--> Getting It Right: What is the key issue of this Federal Election?

Monday, December 12, 2005

What is the key issue of this Federal Election?

Do you think it's health care? Day care? Cancer care? Marriage? The economy? Crime (Liberal, that is)? Gun bans? Tell me what you think the burning issues are - and, of course, what you would do to solve them.


At 11:25 p.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Not so much what the government gives but rather to operate itself from democracy and to protect it's citizens from real harm.However the government should allow society to run itself not politically correct it.Churches can teach good morals and schools can teach history plus critical thinking also moms and dads can also teach their kids too but not the government own ideology forced upon society. Extra Note:-Recently federal NDP leader Jack Layton sighn and announced a workers right to join a union-okay.But their should be also a wokers right not to join a union.Due to the fact unions are much political and many jobs where unions are all employees must join the union besides courts now can protect workers fair rights.Employees for fairness and democracy should be given the option of no or yes to joining unions not only they must.

At 11:58 p.m., Anonymous Larry said...

2nd Part:Of course a federal government should have some social programms but not to become mommy and daddy. As of now theirs too many Ministry's,we don't need a womens ministry this can be picked up in other ministry's.The Native ministry is too big,it's bigger than some other country's government.Marriage-the real meaning of the word marriage is:The formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife.Governments should not be changing the meaning of words.If homosexuals want a union simply start their own offial new name union.Some lesbians want a different union name than gays. Homosexuals have gays games,gay papers,gay only clubs,ect.,.No I don't hate homosexual people nor phobic of homosexuals.But pro traditional marriage people are defenders of marriage and defenders are usually more in the right than the attackers wanting to change the term and meaning of marriage. Big government usually wants and gets bigger governments with lots of regulations and taxes. Yes we need some government but a good government should attempt to get it's citizens as much as possible independant rather than dependant on government. Socialist governments give out lots of government programs but eventually this causes many to become dependant on government which socialist governments want because it gives them power.

At 1:27 a.m., Anonymous Larry said...

3rd and final comment here.Canada's democracy deficit must be fixed.Conservatives if upon elected government will improve this situation.Liberal Paul Martin said he would fix some during the last election campaign when elected he did not do any democracy fixing.Liberal-PM Paul Martin appoints: the Supreme Court Judges,Senators,G.G.,Provincial LG's.,Cabinet Ministers,Committees-People,ect., even the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is Liberal made from socialist 1960's liberal former PM-T.,.Basicly Canada is not the real Canada anymore or not much.Canada now mostly is only Liberal Land North.The federal Liberals run Canada not the citizens, this must change for Canadians sake and to run Canada not Liberal ideology run Canada which already started much and is gaining democracy knock down speed.

At 7:42 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Too much government
2. Time for change
3. Bad decisions by Liberals

At 7:56 p.m., Blogger redhead_pt said...

We change the meanings of words all the time so as to best reflect current social norms. We did it when we allowed women the right to vote, when blacks were made equal, and now, in recognizing homosexuals as equals under the law. Same-sex marriage allows for equality under the law, bottom line. Straight people are not barred from entry into any gay club. In fact, I know many straight males who come with me to gay clubs. You’re welcome to come too!! We don’t exclude anyone from gay events, nor should the reverse be held true. Since you are opting for a separate legal framework under which to place same-sex marriage, I’m sure you would also be one to advocate for “black sections” at the back of the bus. How about women’s rights? Oh, I bet you think they have every right… to be your lawfully wedded housewife. Where do you draw the line. Why are some people more entitled to equal rights than others? My feelings on this subject are best said in this article I wrote to my local paper last year, when this topic was still open for debate and not already law.
“Religions make claim to a message of love notwithstanding, yet such loathing superiority in their attitude toward same-sex marriage is a display of anything but. Why would such institutions, so privileged as to enjoy protection under our constitution, seek to withhold those same freedoms to other minorities? The church was initially opposed to equality for blacks, women – something we now hold to be their undeniable right. Why should people who seek only to be treated as equals under the law endure such angst? Most of all, perhaps, from religious persons who make claim to supposed “higher moral character” which is naught more than a façade for their discrimination and hatred. On the political front, I do not even believe that a free vote is here in order. Conservatives may tout it as “the only democratic resolution,” yet true democracy goes well beyond the limits of majority rule, especially when dealing with minority rights. The essence of our democracy lies in our equality – irrespective of age, sex, religion, race, and in this case sexual orientation.
What is to fear by granting same-sex couples the right to marry? It does nothing to lessen neither the meaning nor quality of heterosexual unions. The meaning of marriage should be rooted in love and commitment and it is here that the age-old truism “love is blind” proves true - even in the case of gender. Homosexuals should not be refused that choice on account of that over which they have no control or choice.”
To “defend traditional marriage” as it has been said- which is naught more than a euphemism for homophobia- is inherently an attack on minority rights. You have no logical reasoning you half-wit ignoramus.

At 10:16 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

This about sums it up:


At 11:19 p.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Nonsense concerning people defending the traditional marriage institution as it is intended are homophobic.Marriage is a heterosexual concept combine with religion and is meant for uniting the two human genders which is the complete and full range of human genders or human beings.Secondly for natural procreation and a mom and a dad with and for kids unit. History,naturalism,Spirituality and tradition all confirm marriage is meant as exclusive union of a man and a woman. Oxford Dictionary Of Current English 3rd Edition states: Marriage is a formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife. Is the dictionary homophobic too-no.Labels, than pro homosexual marriage people are suffering from homomania. Not really but thats a excample of label nonsense, attempting to place guilt upon others during a debate-it's stupid. Redhead we simply dis agree on this issue. Have a great Christmas-2005!.

At 1:45 a.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Noticed the equality comment.A full equality society means government forced all the same, this is socialist-communism and borring-no thanks. Note: Girl Guides is exclusively for girls, theirs women only book clubs, Pride Days honoring homosexuals,seperate male and female public washrooms,sport teams male and female, ect.,.One time by mistake I went to a club which was a lesbian only night.I was not allowed in-no problem I left. For freedom and democracy some clubs-organizations if the members wish should be allowed the system they choose. Before many homosexual activists knocked the marriage institution down. A loving committed homosexual couple if be don't need marriage to be so. Again marriage is first and foremost intended for uniting the two human genders not only uniting one gender. Than secondly for natural procreation and a mom and a dad for and with kids. Kids should have a right too for a mom and a dad at least in most case's. Also a homosexual couple and heterosexual couple are in fact different science,religion and philosophy attest to this. Truth is the real marriage institution was never intended for homosexuals. This is not mean because it's the truth and the truth is not meant to hurt nor please it just is. If you want gay marriage vote federal-liberal and if they win than so be it. If homosexuals are really in pride of being homosexual than start a official gay or pride name union. Personally I believe on this issue governments should do civil unions and Churches and religions do the marriages. Unfortunately with a fed-liberal government they won't do civil unions only due to the fact they want power over society so they can liberal-ideology Canada their ways. Most socialist left-wingers like this.

At 7:01 p.m., Anonymous Sean P, potential CPC voter said...

I think that one of the issues is the unpopularity of the Conservatives in all of Eastern Canada.

The Conservatives are not even close to winning a seat in Quebec, and according to the polls, they will be lucky to hold on to what they have in the Atlantc, and will probably loose many of their seats in Ontario.

Harper should not have even opened the same sex marriage issue....Having done that, the Liberals will cruise to an easy re-election because Canadians will be worried about a so-called CPC hidden agenda

At 9:08 p.m., Blogger redhead_pt said...

Actually, communism is an economic classification, very distinct from the societal equality concerning human freedoms. I had a girl in my boy scouts group, and I’m sure that you could enroll your son in girl guides, if you are truly pained about this disparaging inequality. Male and female washrooms?? Men are horny pigs as it is… please! If you would like to lobby for co-ed restrooms on grounds of gender based discrimination, go for it, but that is not something I care all too much about. Democracy is about equality!!! Get it? Got it? Guess not… Many heterosexuals are in support of same-sex marriage. There is an enlightening study published on the issue, http://www.cric.ca/pdf_re/court_samesex/court_decision_en.pdf if you would like to see for yourself. For my purposes, it states that
“On same sex marriage, the public seems fairly divided; while a slim majority (53%) support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, 40% do not. Not surprisingly, support is much higher among young people: 70% of 18-24 years olds support same sex marriage, compared to only 32% of those over 55.”
Marriage is about uniting two people in the spirit of love. The sad reality is that many children have no parents at all, and would love nothing more than to be housed with parents of any sexuality who love them. Aside from the blatantly obvious, please tell me how “science,religion and philosophy attest” to the difference between homo and heterosexuals. Bill C-38 includes protection for religious groups, so you needn’t worry about churches being forced to marry same-sex couples. In Vancouver, there are many churches that would do so willingly (and I’m sure there are many more across the country). I’m not a socialist left-winger, but I’m certainly not a hate-mongering right-wing neo-con.

At 9:09 p.m., Blogger redhead_pt said...

Marriage is not an exclusively heterosexual construct. At it’s foundation, marriage is about love, plain and simply. Two genders do not fully encompass the natural range of sexuality. Secondly, 20% of married couples do not have children, this the result of a new demographic study. What’s more, many gay parents do have children through some twist of fate, who have been shown to grow up more compassionate and less discriminatory in their overall attitudes. There will always be a need for adopting parents. There is no evidence to suggest children raised by gays a more likely to become gay themselves. People are born gay, they don’t choose to become gay. Also note that dictionaries are regularly updated and tweaked, new words added, old words changed in their meaning. Meriam-Webster’s definition of “marriage” is as follows:
“1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage”
History – in ancient Greek civilization, fifth and fourth-century Athens to be exact, homosexuality was an integral part of social life. Native Americans, Ancient Egyptians, and Indians also have well-documented historical reference and praise for homosexuals.
Tradition – tradition is not one thing set in stone. It constantly adapts to the will of society. On the basis of tradition, we could deny rights to women, blacks, and any other minority group simply because we had done so forever before.
Naturalism - All mammalian species exhibit homosexual behaviors, and there is research that indicates a genetic basis for homosexuality.
Please define homomania. That is an ignorance-based belief, not a fact, and I could just as easily rebut by saying that you are suffering from homophobomania. Again, what direct loss is their to you personally upon allowing gays the right to marry. I am not attempting to shame you, but merely trying to point out the triviality of your argument. I wish you all the best this holiday season.

At 12:17 a.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Sean P,it's the Conservatives who made the decision and want to revisit the marriage issue because the issue was not really settled properly last time in parliament also many truely believe marriage means exclusive male and female union has does millions of Canadians still. Not only Mr.Harper. Nevertheless the Conservative Party does have a good political platform. The issue of revisiting marriage was announced some time ago it's not even a new decision. Martin and the Liberals voted before to protect the traditional marriage institution. Also many Liberals backbencher-liberals voted for traditional marriage too last time. Although Martin would not allow his cabinet MP's to vote yes for trational marriage, only no-not real democracy-parliament at all. / Note for redhead,I can dispute you still but choose not too, enough on the marriage issue here for now.

At 8:30 a.m., Blogger redhead_pt said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 8:31 a.m., Blogger redhead_pt said...

Again Larry, majority rule for minority rights?? Do you not see blatantly obvious conflictof interest!?! Democracy is about equality under the law,and nothing less

At 12:58 p.m., Blogger Erin Airton said...

...The Conservatives are not even close to winning a seat in Quebec, and according to the polls, they will be lucky to hold on to what they have in the Atlantc, and will probably loose many of their seats in Ontario....

This from Sean. Which isn't accurate if you look at the nightly tracking polls. The Tory numbers in Ontario are higher than this point in the campaign last time. Quebec is a problem which needs to be solved. Atlantic - expect status quo.

We have a constitution. It outlines certain rights and freedoms, limited by the impact that they have on others rights and freedoms.

Marriage is an artifical construct which, until now, has been the domain of men and women coming together to build family units. It, until recently, was never about love or sexuality. It was a building block of society.

Love is not tied to marriage. You can love and not be married. You can be married and not love (trust me on this one).

Marriage is NOT a right. Access to government programs on an equal basis IS a right in this country.

I suggest that government get out of the marriage business altogether and put it back in the hands of the churches (and other organizations) where it belongs.

A Catholic marriage can be Catholic. A Buddhist marriage can be buddhist. All protected under the umbrella of that lovely Charter.

At 8:35 p.m., Blogger redhead_pt said...

I will ask yet again, since you all seem hesitant (or unable) to come to a response. What would heterosexuals lose in granting same-sex couples the right to marriage? Bill C-38 has clauses for the protection of religious freedom. To be so pig-headed in protecting the traditional definition with the sole rationale of “it’s mine” is nothing less than a distasteful show of homophobia and discriminatory views. Marriage has always been about love and sexuality. What marriage have you ever been to where the vows exchanged had not some mention of love? There are legal rights associated with marriage, and it is very much a governmental affair. It is government that issues marriage certificates, not the churches. Churches have every right to deny marriage to same-sex couples, but many churches in this country are very progressive and accepting on this issue. As is most of the populus, for that matter!

“believing in a strong military and a traditional definition of marriage are not "narrow-minded ideologies", but rather values that most Canadians hold dear”
Most??? Ha! Misrepresenting the facts yet again Erin- it is becoming quite the habitual blunder on your part. Since you appear to have missed it, I had posted a link to study that outlines the stats. Some highlights: 53% of Canadians support same-sex marriage, and the numbers are skewed by age brackets. “70% of 18-24 years olds support same sex marriage, compared to only 32% of those over 55.” So as the years go on, and when the conservative seniors of an older era are no longer around, support can only rise. We need laws that reflect the times. So, either get with the program, or get out of the debate. This issue has long been put to rest, and there is no sense now in reviving it.

At 10:19 a.m., Blogger Erin Airton said...

I'm happy to play warring polls with you, if you think it will help you sleep better at night.

You must be done your exams now, if you are able to spend so much time on the internet!

Here's mine conducted after the Supreme Court decision:

Canadians were asked: “Do you support/oppose keeping the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman?” The survey commissioned by EMC and conducted by the Nordic Research Group found 59.8 per cent of Canadians support keeping the traditional definition of marriage. The survey interviewed 1023 Canadians by telephone from 11-16 December 2004 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 per cent.

I'm happy for you to debate on this site, but I ask you not to stoop to personal attacks. It isn't effective debating and it isn't tolerated here. I've asked you once before to maintain civility and I hope that I don't have to ask one more time.

At 1:41 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do I find out about mlm success Short but True ..If You want to quit talking about becoming successful and do something about it visit us at http://success444.com...


Post a Comment

<< Home