55% support keeping gay marriage. 39% opposed (and G rated pics of Lesbians kissing)

[NG]

Canadians do not want their political leaders to undo historic legislation allowing gays to legally marry in the wake of a pledge from the Conservatives that they would do just that if elected.

In a new poll conducted for The Globe and Mail/CTV, 55 per cent of Canadians surveyed say the next government should let same-sex legislation stand, while 39 per cent would like to see an attempt made to repeal it. A further 6 per cent said they did not know.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050718/SAMESEX18/TPNational/?query=gay+marriage

Sorry Stephen. You lose. Again.

[Tiberius]

I just read that article... and it comes as no surprise because the Liberals were acting on behalf of Canadians (the majority), and the basic principles of our country (personal and religious freedoms).

What still continues to amaze me (ok, it really doesn't amaze me anymore... it's what I knew all along about Harper, and now expect of him)... what continues to amaze me is that Harper is such an idiot politician.

He shows this by stating he will repeal the bill if elected - something that will give the Liberals a boost during the next election.

He didn't have to state any such thing, and he STILL would have had his core supporters (in other words, he still would have had the votes of those who oppose gay marriage - because they are his type of votes to begin with, and those who are angry at the Liberals would have likely voted for his party). He also would have gotten other voters to turn to him as an alternative to the Liberals if he just would have presented a more neutral image and stance on issues.

Instead, he boldly makes a firm statement that he will repeal the bill. Despite the fact that this is not what Canadians want. He could write a book on how to ensure that you remain a marginal player in politics.

[TenzoR]

oh boy won't this issue just ..go away

[ephemera]

This is a dead issue, and i think the respondants in that poll prove that people are sick of it and don't want to go thru that again.

[stevethewheel]

I have a hunch that Canadians like the status quo.

I don't follow or keep track of polls very well but thought that before the legislation was passed the slim majority favoured not passing the legislation. Help me out here, someone must be keeping track of this stuff (NG?)

[Absolute]

oh boy won't this issue just ..go away
I really wish people would drop it, too.

[Spent]

You can't turn back time you neaderthal.

:D

[devious9191]

You can't turn back time you neaderthal.

:D

I doubt that Stephen Harper reads RFD, and if he did, I don't think being called a 'neaderthal' would offend him very much.

The point is, that this bill has already been passed, for better or worse. Many people (including myself) that opposed the passing of the original bill, don't want to have it reversed, simply because it's a waste at this point.

Does that mean that in the last month that 20% of Canadians who opposed this bill have changed their mind? Not at all.

[pfdude]

Somebody should email him the link to RFD ;)

[d_jedi]

Revoking the legislation could be messy.. what happens to all of the gay "married" couples?

[aquariaguy]

I'm guessing if he continues on threatening that, its a good time to go get a license so you can marry gay people, before the election.

Imagine the line up for marriage!! BLING BLING!


P.S. Harper is an idiot. How come no one wants to replace him?

I think Harper plays too much Sims, and is scared of this happening.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/Evilchiapet/snapshot_efe02801_4fe05cb7.jpg

[Daemar]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v612/Evilchiapet/snapshot_efe02801_4fe05cb7.jpg

The guy on the left looks like Wade from Strangerhood! if any of you RFDers are fans of RvB, you probably arleady know about Strangerhood... soon to be aired on IFC!

If not, you can check out www.strangerhood.com
If you haven't heard of RvB, check it out at www.redvsblue.com (they both lead you to the same site, different tab)

Enjoy!

[NG]

oh boy won't this issue just ..go away

Harper has ensured that it will not by his pledge if he is elected.

This is a dead issue, and i think the respondants in that poll prove that people are sick of it and don't want to go thru that again.

Apprently for Stephen it is not. Seems to show he has no interest being an alternative choice of government but instead as a spokesperson for the moral conservatives in Canada.

[NG]

Somebody should email him the link to RFD ;)

Agreed. If somebody has his e-mail address they should. I'd love for him to see my avatar.

[d_jedi]

Agreed. If somebody has his e-mail address they should. I'd love for him to see my avatar.
Ask, and ye shall receive.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/house/members/MemberDetails.asp?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1&PersonId=3194&OrgCId=245&Sect=hoccur

Telephone: (613) 996-6740
Fax: (613) 947-0310
Email: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

Hill Office
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Constituency Office
1600 - 90th Avenue SW Suite A-203
Calgary, Alberta
T2V5A8

[Prometheus]

I doubt the polls done by this staunch supporter of Bill C-38 reflects the views of Canadians. I could go to a traditional marriage supporting organization and easily find percentages reversed.

What they haven't mentioned is how the effects of Bill C-38 haven't made their way into the lives of average Canadians yet.

As for the Liberals using Closure in the House of Commons and the Senate to limit debate, the seeds for this bill to be appealed have already been sown...

[Absolute]

http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/2526/kiss9jm.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

If the mods would like it removed, let me know. Not sure where it falls on the ruls :)

[Tiberius]

http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/2526/kiss9jm.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

How can that be wrong? :lol:

Edit - The one thing the mods will probably ask of you is.... where is the rest of the video available for viewing? ;)

[biosh]

Did anyone see the picture of Stephen Harper in his cowboy outfit at the Clagary Stampede this past weekend? It was in the Globe and Mail, but unfortunately I can't find it online - if you could see it, you'd know right away why Harper opposes gay marriage - he looks so freakin' gay, that he'd probably be flooded with so many offers of marriage, he'd never be able to get any work done in parliament!

:cheesygri

[Prometheus]

How can that be wrong?

I'm amazed at what supporters of gay marriage will do to encourage the majority of Canadians to change our opinion on gay marriage...

[pfdude]

That's right, we'll encourage all non believers by showing them some woman on woman action!

[d_jedi]

If the mods would like it removed, let me know. Not sure where it falls on the ruls :)
My eyes! The googles do nothing!
Well, I guess if the guy dressed like a fairy (dunno how better to describe it..) is OK, this would be alright also.

[Tiberius]

I'm amazed at what supporters of gay marriage will do to encourage the majority of Canadians to change our opinion on gay marriage...

I can see that your sense of humour is also hampered by your closed mind. So sad. >:(

[guest10586]

who cares? Legislation is going through so this point is mute. Weather you support it or not it is hear to stay. I am facinated on why people on RFD and Ontario are so obsessed with this topic.

[Txiasaeia]

who cares? Legislation is going through so this point is mute. Weather you support it or not it is hear to stay. I am facinated on why people on RFD and Ontario are so obsessed with this topic.

Moot. Whether. Here. Bonus points for which word is also misspelled.

Not trying to offend, but since we're talking about homosexuals, I thought I'd throw in a couple homophones - words that are spelled difrerently but sound the same. Satiric and educational at the same time!

[d_jedi]

Moot. Whether. Here. Bonus points for which word is also misspelled.
facinated
(sic!)

[NG]

Ask, and ye shall receive.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/house/members/MemberDetails.asp?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1&PersonId=3194&OrgCId=245&Sect=hoccur

Telephone: (613) 996-6740
Fax: (613) 947-0310
Email: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

Hill Office
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Constituency Office
1600 - 90th Avenue SW Suite A-203
Calgary, Alberta
T2V5A8

Thanks but I ment his personal address. I doubt this address goes directly to him and his assistants wouldn't forward this thread to him lol

[NG]

http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/2526/kiss9jm.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

If the mods would like it removed, let me know. Not sure where it falls on the ruls :)

Hetro males number one reason for supporting gay marriage:

It instutionalizes lesbianism and perhaps our girlfriends try it and we can watch :D

[NG]

Moot. Whether. Here. Bonus points for which word is also misspelled.

Not trying to offend, but since we're talking about homosexuals, I thought I'd throw in a couple homophones - words that are spelled difrerently but sound the same. Satiric and educational at the same time!

I guess dispite what you said we're not going to be avoiding eachother since you're posting in a thread that I started.

However it's rather pety to critque grammer. Shows someone does not have alot of faith in their own arguement

[NG]

http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/2526/kiss9jm.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

If the mods would like it removed, let me know. Not sure where it falls on the ruls :)

And since it's apprently allowed I don't want to be left out of the lesbian fun :D

http://forestglade.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/lesbian%20kiss.jpg

[Txiasaeia]

I guess dispite what you said we're not going to be avoiding eachother since you're posting in a thread that I started.

However it's rather pety to critque grammer. Shows someone does not have alot of faith in their own arguement

You're absolutely right, it *is* petty :) On the other hand, taking the time to make sure your ("you" in general, not necessarily you, NG) grammar is correct implies that you've thought about your argument, rather than dashed off a post in a few seconds.

I agree with you, though: Harper is *really* killing his credibility. It's obvious that Canada doesn't want to get rid of gay marriage; basing an entire election campaign on the issue *now* is suicide. I really, really don't get it. In my opinion, he should stick to battles he can win, not battles the party's already lost, you know?

I still think that there should have been a referendum, rather than the issue being rammed through parliament without debate. I'm extremely displeased in the current government. However, if Harper wants to *be* the next government, he should really sit down and think about whether he can get elected with this position at the forefront of his campaign. The alternative is another four years of Liberal corruption and mismanagement.

[NG]

http://www.globalgayz.com/SingaporeB/images/gayStopKiss.jpg

Thank God for live theatre :D

[stevethewheel]

If it was fair game to ignore the polls ot make the legislation then it's fair game to ignore the polls to undo it.

I don't put much faith in those polls anyway when they are 45-55%. As I said earlier, what this poll proves to me is that Canadians don't like legislative change.

[hardcoredummy]

I don't put much faith in those polls anyway when they are 45-55%. As I said earlier, what this poll proves to me is that Canadians don't like legislative change.

Um except how do you think gay marriage was instituted in the first place? Does Bill C-38 ring a bell? It was THIS year.

[Prometheus]

Um except how do you think gay marriage was instituted in the first place? Does Bill C-38 ring a bell? It was THIS year.

Because Closure of debate was used to pass Bill C-38 in House of Commons and Senate. As well as Liberals pressuring their own MP's to vote for this bill.

I see a possible election platform in the making. Just promise that Bills will be fully debated and all your party's MP's will be allowed to make their own decision. This could earn any party many votes in next election...

[Txiasaeia]

Um except how do you think gay marriage was instituted in the first place? Does Bill C-38 ring a bell? It was THIS year.

The Canadian public didn't pass the legislation; MPs did. There's no guarantee that any MP actually listened to what their constituents wanted, because the Libs, NDP, and Bloc basically told their members to vote the party line or you'll be disciplined. I'm not saying that the cons were told otherwise, but the point remains that the four respective heads of each party decided the issue, not Canadians as a whole. If the libs hadn't spent all that money on AdScam, they could have afforded a referendum.

[hardcoredummy]

The Canadian public didn't pass the legislation; MPs did. There's no guarantee that any MP actually listened to what their constituents wanted, because the Libs, NDP, and Bloc basically told their members to vote the party line or you'll be disciplined. I'm not saying that the cons were told otherwise, but the point remains that the four respective heads of each party decided the issue, not Canadians as a whole. If the libs hadn't spent all that money on AdScam, they could have afforded a referendum.

How exactly do you think MOST legislations get passed? Do you actually think we vote on these issues? We have what's known as a 'representative democracy'. We elect people into office who we believe will be a good representation of what we want, and they do the legislating.

A referendum on gay marriage? LOLOL

[guest10586]

How exactly do you think MOST legislations get passed? Do you actually think we vote on these issues? We have what's known as a 'representative democracy'. We elect people into office who we believe will be a good representation of what we want, and they do the legislating.

A referendum on gay marriage? LOLOL

I have to agree...a referendum, that would be a waste. It passed so lets all relax and get back to some real news...or just post lesbians kissing....I'm ok with that too... :)

[Txiasaeia]

How exactly do you think MOST legislations get passed? Do you actually think we vote on these issues? We have what's known as a 'representative democracy'. We elect people into office who we believe will be a good representation of what we want, and they do the legislating.

A referendum on gay marriage? LOLOL

I'm glad you think it's hilarious. I know the way it works, but I'm talking about the way it should be, especially on an issue that the country is divided on.

I have to agree...a referendum, that would be a waste. It passed so lets all relax and get back to some real news...or just post lesbians kissing....I'm ok with that too...

Let's see... how many Liberal scandals can I list that are more of a waste...

[NG]

I have to agree...a referendum, that would be a waste.

Agreed. This poll shows that clearly. And so will a Liberal win (dispite how I'll dislike that being an NDP'er)

It passed so lets all relax and get back to some real news...or just post lesbians kissing....I'm ok with that too... :)

Agreed again.

http://www.ninjapirate.com/images/lesbians.jpg

This is why I don't get why more stright men don't support gay marriage.

I could be one of the few men on this board who have had the rush of seeing....welll...two women in bed is the most delicate way I can think of to phrase it.

Seriously. Gay marriage instutionalized lesbianism. Once it's thought of as common and natural our gf's will be more into just trying it for kicks once and awhile...and...if we're good...we can watch :D

Trust me guys - It's worked for me ;)

[stevethewheel]

How exactly do you think MOST legislations get passed? Do you actually think we vote on these issues? We have what's known as a 'representative democracy'. We elect people into office who we believe will be a good representation of what we want, and they do the legislating.

A referendum on gay marriage? LOLOL


Hahaha. No of course not.

Now go back and look at the first post. See....Harper is actually right on according to your logic....he is ignoring the polls which is what Martin did when he got the bill passed. Of course we all know that's how it really works. That was my point.

[biosh]

Moot. Whether. Here. Bonus points for which word is also misspelled.

Not trying to offend, but since we're talking about homosexuals, I thought I'd throw in a couple homophones - words that are spelled difrerently but sound the same. Satiric and educational at the same time!
lol - Okay, Txiasaeia, credit where credit is due - this is a clever and funny post. Only slightly mean, and even then only for the amplification of the post's own humour. Well written, including the typo!

:D

[aquariaguy]

This is gonna get locked with all those lezbo pics?

[NG]

This is gonna get locked with all those lezbo pics?

I can't see why since they're all G rated (no nudity) and Absolute's is the most extreme and it's been there since 3:30 pm. I'm sure a mod must have seen this thead in the afternoon and deemed his pic acceptable. I would not have posted mine otherwise.

Edited to add: besides - who doesn't like Lesbians :D

[hardcoredummy]

I'm glad you think it's hilarious. I know the way it works, but I'm talking about the way it should be, especially on an issue that the country is divided on.

You obviously didn't know how it works, if you really expected any government, whether Conservative, Liberals, NDP, the Trascendental Lemmings, to hold a referendum on a legislation.

[NG]

Divided?

55% for 39% against. Doesn't sound divided to me ;)

We have a clear majority

[stevethewheel]

Divided?

55% for 39% against. Doesn't sound divided to me ;)

We have a clear majority

Heh. List off a few poll results on the topic since, oh, say Jan05. See how the clear majority seems to wobble.

[NG]

Heh. List off a few poll results on the topic since, oh, say Jan05. See how the clear majority seems to wobble.

I would imagine that a CTV/Globe and Mail poll would be a *tad* more scientific that an open poll on RFD.

[NG]

I don't put much faith in those polls anyway when they are 45-55%.

Actually it was only 39% against keeping gay marriage not 45%. I'd say it's over.

[stevethewheel]

I would imagine that a CTV/Globe and Mail poll would be a *tad* more scientific that an open poll on RFD.

Agreed. So if we can find some polls by a major news source taken about the time Martin & co. were ramming this through, and the majority was against what he was doing then we can all agree the Liberals ignored the will of the people, right? Or we can reject that Harper is ignoring the people now.

Or should we just rant against Harper, use the polls when the results suit us, and blame special interest groups (allowing us to ignore the results) when we don't like the outcome? Wait, that's far more fun. Carry on.

[stevethewheel]

Actually it was only 39% against keeping gay marriage not 45%. I'd say it's over.


Actually, it was 55% in favour of keeping gay marriage. That's within the 45-55% range I was talking about. Use your head.

[Txiasaeia]

You obviously didn't know how it works, if you really expected any government, whether Conservative, Liberals, NDP, the Trascendental Lemmings, to hold a referendum on a legislation.

Switzerland, for example, is a semi-direct democracy; the citizens can challenge the government on any piece of law with a referendum. 100,000 signatures are needed within 18 months to do so. This is a great model, one that's worked for over a hundred years. Just because Canada's government doesn't care about the people, doesn't mean that all governments are like that. Now, you said "if you really expect any government... to hold a referendum on a legislation." If you meant Canada, you might be right, but if you were talking about any governmental system, then obviously you don't know "how it works."

[Txiasaeia]

lol - Okay, Txiasaeia, credit where credit is due - this is a clever and funny post. Only slightly mean, and even then only for the amplification of the post's own humour. Well written, including the typo!

:D

You caught it! Vanna, tell the man what he's won! ;) I definitely wasn't trying to be mean, I promise. It's just that threads like this get ugly very quickly, and injecting humour into a gay thread is sometimes the only way it stays afloat.

[poedua]

I still think that there should have been a referendum, rather than the issue being rammed through parliament without debate. I'm extremely displeased in the current government. However, if Harper wants to *be* the next government, he should really sit down and think about whether he can get elected with this position at the forefront of his campaign. The alternative is another four years of Liberal corruption and mismanagement.

On your desire for a referendum.

I assume you're advocating that referendums should take place to deal with only 'certain' policy / issues before Parliament - which ones should and which ones should not in your view ?

What generic / minimum crtieria do you think need to exist relating to legislation that should trigger a referendum ?

Was it a mistake not to put the GST to a referendum ?

Perhaps someone can refresh my memory whether the Tories had the GST as part of their election platform the way the Liberals had gay marriage a part of theirs. My recollection is that the GST was not wildly supported either.

For that matter, neither was the abolishment of capital punishment - the entire country was pro capital punishment yet the government chose in a free vote to abolish it - if they hadn't ,Canada would be remain along with the U.S. as one of the last countries in the entire world to kill it's criminals.

I suppose it gets down to whether an MP conducts himself ( votes ) on issues based on his/her constituents' majority views, party line or his own personal views irrespective of constituents or party - or does it matter that consitutuents views should only be followed if he/she is given a ' free vote' or not on an issue ?

And if a particular constituency holds a majority view that its at odds with the majority view held by the rest of the country - is the MP in this constituency compelled to vote so that the canadian majority is carried or the opposing view held by the constituency ?

[mbg]

It's disheartening to see celebration of decadence and decline with such reverence.

But, I am far beyond the point where I expect better of Canadians.

[Txiasaeia]

On your desire for a referendum.

I assume you're advocating that referendums should take place to deal with only 'certain' policy / issues before Parliament - which ones should and which ones should not in your view ?

What generic / minimum crtieria do you think need to exist relating to legislation that should trigger a referendum ?

Minimum critieria: x number of signatures. If any group can assemble that many, then it should be taken to the polls. The Swiss minimum is 100,000, but they're a smaller country than us, so maybe 200,000? If any group gets that many signatures on any given issue, then it's probably worth going to the polls, eh?

[HowEver]

Calls for referenda on this matter *entirely* miss the point that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled definitively that any law that limits the definition of marriage to male-female is unconstitutional; the Court directed the government of Canada to redress the situation or have all of its marriage laws deemed null and void.

No political party is going to call a referendum on a matter that would from the outset be unconstitutional. Nor will there ever be a successful "repeal" of the marriage law just passed. At least, not until so directed by the Supreme Court.

Moot, indeed.

[d_jedi]

Seriously. Gay marriage instutionalized lesbianism. Once it's thought of as common and natural our gf's will be more into just trying it for kicks once and awhile...and...if we're good...we can watch :D

Trust me guys - It's worked for me ;)
And that's a good thing.. why?
Watching is no good.. having two women to yourself is great.. and that doesn't require acceptance of lesbianism!

[d_jedi]

I can't see why since they're all G rated (no nudity) and Absolute's is the most extreme and it's been there since 3:30 pm. I'm sure a mod must have seen this thead in the afternoon and deemed his pic acceptable. I would not have posted mine otherwise.

Edited to add: besides - who doesn't like Lesbians :D
I'd say PG, at least.. maybe PG-13...

[d_jedi]

Calls for referenda on this matter *entirely* miss the point that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled definitively that any law that limits the definition of marriage to male-female is unconstitutional; the Court directed the government of Canada to redress the situation or have all of its marriage laws deemed null and void.
That is absolutely untrue!
The Supreme Court NEVER said that heterosexual-only marriage was unconstitutional.. they refused to answer that question when posed to them, leaving it to Parliament to decide..

[stevethewheel]

Calls for referenda on this matter *entirely* miss the point that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled definitively that any law that limits the definition of marriage to male-female is unconstitutional; the Court directed the government of Canada to redress the situation or have all of its marriage laws deemed null and void.


Close, but not entirely accurate. Well, actually not even that close because you chose to use the word definitively.

from the Gov't of Canada website:

The Supreme Court refused to answer the question about whether the opposite-sex requirement for marriage is unconstitutional.

You may be confusing that with the lower court decisions. An easy misunderstanding, but the thread is now corrected with respect to name-dropping the Supreme Court of Canada.

[mbg]

And that's a good thing.. why?
Watching is no good.. having two women to yourself is great.. and that doesn't require acceptance of lesbianism!

Both yours and NG's attitudes are necessary prerequisites for the affirmation of gay marriage. Without hedonism and radical individualism as a matter of policy, where individualism became a goal without regard for the position of indivudalism in the context of what is good for society, gay marriage would never have been allowed.

[Daemar]

Please lock. We're hearing the same arguements ALL the time. Why are new threads for this subject continuously created? Do a search for all the related threads and they all say the same thing.

Please don't create any more of these threads. It's been beaten to death, raised from the dead then beaten some more. Let it die... for the love of god, let it die!

haha, okay i sound like some drama queen. but i hope you get my point.

[HeatSeeker]

I can see that your sense of humour is also hampered by your closed mind. So sad. >:(

I find this a huge problem. A person gives his/her opinion which goes contrary to public opinion and they're labelled closed minded, a bigot, racist, etc. It's come to the point that people are afraid to give opinions for fear of being called a name. What has happened to people's rights to give their opinon in public without being attacked for it?

[d_jedi]

Both yours and NG's attitudes are necessary prerequisites for the affirmation of gay marriage. Without hedonism and radical individualism as a matter of policy, where individualism became a goal without regard for the position of indivudalism in the context of what is good for society, gay marriage would never have been allowed.
I don't follow your argument.

[poedua]

Minimum critieria: x number of signatures. If any group can assemble that many, then it should be taken to the polls. The Swiss minimum is 100,000, but they're a smaller country than us, so maybe 200,000? If any group gets that many signatures on any given issue, then it's probably worth going to the polls, eh?

The Swiss population is 7.489 million and Canada is 32.805 million, so 500,000 might or a bit over 1% of the population be more like it.

So, are you suggesting that if 500,000 people signed a petition in Canada for any issue, regardless of what it is - an issue... anything at all - it should be put to a national vote ? Is that what you're saying ?

[mbg]

I don't follow your argument.

It was necessary for invidualism to usurp the interests of society for gay marriage to be affirmed. Despite the fact that gay marriage is being pushed forward mostly by the governments leaning towards socialism who normally favour the interests of society over the individual, gay marriage is an artifact of individualism. Its passing says that marriage is no longer primarily about the interests of children, but about the interests of the adults. Marriage had been progressing in that way for awhile, but all of that "progress" was necessary for gay marriage to be permitted.

Without the general movement of society over the past few decades towards an at-all-costs pursuit of hedonism and individualism, gay marriage would not be able to get a foothold.

[Tiberius]

I find this a huge problem. A person gives his/her opinion which goes contrary to public opinion and they're labelled closed minded, a bigot, racist, etc. It's come to the point that people are afraid to give opinions for fear of being called a name. What has happened to people's rights to give their opinon in public without being attacked for it?

I respect your opinion on this (as I respect anyone's opinions)... however, if you would look back at the quote I was responding too...

"I'm amazed at what supporters of gay marriage will do to encourage the majority of Canadians to change our opinion on gay marriage..."

... you will see that my comment was intended to straighten out someone who was obviously choosing to mis-interpret my joking comment, and was attempting to insult and put down those who support gay marriage (and giving us waaaaaaay too much credit by insinuating we were running such a well orchestrated "campaign" to convert people).

Guys joking about how it's "hot" to see two attractive women kissing are NOT intending for or expecting people who don't support gay marriage to suddenly be "converted". Maybe seeing those girls kissing made him suddenly think gay marriage wasn't bad after all? (as if!) It wasn't going to change anyone's mind, he just wanted to make an insulting comment towards people who support gay marriage. Obviously his sense of humour was stunted in this situation and I pointed that out. If he disagrees with gay marriage, etc... he can say so... but to try to insinuate that the pictures posted actually are converting people to support gay marriage... that's laughable!

I guess the fact that "gay marriage" would mean that those hot women would NOT be with men at all (hence, we would not get hot lovin' action with those women) wasn't considered.... if anything, gay marriage is something straight men should NOT support if they want to be getting with hot women... bisexual women... a-ok... gay and marrying to one female partner... BAD! Very bad! All the hot women will be with women... and us guys will have to face the option of looking to guys derriers for our lovin'!

(once again... I hope people haven't checked their sense of humour at the door... ;) )

[poedua]

It's disheartening to see celebration of decadence and decline with such reverence.

But, I am far beyond the point where I expect better of Canadians.

I think 'decadence' may be more a more appropriate term in describing a triple fudge sundae than same-sex legislation.

And i agree, it's extremely disheartening to see the decline of support toward the attempts to reinforce and redefine what it means to be a just society in Canada and the increasing reverence given to intolerance and inequality.

Like you, I also expect better of canadians, and have been disappointed by the viceral reactions opposing this legislation- thank goodness - that for once - the politicians in Ottawa 'got it right' when it came to same sex legislation

[Txiasaeia]

The Swiss population is 7.489 million and Canada is 32.805 million, so 500,000 might or a bit over 1% of the population be more like it.

So, are you suggesting that if 500,000 people signed a petition in Canada for any issue, regardless of what it is - an issue... anything at all - it should be put to a national vote ? Is that what you're saying ?

If you can get 500,000 Canadians to not only agree to something but put their names on a piece of paper saying so, I don't see why not!

[poedua]

It was necessary for invidualism to usurp the interests of society for gay marriage to be affirmed. Despite the fact that gay marriage is being pushed forward mostly by the governments leaning towards socialism who normally favour the interests of society over the individual, gay marriage is an artifact of individualism. Its passing says that marriage is no longer primarily about the interests of children, but about the interests of the adults. Marriage had been progressing in that way for awhile, but all of that "progress" was necessary for gay marriage to be permitted.

Without the general movement of society over the past few decades towards an at-all-costs pursuit of hedonism and individualism, gay marriage would not be able to get a foothold.

How exactly does gay marriage ' usurp the interests of society' ?

"Its passing says that marriage is no longer primarily about the interests of children"...I thought marriage was a relationship b/n 2 adults whether they chose to or were able to have children or not - the primary motivation and justification of marriage is around ths issue of adults, I agree - sterile or not . What do children have to do with gay marriage ?

[poedua]

Minimum critieria: x number of signatures. If any group can assemble that many, then it should be taken to the polls. The Swiss minimum is 100,000, but they're a smaller country than us, so maybe 200,000? If any group gets that many signatures on any given issue, then it's probably worth going to the polls, eh?

And what is your view on how an MP should vote - in the event a referendum isn't an option ?

In line with his/her constituents wishes , the national majority or his/her party ?

[poedua]

If you can get 500,000 Canadians to not only agree to something but put their names on a piece of paper saying so, I don't see why not!

Even if the petition issue seeks to challenge / contravene the rulings of Canada's Supreme Court relating to issues of the charter and constitution ?

[Txiasaeia]

Even if the petition issue seeks to challenge / contravene the rulings of Canada's Supreme Court relating to issues of the charter and constitution ?

The Supreme Court refused to rule on this issue. Are you talking about my thoughts in abstraction, or as specifically related to this particular issue?

[stevethewheel]

I dug up some old polls. Only 2, it sure seemed like more than that when the debate was at its peak.


CBC 10 April 2005 52% favour no change 44% want change

National Post Survey Reveals 2/3 of Canadians Oppose Same-Sex “Marriage”
TORONTO, February 2, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The results of a National Post/Global National poll revealed today that fully 66 percent of Canadians are opposed to the legalization of same-sex “marriage,” while 68 percent responded favourably to the suggestion of a national plebiscite on the issue.

So as far as polls go, the will of the people was to not change the legislation.

No matter, Martin & all did what they thought was right (or left) anyway, and the legislation did change, and NG has shown us this poll that the will of the people (55%) is not to change the legislation (back).

Did a bunch of people come out of the closet to suddenly change popular opinion on the attitude to gay marriage? I think not.

That's my point about quoting polls where results for the 'winning' side are within 45-55% range. They just are not meaningful. And if you are going to use this sketchy data to support or bash political leaders please at least be consistent which in this case means for the first 7 months of the year Martin was a bum, and now Harper can be (on this issue)

[poedua]

The Supreme Court refused to rule on this issue. Are you talking about my thoughts in abstraction, or as specifically related to this particular issue?

Just a general question really....I don't know how things work in Switzerland, but i can only assume that the referendums to which they can avail themselves are subject to some sort of restrictions as to issues that are eligble ...such as being limited to issues 'pending' before a legislature ( as our same sex legislation was ) and not issues that have already been dealt with by the high courts.

The recent example in Florida over the right of the woman's husband to allow his wife to die atfer being declared ' brain dead' came to mind. Frenzied and emotional groups sought every option to have a feeding tube reinserted and chose, among other tactics , to vililfy judges and the judicial system's rulings that did not support them despite years of rulings that upheld the constitutionality of the right to die.

The 'rule of law' was seen ( by the supporters ) to be subservient to the will of the masses - or in this case, a lobby group ( pro life ) which caught the ear of Gov and Pres bush and the US congress - esatablsihing a very dangerous precedent in the process.

I'd be very concerned if referendums were tools of choice for special interest groups to interpret constitutions. Even if referendums got issues to a national vote and the national vote supported the issue in question - the the refrendum results should be FYI tools to a government and non-binding.

[Txiasaeia]

Just a general question really....I don't know how things work in Switzerland, but i can only assume that the referendums to which they can avail themselves are subject to some sort of restrictions as to issues that are eligble ...such as being limited to issues 'pending' before a legislature ( as our same sex legislation was ) and not issues that have already been dealt with by the high courts.

As long as they've got the votes, any issue can be voted on, even changes to their constitution. It's a semi-direct democracy, rather than the sham of a system that the rest of the west uses.

The 'rule of law' was seen ( by the supporters ) to be subservient to the will of the masses - or in this case, a lobby group ( pro life ) which caught the ear of Gov and Pres bush and the US congress - esatablsihing a very dangerous precedent in the process.

I'd be very concerned if referendums were tools of choice for special interest groups to interpret constitutions. Even if referendums got issues to a national vote and the national vote supported the issue in question - the the refrendum results should be FYI tools to a government and non-binding.

I'm not so sure why this is such a scary concept. Per capita, Switzerland has a higher GDP than most other western industrialised countries, and its crime rate is very, very low. Moreover, because the population is allowed to vote on popular initiatives, the laws in the country are directly representative of what the citizens want them to be. And yet, despite what you might think, they're as open a society as Canada is. Their system *works*, and their citizens are not only happy, but they appear to be confident in their political leaders, which is much more than I can say about Canada.

As a sidenote: one of the biggest scandals in Switzerland was when Kopp, a Federal Councilor (in between a minister and prime minister), learned that her husband was under investigation for money laundering, and called her husband up to say "They're on their way." This was in 1989, and there hasn't been anything more significant since. Wouldn't it be nice if the level of "corruption" in Canada was merely this, rather than governments misspending hundreds of millions of dollars on various unpopular initiatives?

[mbg]

How exactly does gay marriage ' usurp the interests of society' ?

"Its passing says that marriage is no longer primarily about the interests of children"...I thought marriage was a relationship b/n 2 adults whether they chose to or were able to have children or not - the primary motivation and justification of marriage is around ths issue of adults, I agree - sterile or not . What do children have to do with gay marriage ?

I simply said that marriage used to be a child-centred institution and that it is now an adult-centred institution (in the name of radical individualism). That transformation paved the way for gay marriage; the latter would not have been possible without it.

It sounds like you agree with me and furthermore are oblivious about the transformation having happened.

[poedua]

[QUOTE=Txiasaeia]As long as they've got the votes, any issue can be voted on, even changes to their constitution. It's a semi-direct democracy, rather than the sham of a system that the rest of the west uses.[QUOTE]



I'm not so sure why this is such a scary concept. Per capita, Switzerland has a higher GDP than most other western industrialised countries, and its crime rate is very, very low. Moreover, because the population is allowed to vote on popular initiatives, the laws in the country are directly representative of what the citizens want them to be. And yet, despite what you might think, they're as open a society as Canada is. Their system *works*, and their citizens are not only happy, but they appear to be confident in their political leaders, which is much more than I can say about Canada.
QUOTE]

Higher GDP is just great...but i'd like to be able to translate that prosperity stat to a real tangible benefit to ' day to day' living. On that front...I think I'l stick with good 'ol Canada.

The Human Development Index (HDI), published annually by the UN, ranks nations according to their citizens' quality of life rather than strictly by a nation's traditional economic figures ( GDP ) . The criteria for calculating rankings include life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income.

What they end up with is a list of the ' most liveable ' countries in the world for 2004.

#1 - Norway
#4 - Canada
#11 - Switzerland

I'm afraid your comment about the west having a " sham of a democracy " has hit a nerve - I'll get to that in a moment.

But on referendums, in a nutshell;

Democracy of any kind has not been without critics, and most criticisms of democracy in general are specifically relevant to the more “pure” forms of grassroots democracy. A quick survey of our schools, our businesses and families reveals that democracy is certainly not the preferred method for every decision making problem.

But, consider these three sayings:

“government by opinion poll is the surest way to wreck a country”
“a camel is a horse designed by a committees( referendums ?? ) ”
“we don’t need democracy, we need someone who can make the trains run on time”
“the IQ of a democracy is always 100, I would rather leave the decisions to the experts.”

Opinion polls are everywhere in politics, but they fail to show that citizens are willing to make sacrifices or reconcile contradictory wants, therefore we need strong leaders who can be responsible and make the difficult choices. Typical public opinion polls will state that voters want both lower taxes and higher services. Voters will claim to want more freedom but also more security. Referendums are just as likely to bring out the selfishness or xenophobia as they are to bring out the public spirit.

So, I'd submit that the Swiss government can't make difficult choices and in doing so, shows no leadership - thus referendums.

This lack of leadership and your ' sham' democracy comment is also what hit a nerve in me.

First, I get very defensive when anyone even tries to even remotely suggest that any other country - especially Switzerland - holds a candle to Canada , GDP or otherwise , - in any way.

Like I've heard it said - " deeds speak "- back in WW II - Switzerland sat on the fence - I think they call it bering "neutral".

Meanwhile, Canada sent it's young men all over Europe to fight Hitler - to leave our countries shores to fight oversees to defend other countries' ( i.e Holland ) freedom.

My uncle is buried in a Canadian War Cemetary in Italy near Ortona where he died doing what the Swiss refused to do - fight the Germans.

While young Canadian men were dropping like flies at the hands of the Germans, it has been alleged that the Swiss government was 'collaborating' with the Nazis. I'm sure the Swiss were happy with their political leaders then just as you say they are now - sorry, I'll take Canada - crappy politicians and all.

And so, this " sham of a system of demoracy " we have in the west as you call it and the democracy the Swiss enjoy today is at the expense of the blood my uncle and many other Canadians shed on your behalf - so while you may think the form of democracy is so great in Switzerland - you only have it because of the sacrifice made by Canadians, Americans, British etc. in WW II.

Refrendums don't usually embrace sacrifices ( i.e to fight in War II like Canada did )- the Swiss in WW II are proof of that. And that same ack of courageous leadership from WW II manifests itself in the refrendums that seem to run Switzerland today.

[poedua]

I simply said that marriage used to be a child-centred institution and that it is now an adult-centred institution (in the name of radical individualism). That transformation paved the way for gay marriage; the latter would not have been possible without it.

It sounds like you agree with me and furthermore are oblivious about the transformation having happened.

Hardly oblivious. Granted, I'm not the brightest person in the world, but I'd suggest either 'unclear', 'confused' or even ' puzzled ' as possibly more suitable words - thus my questions.

But, you're right. Marriage being soley a child - based institution is a thing of the past - perhaps simply saying marriage now also includes 'non-child based 'unions is the most accurate statement of fact.

I'm not certain how attributing the possible origins of this new reality of same sex marriage to a more prevalent individualism or hedonism etc. etc. in society today is relevant- any more than one could easily argue that the evloution of same sex marriage legislation is a stong indication of the progress toward a truly enlightened, open and mature society. The fact is , regardless of how the reality came to be, it's here, the 'why's' don't seem to matter anymore in my view.

As with most things, change takes place whether we like it or not.

[NG]

Actually, it was 55% in favour of keeping gay marriage. That's within the 45-55% range I was talking about. Use your head.

Your post had implied 45% for something 55% against. or vise versa. However it's besides the point. It's over. You've lost. It's legal. It will continue to remain legal. The next step will be the legalization of triad marriages. :)

[Txiasaeia]

This lack of leadership and your ' sham' democracy comment is also what hit a nerve in me.

First, I get very defensive when anyone even tries to even remotely suggest that any other country - especially Switzerland - holds a candle to Canada , GDP or otherwise , - in any way.

Like I've heard it said - " deeds speak "- back in WW II - Switzerland sat on the fence - I think they call it bering "neutral".

And what would you have preferred? Look at the effects of WWII on occupied France, for example. They did what they had to do to survive; the alternatives to being neutral were collaborating (Vichy France) or being ground to dust under the Nazi war machine.

Meanwhile, Canada sent it's young men all over Europe to fight Hitler - to leave our countries shores to fight oversees to defend other countries' ( i.e Holland ) freedom.

My uncle is buried in a Canadian War Cemetary in Italy near Ortona where he died doing what the Swiss refused to do - fight the Germans.

While young Canadian men were dropping like flies at the hands of the Germans, it has been alleged that the Swiss government was 'collaborating' with the Nazis. I'm sure the Swiss were happy with their political leaders then just as you say they are now - sorry, I'll take Canada - crappy politicians and all.

They had to make concessions to Germany in order to stay out of the war, true, but as I said, they felt that this was their only alternative. The reality of the situation is much more complex than can be summed up in a single post.

And so, this " sham of a system of demoracy " we have in the west as you call it and the democracy the Swiss enjoy today is at the expense of the blood my uncle and many other Canadians shed on your behalf - so while you may think the form of democracy is so great in Switzerland - you only have it because of the sacrifice made by Canadians, Americans, British etc. in WW II.

Canada today is *much* different than Canada of WWII. What's your point about your uncle dying in the war? Do you really think that you were the only ones who lost relatives to it? An entire branch of my family was wiped out when the Jews were sent to the death camps, not to mention my Canadian relatives who died or who were injured in the war. They fought and died for Canada of the 40s, and let me tell you, the relatives of mine (who are left, anyway) who fought in WWII are the most vocal about how ticked off they are about what's going on in Canada today.

Finally, yes, I do think that Switzerland has a better system, regardless of who "saved" them in WWII (they were neutral, remember?) I can make the claim that their system is better than ours regardless of who saved whom.

Refrendums don't usually embrace sacrifices ( i.e to fight in War II like Canada did )- the Swiss in WW II are proof of that. And that same ack of courageous leadership from WW II manifests itself in the refrendums that seem to run Switzerland today.

From this it's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. What referendums in Switzerland, do tell, are you specifically talking about? What "lack of courageous leadership" in Switzerland are you referring to? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you're just throwing statements around without actually knowing anything about the situation over there.

And are you really saying that the courage that Canadians made manifest in WWII is reflected in today's Liberal government, the one that has spent millions of dollars on lining their friend's pockets in the sponsorship scandal, and the one that's spent millions of dollars on a gun registry that's absolutely pointless? I would hardly call Martin to be a "courageous leader," what with all that's gone wrong under his watch (even discounting the gay marriage issue); after all, he was the minister of finances while the Liberal party was slipping millions of dollars to liberal-friendly ad execs in Quebec! That sounds to me a lot more like "collaboration" than "courage."

Face it: the Canadian system is rife with corruption. Veterans in Canada are more upset with the country than I am, so I'm not sure you should be bringing up the issue as a point in your favour.

[NG]

From this it's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.

People are grumpy they lost the same sex marriage battle. I shudder think how angry they'll be when we legalize triad marriages :)

[Txiasaeia]

People are grumpy they lost the same sex marriage battle. I shudder think how angry they'll be when we legalize triad marriages :)

"Grumpy" would be the right word ;)

[mbg]

I'm not certain how attributing the possible origins of this new reality of same sex marriage to a more prevalent individualism or hedonism etc. etc. in society today is relevant- any more than one could easily argue that the evloution of same sex marriage legislation is a stong indication of the progress toward a truly enlightened, open and mature society.

Well, I'll have to stop at this point. I can't see it the same way that you do. I don't see present-day society as more enlightened or mature than society of the past, but I agree it is certainly more open.

The fact is , regardless of how the reality came to be, it's here, the 'why's' don't seem to matter anymore in my view.

As with most things, change takes place whether we like it or not.

We could try a bit harder to make the change GOOD, though :)

[stevethewheel]

People are grumpy they lost the same sex marriage battle. I shudder think how angry they'll be when we legalize triad marriages :)


Heh. I see grumpy losers and salt-in-the-wound winners. I shudder to think how many pounds of salt will be spread when triad marriages are approved :)

[NG]

Heh. I see grumpy losers and salt-in-the-wound winners. You tell me who is behaving right here?

Harper is the one who propelled this into a continual debate. This will continue to be an issue against the Conservatives until Stephen and his moral right wing agenda is ousted from the Alliance Cons and they finally decide to be come "Red Tories" and become a party that has a viable chance at being elected.

[poedua]

And what would you have preferred? Look at the effects of WWII on occupied France, for example. They did what they had to do to survive; the alternatives to being neutral were collaborating (Vichy France) or being ground to dust under the Nazi war machine.



They had to make concessions to Germany in order to stay out of the war, true, but as I said, they felt that this was their only alternative. The reality of the situation is much more complex than can be summed up in a single post.



Canada today is *much* different than Canada of WWII. What's your point about your uncle dying in the war? Do you really think that you were the only ones who lost relatives to it? An entire branch of my family was wiped out when the Jews were sent to the death camps, not to mention my Canadian relatives who died or who were injured in the war. They fought and died for Canada of the 40s, and let me tell you, the relatives of mine (who are left, anyway) who fought in WWII are the most vocal about how ticked off they are about what's going on in Canada today.

Finally, yes, I do think that Switzerland has a better system, regardless of who "saved" them in WWII (they were neutral, remember?) I can make the claim that their system is better than ours regardless of who saved whom.



From this it's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. What referendums in Switzerland, do tell, are you specifically talking about? What "lack of courageous leadership" in Switzerland are you referring to? I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you're just throwing statements around without actually knowing anything about the situation over there.

And are you really saying that the courage that Canadians made manifest in WWII is reflected in today's Liberal government, the one that has spent millions of dollars on lining their friend's pockets in the sponsorship scandal, and the one that's spent millions of dollars on a gun registry that's absolutely pointless? I would hardly call Martin to be a "courageous leader," what with all that's gone wrong under his watch (even discounting the gay marriage issue); after all, he was the minister of finances while the Liberal party was slipping millions of dollars to liberal-friendly ad execs in Quebec! That sounds to me a lot more like "collaboration" than "courage."

Face it: the Canadian system is rife with corruption. Veterans in Canada are more upset with the country than I am, so I'm not sure you should be bringing up the issue as a point in your favour.

You brought up the referendum/ Switzerland link when you touted what a " workable ' system it is in Switzerland, in response to my comment that i was uncomfortable with the government by referendum approach. I didn't draw upon the Swiss/ referendum link intitially , but since you did and put it front and center as the one of the strengths of you demoracry, i commented further on the topic.

That's why I included my general comments on referendums, by using referendums as a matter of government policy, sugggsting that the referendum approah to governing a country as being contary to what I defined as an indication of leadership or courage in government - making difficult decisons - unlike Canada.

So, I'm speaking of an entire political system based on institutionalized use of referendums as a means of governing - not one or 2 ' specific' referendums. It's my view that this governing by consensus public opinion is devoid of running a country with any sort of leadership and that leadership means having the courage to make difficult decisions. In my view, a referendum based government like that of the Swiss, is not a courageuos way to govern - and may be a reason Canada ranks #4 not 11th - why do you think Swiss are at #11 ?

As for corruption in government - it's been in place in Canada since confederation, it's in the U.S., it's in Britian , Switzerland, Germany etc. etc. - that point is a meaningless one for differentiating governments.

On WW II.

I'm not drawing any comparison's to Liberals and WW II - that's insane - I'm defending a cheap shot put against our western democracy - I'm comparing Canadians/ Americans western democracy, warts and all , to the Swiss style of demcracy.

In my opinion, any person who defends the democratic system that ' works' -from a country that didn't have the guts to fight for and defend democracy in WW II- and had to rely on other countries to fight their battles for them, or worse yet, stood by neutral ' doing nothing' while all kinds of Nazi initiated horrors were taking place around them - well, they have no credibility with me whatsoever.

You're right - people of all nationalities died - like my uncle in Italy. The difference is he went over there to fight 'willingly' on foreign soil to save other countries and to try and stop all those other civilians as you mentioned from being killed in the war. And the big difference is, Canada , as a government, stood up to the plate and declared war and and ' walked the talk ' to defend our way of life here in Cananda.

I'm sure indvidual Swiss citizens fought the Germans and lost their lives too during the war - they had courage. The Swiss government catagorically did not.

Switzerland was gutless and cowardly during WW II in my view.

They stood by ' neutral ' during WW II and did nothing to fight or resist the Nazis in any meaningful way - a shameful legacy it shall have to bear for generations to come.

You said Switerland's only alternative was to capitulate ? No other alternatives ? Are you kidding me ????????

Here's an alternative ( a favorite among the Allies ) - FIGHT !

Fight for what you believe in or stand for - perhaps i've answered my own question as to why the Swiss didn't fight.

Thank God Churchill didn't think like the Swiss - never surrender I think Churchill said,,,,remember ????? Where would we be today if the Swiss had been in charge of the Allied campaign ?? - wearing lederhose and buying schnapps at the corner store ..one could only imagine.

Switzerland was to actually allegedly to have collaborated with the Nazis - that says it all for me.

It seems there is one thing the Swiss government didn't get in WW II - that freedom and fighting tyranny is worth fighting and dying for. But if you say the Swiss way to survive a war is to cower like a frightened kitten and ' co-operate' with the enemy, well then, all i can say, I'd rather be dead Canadian like my uncle than to be living as a coward like the Swiss government would have had him be.

So, it's against this historical backdrop of Switzerland's cowardice, that when any person has the gall to call the western democratic system ( such as canada's ) that saved Switzerland from the Nazis a " sham " - well it doesn't wash with me.

Say what what you want about the Liberals, Tories, NDP and Canadian politics / government in general - whether its' provincially ( the NDP Social Contract in Ontario ), or Federally ( Tory - GST , Liberals saying 'No' to Iraq & the US ) - we may not have all liked what they did, but they all govern with leadership and courage and for that - i'm proud to be a Canadian and consider myself blessed i'm not under a Swiss government.

[poedua]

Harper is the one who propelled this into a continual debate. This will continue to be an issue against the Conservatives until Stephen and his moral right wing agenda is ousted from the Alliance Cons and they finally decide to be come "Red Tories" and become a party that has a viable chance at being elected.
I'd agree with you.

I think that' the tories have fallen prey to dwelling/ relying on some of the same rhetorical attacks upon liberal policies/ mis-steps as opposition party's before them have - to get the attention of Canadians.

A more centered Tory party that is delivering a clear and distinct message/ approach of a better way 'forward' for the country, I think, would be better received by Canadians.

Frankly, I'd like to see the Tories communicate a clear optimistic approach to a future govrnment focusing on what the Toires have to offer, how their vision is different as opposed to continually attacking the stumbling Liberals, without some indication of the alternative they offer.

If Harper can't get that kind of message across, it may be time for a new leader - otherwise they have no chance

[stevethewheel]

Wasn't Switzerland denied an army based on their ability to fight so effectively for hire? Doesn't sound cowardly to me. Sounds like the rest of the world got scared of them.

[poedua]

Wasn't Switzerland denied an army based on their ability to fight so effectively for hire? Doesn't sound cowardly to me. Sounds like the rest of the world got scared of them.

The world ...................scared of Switerzland.

I stand corrected - perhaps that's why Germany decided not to take them on in WW II and collaborate with them instead.

[Txiasaeia]

You brought up the referendum/ Switzerland link when you touted what a " workable ' system it is in Switzerland, in response to my comment that i was uncomfortable with the government by referendum approach. I didn't draw upon the Swiss/ referendum link intitially , but since you did and put it front and center as the one of the strengths of you demoracry, i commented further on the topic...

I'm not drawing any comparison's to Liberals and WW II - that's insane - I'm defending a cheap shot put against our western democracy - I'm comparing Canadians/ Americans western democracy, warts and all , to the Swiss style of demcracy.

In my opinion, any person who defends the democratic system that ' works' -from a country that didn't have the guts to fight for and defend democracy in WW II- and had to rely on other countries to fight their battles for them, or worse yet, stood by neutral ' doing nothing' while all kinds of Nazi initiated horrors were taking place around them - well, they have no credibility with me whatsoever...

I don't know how you can claim that the Swiss model isn't workable based on the fact that they were neutral in WWII, which is what you're claiming. I'm also not sure why you'd trust elected representatives more than you would your fellow countrymen. Irregardless of what happened in WWII, a direct or semi-direct democracy is the best way of assuring that the will of the people, not politicians, is followed. If you'd have done some reading, you'd realise that Switzerland has almost zero corruption in their current or past governments. Can Canada say the same thing? No.

By definition, since Switzerland was neutral, then nobody was fighting their battles for them; no matter who would have won, they would have stood behind their neutrality. And, in fact, they *did* provide a haven for war refugees, including some Jews; the fact that they turned away other Jews was no more racist than the policies of nearly every other country in the world at the time.

At any rate, claiming that a governmental model doesn't work because of the actions of a past government is completely ridiculous. By your reasoning, because of the atrocious manner in which the US dealt with aboriginal peoples, US-style democracy is faulty. Does that make any sense? Of course not! I don't know where you're getting your reasoning from, but it makes absolutely no sense. I get the impression that you really don't know anything about semi-direct or direct democracies, nor about the Swiss government (I noticed you didn't mention any specific complaints about the governmental model beyond what I've brought to the discussion), so perhaps before you continue to criticise the model, you'd care to read up a bit more on it? Without any specific comments beyond "Switzerland's model sucks because they were neutral in WWII," I'm afraid there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

[mbg]

Harper is the one who propelled this into a continual debate. This will continue to be an issue against the Conservatives until Stephen and his moral right wing agenda is ousted from the Alliance Cons and they finally decide to be come "Red Tories" and become a party that has a viable chance at being elected.

"Red Tory" well describes Paul Martin -- low taxes, low morals... so I hope they don't go that way. I would like a party with SOME moral stature to remain in the house, if only to raise important issues from that position as leader of the opposition.

[NG]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/20/samesex050720.html

Passed in senate today.

[stevethewheel]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/20/samesex050720.html

Passed in senate today.


Ah so that makes you a senate supporter. Funny I didn't think you would support that kind of goverment appendage.

(Relax man, I'm just having fun with you. I am so glad to see this thing finished)

[NG]

Ah so that makes you a senate supporter. Funny I didn't think you would support that kind of goverment appendage.

(Relax man, I'm just having fun with you. I am so glad to see this thing finished)

LMAO. No no. I'm cool. Oddly enough I'm torn on the senate. One side of me hates to see government meddled with since it seems to work fine enough but the other side of me don't like it when they hold back laws which the house has passed.

Kinda how I feel about proportional representation I guess. Perhaps it's a good thing...but I dunno...seems like a big change in elected leadership.

[NG]

"Red Tory" well describes Paul Martin -- low taxes, low morals... so I hope they don't go that way. I would like a party with SOME moral stature to remain in the house, if only to raise important issues from that position as leader of the opposition.

Saying a Red Tory has low morals is up for debate. I know I'd dissent.

[Ferman]

Seriously. Gay marriage instutionalized lesbianism. Once it's thought of as common and natural our gf's will be more into just trying it for kicks once and awhile...and...if we're good...we can watch :D

Trust me guys - It's worked for me ;)

And if she's really good, you'll end up losing your girlfriend, and you'll be spending some time with the other woman's boyfriend :-0

Every time I see gays kissing on the evening news, they're always the ugly ones.

[d_jedi]

Saying a Red Tory has low morals is up for debate. I know I'd dissent.
Well, if Paul Martin and Belinda Stronach are considered Red Tories.. I think that fits :D

[Prometheus]

Passed in senate today.

You mean the Liberal dominated (rewarded) Senate...