Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Lexilogio

Gay Marriage

You may be aware of the debates around gay marriage in some states in the US at the moment. This is in relation to the Maryland State Government ballot, which could legalise gay marriage.

The linebacker from the Baltimore Ravens (Baltimore is in Maryland), Brendon Ayanbadejo, spoke out in favour of gay marriage. Following that, Senator Emmert C Burns Jr, Senator for Maryland, wrote an open letter to Steve Biscotti, owner of the Ravens, and I quote:
Quote:
"I find it inconceivable that one of your players, Mr. Brendon Ayanbadejo, would publicly endorse Same-Sex marriage, specifically as a Ravens football player," Burns writes.
"I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football League Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employees and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing."


Now - if you are easily offended, particularly by "bad language", I suggest that you do not click on any further links in this post.

A Minnesota Vikings player, Chris Kluwe, has written an open letter to the Senator.

The letter is [url=http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-****monster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it]here[/url].
Shaker

 That was hilarious.

Interesting as always to see a member of one minority (who couldn't have married someone of a different skin colour in some parts of his country before 1967) telling another minority group who they can and can't marry.

Some people it seems are born without the irony gene.
trentvoyager

I think I'm going to print it and frame it. Better still post it on r and e so that they can all have a fit of the vapours.  
Leonard James

Well done that man! It would be nice to see his view supported by some of his football colleagues ... I'm sure most of them are sensible anough to agree with him..
Shaker

What I know about football of any kind in any country could be written on a gnat's toenails with room to spare for the Gettysburg Address and Eskimo Nell, but I know enough to be aware that homophobia is supposed to be a real problem in soccer in this country (the reason conventionally advanced for the absence of high-end gay footballers) and I can't imagine it's any better in American football and may even be worse.
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
What I know about football of any kind in any country could be written on a gnat's toenails with room to spare for the Gettysburg Address and Eskimo Nell, but I know enough to be aware that homophobia is supposed to be a real problem in soccer in this country (the reason conventionally advanced for the absence of high-end gay footballers) and I can't imagine it's any better in American football and may even be worse.

I'm sure you're right, mate! I'm also sure that the percentage of gay guys in sport is the same as in the population at large ... but fear keeps them closeted.
Shaker

The dearth of openly gay well-known sportmen and sportswomen is so anomalous compared to other sectors of society - there are some, such as Gareth Thomas, but they're few and far between to put it mildly - that there has to be something untoward going on that's preventing people from being open about their sexuality.

Quote:
According to an article in Sports Illustrated on 3 May 2010, Thomas was notable as the world's only then-current professional male athlete in a team sport who was openly gay
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
The dearth of openly gay well-known sportmen and sportswomen is so anomalous compared to other sectors of society - there are some, such as Gareth Thomas, but they're few and far between to put it mildly - that there has to be something untoward going on that's preventing people from being open about their sexuality.

Quote:
According to an article in Sports Illustrated on 3 May 2010, Thomas was notable as the world's only then-current professional male athlete in a team sport who was openly gay


It is clearly due to fear of reprisal, and that is a shameful situation in this informed world.

I wish ill to all the bigoted bastards who seek to maintain that fear ... and you know me well enough to be aware that I am not normally given to intolerance.
Shaker

In my not at all humble opinion there comes a time in life when, for the sake of the common and greater good, you just have to realise that intolerance against the intolerant and bigotry against the bigoted is the only thing that's going to drive progress.
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
In my not at all humble opinion there comes a time in life when, for the sake of the common and greater good, you just have to realise that intolerance against the intolerant and bigotry against the bigoted is the only thing that's going to drive progress.

I think you are right, Steve. I shall endeavour to overcome my natural aversion to upsetting people.
Powwow

"More problems for Hillary Clinton. The head of New York state's leading gay rights group described Hillary Clinton as a disappointment on same-sex marriage. Today, her husband Bill described her as a disappointment on opposite-sex marriage."   Jay Leno
IvyOwl

Quote:
I think you are right, Steve. I shall endeavour to overcome my natural aversion to upsetting people.


My language is much more forthright in the replies I compose in my head and are very much watered down by the time I've finished editing. Almost to the point of not being worth posting ....which is why I rarely do so.

Just one of the many things about myself that irritate me!

IO
Leonard James

IvyOwl wrote:
Quote:
I think you are right, Steve. I shall endeavour to overcome my natural aversion to upsetting people.


My language is much more forthright in the replies I compose in my head and are very much watered down by the time I've finished editing. Almost to the point of not being worth posting ....which is why I rarely do so.

Just one of the many things about myself that irritate me!

IO


Snap, Ivy! Except that I only refrain from posting when I think that nothing is going to be achieved ... and I am an eternal optimist!
cyberman

Chris Kluwe's letter is fantastic. Has the senator responded, do we know? Astonishing that a politician thought he could tell a football manager to instruct a player to follow a particular political line. Imagine Nick clegg writing to Alex Ferguson like that!
Powwow

How nice that you all are aware that there is opposition to gay marriage in the USA. It appears that they are not much different than you folks.

"We have for so long been persecuted ourselves that it seems like performing an unnecessary victory roll over a defeated enemy to demand that our perfectly satisfactory arrangement should be called 'marriage.' This shows a lack of toleration towards others who look on marriage as a holy sacrament between a man and woman."  openly gay spokesman for the UK Independence Party  David Coburn

A petition of the Muslim Council of Britain
"I disagree with the government's proposed re-defining of marriage. I fully support the long standing legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others."

Who would have thought?
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
How nice that you all are aware that there is opposition to gay marriage in the USA. It appears that they are not much different than you folks.


Ho hum, here we go again.

Powwow - no-one is saying that they are surprised to find opposition to gay marriage in the states. And no-one is saying that such oppostion does not exist here. So in digging out a quote from someone British who opposes gay marriage you have entirely wasted your time, I'm afraid.

The reason for the raised eyebrows and the combined mirth and outrage regarding the Senator's letter is (a) Our dismay that a politician feels it is right to try to muzzle someone in the way he did and (b) our amusement and admiration at Chris Whatsisname's reply.

The main point is (a).

Now, it is time for you to pretend you don't understand me, and call me stupid. Off you go...
Powwow

Council vilifies Christian member over her gay marriage stance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/r...ian-over-gay-marriage-stance.html
Powwow

Christian Marriage Conference in UK Banned for Opposition to Gay Marriage

http://www.colindye.com/2012/05/1...d-for-opposition-to-gay-marriage/
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
Council vilifies Christian member over her gay marriage stance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/r...ian-over-gay-marriage-stance.html


So, politcians want other politicians to be on message. That's all about politicians.

(a) That's completely different to politicians trying to muzzle non-political citizens.

But also

(b) What if it has happened here? If so, then that will be funny and outrageous too.

What point are you trying to make?
Powwow

So no freedom, no tolerance and no democracy if you oppose. Very telling!
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
So no freedom, no tolerance and no democracy if you oppose. Very telling!


What??

On this thread we have been saying that it is wrong to stop people expressing their views. What are you talking about?
Powwow

Minding your business as you all like to mind the American's.lol
Powwow

"...it is wrong to stop people from expressing their view."
lol, except if you are a green party councilor in the UK.
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
Minding your business as you all like to mind the American's.lol


Neither you nor we are Americans. The fact that the people in the story are Americans (the ones we like and the ones we don't) is neither here nor there.

Do you or do you not think it is wrong for the Senator in question to have attempted to muzzle the footballer in the way he did?

You do get into a little panic every time you see us talking about the country you wish you were from, don't you?

The story we have discussed here features 4 people. 2 footballers, 1 coach and 1 politician. The footballers have expressed a position I agree with. The coach I do not know much about. The politician I am critical of.

So I have criticised 1 out of 4 Americans in this affair. Is that OK with you?

pow wow wrote:
"...it is wrong to stop people from expressing their view."
lol, except if you are a green party councilor in the UK.

I really don't know why you are pretending not to understand that a political party should expect its own members to support its own manifesto, and why you are pretending that that has anything to do with the issues here. But I am not going to ask you because I know you would just create panicky smokecreens in order to avoid answering.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
How nice that you all are aware that there is opposition to gay marriage in the USA. It appears that they are not much different than you folks.

I doubt if anyone who manages to get themselves up in the morning and is capable of washing, dressing and feeding themselves is unaware that there's opposition to gay marriage in the USA: where the difference lies is that the last I heard 71%* of the British public fully support same-sex marriage. I don't know what the comparable figure is for the USA (not that you live there anyway: as far as I'm aware you're in Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal since the summer of 2005) but I doubt if it's that high. And the Government is committed to bringing in full same-sex marriage by 2015. So there's your difference right there.

*Source.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
So no freedom, no tolerance and no democracy if you oppose. Very telling!

The only thing that's telling is just how badly adrift from reality you are. On either side of the Atlantic, as far as I'm aware and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, anybody who opposes same-sex marriage is perfectly free to state their opposition in any terms they so choose. That's tolerance, democracy and free speech all rolled into one right there in front of your very eyes. If you don't like the idea of two people of the same gender getting married, you're perfectly free to say so. What you're not free to do is to prevent two people of the same sex from actually getting married, as the Government is now committed to making legal within a very few years. If you don't like this, you're entirely free to say you don't like this. What you can't get away with is saying that simply because you don't like it, other people can't avail themselves of it.

Of course, for someone of your persuasion the very fact that such people can be answered back - in other words, can be argued against, i.e. people of an opposing viewpoint can state their case too - is indicative of the absence of freedom, tolerance and democracy, quite in spite of the fact that the contrary point of view (and one that has majority public support in this country as well for that matter) is tolerance and democracy in action.
Powwow

No need to bristle, simply highlighting what's going on in your backyard. Some of you seem so obsessed with jumping all over Americans, that you miss the fun stiff at home.lol
Very good Shaker, yes same-sex marriage has been legal here since 05. The country hasn't fallen apart. Why would it? Marriage is pretty much meaningless these days. As my nephew insists, marriage is nothing at all.  A piece a paper but nothing more. Shame we have come to that.
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
As my nephew insists, marriage is nothing at all.  A piece a paper but nothing more. Shame we have come to that.


'We' haven't come to that.
Your nephew thinks it is no more than a piece of paper. I think it is much more than that.

My opinion doesn't get in his way. His opinion doesn't get in mine.

So if we have come to anything, I suppose we have come to a world where neither your nephew nor I are obliged to go along with views with which we disagree.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
No need to bristle

Who's bristling?
Quote:
simply highlighting what's going on in your backyard.

I'm quite well aware of what's going on in my back yard. Probably because I live in it.
Quote:
Some of you seem so obsessed with jumping all over Americans, that you miss the fun stiff at home.lol

Like the fact that - lamentably late and long overdue as it is - same-sex marriage will be made legal by 2015, you mean?
Quote:
Very good Shaker, yes same-sex marriage has been legal here since 05.

Excellent. Better late than never.
Quote:
The country hasn't fallen apart. Why would it?

Quite - why would it? Who threatened that it would, I wonder?
Quote:
Marriage is pretty much meaningless these days.

Is it? According to whom?
Quote:
As my nephew insists, marriage is nothing at all.  A piece a paper but nothing more. Shame we have come to that.

What exactly is a shame?
Powwow

Elizabeth Taylor promised life long fidelity and devotion to how many different men?lol
Our society has made marriage meaningless. So whatever, gay marriage is just as meaningless, cheap and easy.
Powwow

What I find amusing is the reaction to an African American democrat standing against same-sex marriage. It's almost as if you all know best where the African American's position ought to be and if it is not then you feel the need to pour on the scorn and ridicule. How dare a minority stand against!lol
Well, there are some gays opposed to same-sex marriage and they live in the UK. Good on them for not being influenced by polls.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Elizabeth Taylor promised life long fidelity and devotion to how many different men?lol

As many as she wanted to and was free so to do. All perfectly above board and legally, as far as I'm aware.

Oh ... "lol."
Quote:
Our society has made marriage meaningless.

Has it?
Quote:
So whatever, gay marriage is just as meaningless, cheap and easy.

So, on the assumption that this is actually true, there'll be no need for any opposition to it, will there?
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
What I find amusing is the reaction to an African American democrat standing against same-sex marriage.

I'm not remotely surprised that the irony of his doing so is lost on you.

Quote:
It's almost as if you all know best where the African American's position ought to be and if it is not then you feel the need to pour on the scorn and ridicule.

It's called free speech. People are entirely free to be bigoted, backward fucktards, and people who are not bigoted, backward fucktards are equally free to mock them for it. That's free speech: it works both ways, not just one way, and that's why it's a bitch.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
That's free speech: it works both ways, not just one way, and that's why it's a bitch.


I want a poster with that on it!
Lexilogio

I think the main point being made was that the Senator was suggesting a footballer had no right to express an opinion.

I disagree with that. I think they have every right to express an opinion.

I can fully appreciate that some politicians will find it uncomfortable, and irritating when a footballer (and I presume that these men are famous in the US) expresses an opinion directly contrary to their own views, and possibly beliefs. But that is no reason to demand that they have no right to speak.
Powwow

LOL. Being opposed to gay marriage does not mean a person is a bigot nor makes the person backward. Duh!
I see Shaker, if one is a minority you must favour same-sex marriage, otherwise Shaker will resort names and insults. You are an intolerant bigot Skaker.
Powwow

Yes Lexi, just as the green party councilor expressed hers.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
LOL. Being opposed to gay marriage does not mean a person is a bigot nor makes the person backward. Duh!
I see Shaker, if one is a minority you must favour same-sex marriage, otherwise Shaker will resort names and insults. You are an intolerant bigot Skaker.


I am coming increasingly to the conclusion that that is exactly want it means. I have never seen such convoluted reasoning (sic) as is put forward by those opposed to gay marriage in this country.

In all the studies that are done marriage is proven to be the most beneficial arrangements for humans  to live in. It improves their life expectancy, health, mental well being. And yet, churches in particular, and some of their supporters would withhold those benefits for what reason ?

Oh marriage has always been one man one woman. Trying telling that to Muslims or Mormons.

Or howabout it will devalue the meaning of marriage.....yea like straight people haven't done that all by themselves.

Oh yea and the latest brilliant piece of reasoning from a Christian was that it would legitimise certain "practices".... come come don't be shy you mean anal sex.......oops but wait some straight people do that....and some gay people don't. Epic fail. Morons.

Please give me one valid reason why civil marriage for gay people should not be permitted.
Powwow

trent,
Today marriage is meaningless. It is not worth the vows nor the paper.  Chimps can marry a duck for all I care anymore. But I will ridicule and label as bigots, those that continue to target those opposed. What's good for the goose...
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
trent,
Today marriage is meaningless. It is not worth the vows nor the paper.  Chimps can marry a duck for all I care anymore. But I will ridicule and label as bigots, those that continue to target those opposed. What's good for the goose...


That makes no sense. Your very comment "those that target those opposed" shows clearly which side you are on. Despite your chimps and ducks comment...... and if you really are not bothered as you think marriage is meaningless....then just why are you bothering to waste precious minutes of your life even discussing it.

Your whole position is transparent and not really convincing.
Powwow

Do I believe in traditional marriage? You betcha. Do I believe we have devalued marriage to the point where it means nothing any more? You betcha. Do I get fed up with the constant witch hunt carried out by the likes of Trent? Absolutely. Trent you're transparent, why not do more gardening and cut out the obsessive little campaign of hate you wage against those opposed to same-sex marriage? You march in your parade, crying out for tolerance and equality, tolerance and equality for those that agree with Trent. If you do not march in the Trent parade, count on him some where down the line labeling you a bigot.
The day you stop your pathetic witch hunts and tirades against those oppose to same-sex, is the day I will post no more about it.
Powwow

UK churches be prepared for what you will soon face. Bishop Henry of my city was charged with human rights violations and threatened with litigation.
What was the Bishop's crime? He sent out a letter to his churches explaining the traditional Catholic teachings on marriage. That's it! Will the activists follow up with attempts to force their unions in churches opposed? Yes of course. Intimidation and threats will come to you like they are here.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
Do I believe in traditional marriage? You betcha. Do I believe we have devalued marriage to the point where it means nothing any more? You betcha. Do I get fed up with the constant witch hunt carried out by the likes of Trent? Absolutely. Trent you're transparent, why not do more gardening and cut out the obsessive little campaign of hate you wage against those opposed to same-sex marriage? You march in your parade, crying out for tolerance and equality, tolerance and equality for those that agree with Trent. If you do not march in the Trent parade, count on him some where down the line labeling you a bigot.
The day you stop your pathetic witch hunts and tirades against those oppose to same-sex, is the day I will post no more about it.


Witch hunt ?

Please show me where I have indulged in anything like a witch hunt.

I have asked for valid objections to gay civil marriage.

You have provided none.

As for tirades, thanks for showing me how to compose one. You funny little man.
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
UK churches be prepared for what you will soon face. Bishop Henry of my city was charged with human rights violations and threatened with litigation.
What was the Bishop's crime? He sent out a letter to his churches explaining the traditional Catholic teachings on marriage. That's it! Will the activists follow up with attempts to force their unions in churches opposed? Yes of course. Intimidation and threats will come to you like they are here.


And as for this....our Catholic churches all read out a letter opposing gay marriage. No prosecutions. Just some Catholics wondering what the fuss was about, as they too are in favour of gay marriage.
Lexilogio

To me, gay marriage is sort of irrelevant, in that if two people of the same gender wish to marry - I don't see that it would have any impact on me at all. Possibly a selfish take on it - but hey.

Marrying in church - well, no. That would remove the freedom of religious belief. It should be for the church to decide. That said, I would support any motion to permit gay marriage in my church.

Hmm. I used to have strong reservations on gay marriage, and have become more accepting. My concerns were about any children living with the couple. I had strong concerns that they would be traumatised through bullying due to their circumstances. But that changed when I saw a documentary about a gay couple, male gay couple, who foster difficult male teenagers in New York. These guys were the most amazing parents - and turned the lives of these kids around, from crime to member of society. We need good parents for society. It would appear that the LGBT community an contribute to that.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
LOL. Being opposed to gay marriage does not mean a person is a bigot nor makes the person backward. Duh!

Yes it does, in my opinion. That's exactly what it means.
Quote:
I see Shaker, if one is a minority you must favour same-sex marriage, otherwise Shaker will resort names and insults.

I was just pointing out the irony - which, surprising nobody, you clearly missed - of a member of one minority shooting off his mouth about who should or rather shouldn't be allowed to marry when, until just 45 years ago, that individual couldn't have married somebody of a different ethnic group in vast swathes of his own country - and a few years earlier than that would have separate toilets, drinking fountains, schools, different sections on the bus ... well, different just about everything, in fact.  Emmert C. Burns was born in August 1940, which means that - though by accident of birth he was born in the right part of the USA - well within his adult lifetime, a few hundred miles south, people with the same colour skin as him were denied their civil rights for that very reason.

The lack of historical sense, let alone self-awareness, in such an individual is staggering.
Quote:
You are an intolerant bigot Skaker.

About intolerant bigots I am, absolutely, yes. Some people are amenable to reason, evidence and logic but plenty more simply are not and never will be, and with regard to such people I see no earthly reason not to fight bile with bile.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Do I believe in traditional marriage? You betcha. Do I believe we have devalued marriage to the point where it means nothing any more? You betcha. Do I get fed up with the constant witch hunt carried out by the likes of Trent? Absolutely. Trent you're transparent, why not do more gardening and cut out the obsessive little campaign of hate you wage against those opposed to same-sex marriage? You march in your parade, crying out for tolerance and equality, tolerance and equality for those that agree with Trent. If you do not march in the Trent parade, count on him some where down the line labeling you a bigot.
The day you stop your pathetic witch hunts and tirades against those oppose to same-sex, is the day I will post no more about it.

You seem to think that what you believe is in any way important to anyone other than you. It isn't. Despite your accusations to the contrary, you're perfectly free to believe whatever narrow, niggardly, mean-spirited, obnoxious, selfish, thoughtless bollocks that you please on any and every subject.

This right, however, doesn't give you the licence to dictate what others can and can't do. It doesn't mean that you can stand in the way of progress either. You also have the right to be left, along with your fellow travellers, on the wrong side of history.

I echo trent's request for one single, credible, valid reason for preventing civil same-sex marriage. This is rather important because I've been asking the anti brigade this question for years now. I must have asked literally dozens of people over the best part of a decade whenever the subject has arisen for an exact and specific account of how the marriage of two people of the same gender directly and materially affects them personally. Not a single one, not a single individual, has bothered to answer that question - the vast majority have simply run away from doing so. But hey, go ahead and give it a whirl: you could always be the first actually to give a simple answer to a simple question.
trentvoyager

Oh and one more thing - its funny how religious freedom only works one way on this issue.

There are a few Churches who want to carry out religious marriages but are specifically prevented from doing so by this proposed new law.

So how do you feel about THEIR religious freedoms being restricted Powwow ?

But then freedom of any sort only works one way in some peoples minds.
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
Yes Lexi, just as the green party councilor expressed hers.


Powwow, again with the green red herring.

This is a yes or no question. Please stop dodging it:

Do you think it is acceptable for a political party to ask elected members within their party to adhere to manifesto commitments?

Yes or no.
Powwow

Cyber,
So you believe the Tory and LibDem backbenches must NOT voice any difference of opinion from that being put forward from their front bench. Boy are you an intolerant little man!
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
So you believe the Tory and LibDem backbenches must NOT voice any difference of opinion from that being put forward from their front bench.


No, I do not believe that. I believe they are entitled to say whatever they wish. I also believe that their party leaders are entitled to ask them to stick to party promises.

pow wow wrote:
Boy are you an intolerant little man!


No I am not. I believe they are entitled to say whatever they wish. Do grow up.
Powwow

So how do your municipal council's work over your way Cyber? Over here a political party does NOT run in municipal elections. An alderman can belong to what ever party but they are running as an independent, and represent their ward. Political parties have no say nor power in our city halls. There is NO party line that must be followed in council chambers. For example, the socialist party has no say on how a socialist alderman might vote on say LRT expansion in my city. Now this alderman would have to step into provincial or federal politics to come under the jackboot of the socialist NDP party.
Oh. and our federal green party leader, Liz May, happens to be pro-life and once worked for a former conservative prime minister when he was in office. Now her pro-life position has got to be at odds with most of her party members.lol
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
So how do your municipal council's work over your way Cyber? Over here a political party does NOT run in municipal elections. An alderman can belong to what ever party but they are running as an independent, and represent their ward. Political parties have no say nor power in our city halls. There is NO party line that must be followed in council chambers. For example, the socialist party has no say on how a socialist alderman might vote on say LRT expansion in my city. Now this alderman would have to step into provincial or federal politics to come under the jackboot of the socialist NDP party.


Well, if we had been discussing anything happening in Canada, there is a chance some of that information might have been relevant.

But we're not, so it isn't.

In the UK, most local council elected members are party members. They run as party members and a council is deemed to be in control of this or that council. There are independents in councils and in Parliament, but they are a minority and are irrelevant to this matter.
Powwow

Are you saying that your mayors are decided by which party has the most council seats? Over here we vote for the mayor. We could have a Liberal Mayor and the rest of the council could be members of the Conservative party of Canada.
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
Are you saying that your mayors are decided by which party has the most council seats?


No. I am saying "n the UK, most local council elected members are party members. They run as party members and a council is deemed to be in control of this or that council. There are independents in councils and in Parliament, but they are a minority and are irrelevant to this matter."
Powwow

So a political party controls the agenda of your councils and if the councilor is a party member,  they are required to vote for the party agenda.Really? I hate the sound of that. Sounds like your municipalities are run exactly the same as Westminister is run. That's too bad.
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
So a political party controls the agenda of your councils and if the councilor is a party member,  they are required to vote for the party agenda.Really? I hate the sound of that. Sounds like your municipalities are run exactly the same as Westminister is run. That's too bad.


So, in Canada, where there are political parties (so ignoring for a moment the places where there aren't) - where there are political parties, what happens if members of a party in elected office vote or speak in a way which is entirely at odds with that party's policies and promises?

So, say an MP or whatever from a party which you like had been elected on a manifesto of low taxes and minimal governmental interference. And then say this guy started making speeches saying "we should nationalise the wheat business, raise taxes to 70% for the rich, and provide a free living to anyone who doesn't fancy working" - would you expect his party to have anything to say about that?

Try not to dodge the question.
Powwow

So sticking with how your municipal governments work, I really doubt that that green party lady was voted in on the greens same-sex marriage position. I mean, get real dude. Please tell me do the political parties control your municipalities or are the councilors free in voting and have the freedom to voice there personal positions. Are your municipal governments just smaller Westministers?
cyberman

Would you be kind enough to answer my question?
Powwow

When your political parties make their platforms or amend them and the platform or changes get voted on, what are you doing with those that voted against? Are you expelling them from the party or are you allowing them to remain as long as they allow you to gag them? Are you telling me that your municipalities are run on party platforms?
cyberman

Would you be kind enough to answer my question?
Powwow

In your House of Commons would a vote against same-sex marriage cause the downfall of a government? Would it be a confidence vote? Things like this should not be whipped. Do your political parties control the agendas of your municipal governments?
cyberman

Would you be kind enough to answer my question, please?
Powwow

Did that green party councilor run around before the election getting people to vote for by saying she's in favour of same-sex marriage? I believe politicians should keep their promises. Our prime minister promised to scrape the wheat board and the long gun registry, he promised not to go any where near the same-sex and abortion issues. He has kept to those promises.
Now cyber quit trying to mix the issues, your municipal councilors will not be making same-sex laws. I believe that will be done at Westminister.lol
cyberman

I wonder whether you would be kind enough to answer my question, please.
Powwow

I did you goof. Politicians must stick to their promises. You run on lowering taxes you better lower them or suffer the fate of Bush senior. I don't believe that green party councilor ran for a seat on the promise of same-sex marriage.lol
cyberman

My question was about whether you think that, in Canada, the party leadership would have something to say about it. you have not answered that. You 'goof'.
Powwow

If they lied to the electorate and were voted in and sitting in caucus spouting a complete contrary line then they had before election? Sure they ought to be disciplined. That's not the case with your minicipal election and the case of this councilor. That being said, the whip is used too much.
cyberman

pow wow wrote:
If they lied to the electorate and were voted in and sitting in caucus spouting a complete contrary line then they had before election? Sure they ought to be disciplined. That's not the case with your minicipal election and the case of this councilor. That being said, the whip is used too much.


Well, this green councillor stood as a Green Party candidate with the Green Party manifesto and party commitments behind her campaign. Then she main policy statements which were contrary to Green Party policy. So of course the party asked her to get back into line.

If you reflect for a second, you can see that this bears no resemblance at all to a politician asking a non-political citizen's employer to muzzle him because he the politician disagrees with the citizen.

I know that the politician in question is an American, but try really hard to use your brain and accept that it may just be possible for an American to do something wrong. Do you really think what he tries to do was right? This is nothing to do with whether you agree with his views on gay marriage. I am asking whether you think he was right to try and muzzle a citizen.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum