as a Bill of Rights, which are there to protect the rights of civilians, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE MINORITY. Hence why Prop 8 was overturned, as the judge declared it....you guessed it....unconstitutional.

Well I'll reply in order. Christian pastors and civil servents aren't forcing anyone to do anything by not being willing to marry a gay couple. Them having their own belief is in no way persecuting or forcing their beliefs on anyone. They are simply practicing their own religious beliefs.

As for my actual stance on gay marriage and forcing people to go against their religious beliefs and marry gay couples. I disagree with both.

A) I think Gay Union's should have been passed in the form pruposed by Stephen Harper. Gays should have been treated as equals but not at the cost of religious freedom's and rights.

B) Now that gay marriage is law I am incredibally upset that civil servents and pastor's get forced to marry gay couples. That is wrong and a form of persecution.

How does that work. A civil servent choosing not to do a gay marriage is not forcing anything on anyone. Its not like that civil servent is demanding all civil servents don't have gay marriages they are simply saying that they believe differently and aren't willing to give up their beliefs. Like my great grandpa who was drafted but was mennonite, they gave him a gun and sent him to the front, but as a mennonite he was a pacifist and refused to fight. Now his job was a soldier but he stood by his beliefs. Just because you have a job, doesn't mean you should have to sell out your beliefs to work at that job.

Does everyone who works at McDonalds have to stuff their faces with fast food, or everyone at a Beer or cigerette company have to be an alchoholic or smoker. Infact those are all jobs where the main goal is to produce fast food and beer.

Fact is you shouldn't force your beliefs on anyone, its unconstitutional.

Ummm Canada has the Charter of rights and freedoms. Much like the US's constitution not to mention our own Constitution. But guess what the Constitution was passed into law by democratically elected leaders, with the support of the Canadian people. Brought in by the majority not a minority.

Now sure in a democracy we protect the rights of minorities but not at the cost of the rights for the majority.

In the end I am against Gay married and forcing people to conduct them. I am against gay marriage to begin with but if its legalized as it has been then I am against forcing civil servents or pastorsto marry gay couples. Its like I said with my grandpa in the war, he was given a gun and sent to the front but he refused to fight, he had every right to do so, if your job violates your rights then you have no obligation to follow that job.

Its like if a job demands you convert to another religion or be fired, or a job that demands a vegetarian starts eating meat or get fired. Or a man is drafted into the army but refuses to fight because they are a pacifist. Everyone has the right to practice their beliefs.

the Bill of Rights is there to ensure equal rights for ALL citizens, and if you've read into it, marriage is considered a right. So tell me, why should the government be forced to enact upon a religion that does not effect the entire nation? That is a move that's considered unconstitutional.

Here's my stance. Marriage is a right that ANY two consenting people should be allowed to make. Pastors have a right to refuse marrying gays, but only if those pastors are private (ie. paid for by attendees only). After all, they have right to deny a service

However, if it's a civil servant, paid for by the people's taxes, who is denying it, then they should immediately be sacked. Government services are meant to be there for all people, not just a select few in a group. their religious rights arent being violated, they're free to practise their religious rights in another job, one that does not hinder their job description.

As for the rest of your flawed arguments, I'll leave the rest up to this guy:

http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Audio/Rants/2rant-gay_marriage.mp3

 

By the way, government could be a lot nastier to religion if it needed to.  Just be thankful that they've been so soft on them. I personally believe they're too soft on them, after 1000 years of Dark Ages and persecution of science. Let's start by removing their tax exemption. If clubs and pubs have to be taxed, religion should, too.



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 02 August 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Joelcool7 said:

 

Sure Harper has a few faults like not doing enough to stop Abortion or end Gay Marriage. He also has pushed for the HST over our provincial taxes. I have a few gripes with some of his policies. However here is a leader who for once is not America's bitch, he's not a coward who leaves our military in shambles. He sticks up for his moral's values and Canada's interests. He is one of the greatest Canadian Prime Ministers to ever hold office.

You disgust me. Less so than your prime minister.

But isnt your duty as a left wing liberal to be disgusted with everyone that doesnt share your views and opinnion?

Nope, just at people who persecute others.

But to you, everything is persecution, right? I mean, you think stoping child abortion is persecution, for God's sake !!!

No, I think telling women what they should do with their bodies is persecution. And it's impossible to deny that Joel is advocating for the persecution of gays.


So you would perfer persecution of a child than? How dare that child have a life? he/she should have thought of that before his/hers mother got drunk and got knocked up, that ittle bastard !

It's debatable whether you can consider them children yet.

You consider them human beings in development. No way around that



fordy on 02 August 2011
MrBubbles said:
osamanobama said:
fordy said:
osamanobama said:
i have a solution to make everything equal.
upon death all property is burned, not giving to someone or the government, they dont deserve it
upon birth, the child is sent out to the wild, like everyone else, to ensure equality in the manner they are raised.
upon the unlikely survival of childhood, everyone goes to the same school with the same teacher, being taught the same thing.
upon completion of schooling everyone is paid the same wage for their job because it is unfair to deem any job more worthy than another.
furthermore everyone must eat the same food, where the same clothes, and live in the same size house
upon twilight years of ones life they are killed at age 65, so that no one person may have unfair longer life than the next


Reported for trolling.

lol k?


yeah you dirty troll...you dont get to have different opinions than he does.   right after we take all your money and give it to some homeless bum to make everything equal you are being shipped off to gitmo for hate speech. 

 

And you're supporting counterproductive moves like this? Where's the logical sense in mocking as a form of argument? Cannot think of a logical answer?



MrBubbles on 02 August 2011

@joel

wow...separate but equal... thats a great idea! i wonder why no one has thought of it before!



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Joelcool7 on 02 August 2011
fordy said:

the Bill of Rights is there to ensure equal rights for ALL citizens, and if you've read into it, marriage is considered a right. So tell me, why should the government be forced to enact upon a religion that does not effect the entire nation? That is a move that's considered unconstitutional.

Here's my stance. Marriage is a right that ANY two consenting people should be allowed to make. Pastors have a right to refuse marrying gays, but only if those pastors are private (ie. paid for by attendees only). After all, they have right to deny a service

However, if it's a civil servant, paid for by the people's taxes, who is denying it, then they should immediately be sacked. Government services are meant to be there for all people, not just a select few in a group. their religious rights arent being violated, they're free to practise their religious rights in another job, one that does not hinder their job description.

As for the rest of your flawed arguments, I'll leave the rest up to this guy:

http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/Audio/Rants/2rant-gay_marriage.mp3

 

By the way, government could be a lot nastier to religion if it needed to.  Just be thankful that they've been so soft on them. I personally believe they're too soft on them, after 1000 years of Dark Ages and persecution of science. Let's start by removing their tax exemption. If clubs and pubs have to be taxed, religion should, too.

Bill of rights as in the American Bill of Rights? I have no clue whats in the American bill of rights. But Marriage to my knowledge in not in the Declaration of rights in the Canadian Constitution. Since I am Canadian I see things through my countries perspective and to be honest just because the US has a specific law doesn't mean Canada should stick to it, I mean heck we fought America in war as an enemy in the past why should we follow all of America's laws.

Where in the Canadian Constitution or Declaration of Rights does it say that Marriage is a right to all citizens? Who said Marriage is a right? I don't recall it ever being listed as one, here in Canada health care is a right that all citizens have, but the US doesn't so does that mean the US should change its health care system because its a Canadian right?

(The "Constitution of Canada" is claimed to be the "supreme law of Canada" and states that "...Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...". God is the ultimate legislative authority on the lawful definition of marriage in the Dominion of Canada.  The laws of God are supreme in the Dominion of Canada.)

The Laws of God are supreme in the dominion of Canada.

Now you are obviously uneducated in the Canadian Constitution or our Declaration of rights, because nowhere does it say that Marriage is a right. Now through seperation of church and state and recent court rulings it has been decided that the Canadian Government has authority over marriage and it is no longer a religious practice. But that in itself is unconstitutional.

Here's my stance, two consenting adults living together under one roof regardless of sexual orientation should be allowed to have a union. That union should be treated the same as a marriage by Government. A pastor has every right to deny service to a gay couple and all civil servents should have the right to practice their religious beliefs, their are plenty of civil servents who do not share those beliefs.

As for your whole Government is taking it too easy on religious beliefs. I'm sorry but like the gay marriage thing, Athiests and such make up such a small segment of the population, why do they deserve the right to rule the country and lord their beliefs over those who don't agree with their theories?

Fact is Marriage is not a right, if it was I'd be married by now I mean if its my right to get married then I deserve to get married but nobody loves me like that, so maybe I should force a lady into an arranged marriage I mean it is my right isn't it? Marriage is not a right its a privelage. Infact marriage isn't considered a right in the US constitution either, you calling me on not knowing my constitution, I just realized Marriage is not a right in the US constitution either nor in your Australian Constitution infact marriage was first mentioned in yours in 1961.

Marriage is not a right in any of our three constitutions or declaration of rights or Bill of rights etc..etc.. If I'm wrong I would love to see evidence that Marriage is actually called a right in my country your country or the United States of America?

As for a civil servent being paid by peoples taxes that doesn't mean that they do not have religious rights. You can't force someone to do something against their will. Especially since most of these civil servents got the job before gay marriage was passed, they never agreed to marry gay couples and they shouldn't be forced. You can't change someones job description and then fire them for having a belief different to you.

My argument is, if gay marriage is legal which it is. Their are plenty of civil servents and pastor's who would be glad to marry a gay couple. Why force those who have religious beliefs to do so?



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Around the Network
Joelcool7 on 02 August 2011
MrBubbles said:
@joel

wow...separate but equal... thats a great idea! i wonder why no one has thought of it before!


I'm not sure if your making fun of me or not. But to be honest lets not call something it isn't. Marriage by definition was between a man and wife. Changing the definition doesn't make you anymore equal then you were with the pruposed Gay Union's. A name is a name and the practice is practiced by religious groups. So yah legally it's exactly the same except the name, in the eyes of the Government its equal.

Changing the definition and then forcing all the religious groups to recognize the new definition isn't equality its persecution. Now some have argued that Marriage isn't a religious institution saying that their was gay unions in Greece and Rome back in the day. But Marriage was started as a religious institution and the definition has been their for thousands of years. You can't just up one day and decide your going to change the meaning and force all the religious groups to recognize it etc...etc..

So yes its seperate but equal. Its like you have a dog and a cat. You love both equally but they are different. Now should you call both dogs? No they are seperate but treated equally the same way a gay union and marriage were going to be the same in the eyes of the Government.



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Cypher1980 on 02 August 2011

I think Billy Connely had it spot on

Anyone who wants to be a politician should be automatically banned from being one for life....



MrBubbles on 02 August 2011
Joelcool7 said:
MrBubbles said:
@joel

wow...separate but equal... thats a great idea! i wonder why no one has thought of it before!


I'm not sure if your making fun of me or not. But to be honest lets not call something it isn't. Marriage by definition was between a man and wife. Changing the definition doesn't make you anymore equal then you were with the pruposed Gay Union's. A name is a name and the practice is practiced by religious groups. So yah legally it's exactly the same except the name, in the eyes of the Government its equal.

Changing the definition and then forcing all the religious groups to recognize the new definition isn't equality its persecution. Now some have argued that Marriage isn't a religious institution saying that their was gay unions in Greece and Rome back in the day. But Marriage was started as a religious institution and the definition has been their for thousands of years. You can't just up one day and decide your going to change the meaning and force all the religious groups to recognize it etc...etc..

So yes its seperate but equal. Its like you have a dog and a cat. You love both equally but they are different. Now should you call both dogs? No they are seperate but treated equally the same way a gay union and marriage were going to be the same in the eyes of the Government.



blacks didnt used to be "people" so i dont have to believe they deserve rights and no one can force me to respect those just because the government says i should.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

sapphi_snake on 02 August 2011
MrBubbles said:
@joel

wow...separate but equal... thats a great idea! i wonder why no one has thought of it before!

This!



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake on 02 August 2011
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
It is normal for people to not like their political leaders. They are always promising one thing and doing the opposite. Everything is spun by these political shysters. We are ingrained to not trust politicians. Does not matter what side of the political spectrum they represent they are simply can not be trusted.

See, thing is that most politicians, at least in my country, go into populism mode come election time, and then snap out of it aftet election time is over.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)