Canada Passes Same-sex Legislation
POSTED BY: SigmaNunki
UPDATED: Friday, August 12, 2005 23:24
VIEWED: 7233
PAGE 3 of 3
Well, my brother is gay and he voted AGAINST gay marriages in Montana but is pro civil unions. I guess that early Catholic upbringing is still deeply rooted in there somewhere.
And you thought your family was disfunctional!
NY/NJ Browncoats: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly_nyc
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Conscience:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Perhaps you should look at how much peace keeping we do; we're quite capable. In fact, we're the ones that came up with the idea that soldiers can make peace and not war.
To quote from the webpage I linked to above:
"We invented Peacekeeping!" "HUH?!?!? I've actually heard this many times, so I'll address it. The idea of "inventing" peacekeeping is an absurd notion. That's like saying a guy from Peru invented generosity or that a guy from Zimbabwe invented creativity. You can't seriously look in the mirror and believe in your hearts that people engaged in disputes that almost led to wars, but didn't because of diplomacy, have Canada to thank regardless of whether the conflict was in 1980A.D. or 240 B.C.? If Canada invented anything, it's JEALOUSY."
You didn't read my post. I said we came up with the idea of peacekeeping; which we did. We were the ones that came up and presented the idea of the blue hat.
ie There is a difference between the idea existing and formalizing and intitutinalizing the idea; which we did, which is all we take credit for.
It happened, we did it, deal with it.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
You said it. Canada knows next to nothing about military or security.
But I trust them on the gay marriage issue. I'm sure they know all about being gay.
This will teach me not to tone down the snark.
That is not what I meant to say.
I was referring to the implication in your statement that the Canadian government was focusing on the same-sex legislation instead of helping Britain. My point was that the government should be capable of doing more than one thing at a time since I doubt Paul Martin is over in England personally hunting terrorists. I did not mean to imply that Canada knows nothing of security or terrorism.
I should have just ignored the poli threads like I usually do
If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"
Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Perhaps you should look at how much peace keeping we do; we're quite capable. In fact, we're the ones that came up with the idea that soldiers can make peace and not war. You also might be interested that when our snipers went to Afghanistan, some US soldiers up them up for bronze stars.
So, please don't just assume stuff like this.
Most of what I'm going to say on this I've said in the post above to Hero. In toning down my snarky response to him, I seem to have lost my point (baby out with the bathwater, I guess). I am quite aware (and proud) of Canada's peacekeeping history and the recent actions by Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
I wasn't assuming anything, other than that the original post I was responding to was lacking logic (what does same-sex legislation have to do with Canada's supporting Britain?).
My statement about the parliament not being much help, was meant literally - as in the MPs do not personally carry out peacekeeping actions, terrorism investigations, etc, and therefore have the capacity to legislate in more than one area at a time.
Apparently it sounded like a much better comeback in my head.
My apologies for the misunderstanding, and for the delayed response bringing this back up, but I just couldn't let this go without clarifying.
Quote:
But, I'm at a loss. What does all this have to do with gay marriage?... Anyone?
I think that was the point I was originally trying to make - but what I was thinking wasn't really appropriate for posting, so I toned it down and well, here we are.
If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"
Browncoat? Canadian? Join us:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianbrowncoats/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kellaina:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
You said it. Canada knows next to nothing about military or security.
But I trust them on the gay marriage issue. I'm sure they know all about being gay.
This will teach me not to tone down the snark.
That is not what I meant to say.
I was referring to the implication in your statement that the Canadian government was focusing on the same-sex legislation instead of helping Britain. My point was that the government should be capable of doing more than one thing at a time since I doubt Paul Martin is over in England personally hunting terrorists. I did not mean to imply that Canada knows nothing of security or terrorism.
I know, I was just poking a bit. Can't resist it sometimes, liberals are just so cute with the narrow world view and naive opinions...
For the record I was also not implying that Canada knows nothing about security and terrorism. Why, after drugs, porn, wannabe Frenchman, fishing, hockey, lax immegration, open borders, and expensive cigarettes; I think Canada I think security.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
...And canada is located were from Kansas
0Reaver0
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't realise London needed any help from Canada with regards to the bombers. I think most of us are quite happy for them to continue their normal, liberal lives while we catch the bad guys and, you know, prosecute them through the proper channels.
Good for you Canada. Wouldn't want either of our countries to turn into one of those nasty religious de facto dictatorships where they base most of their decisions around narrow minded translations of ancient texts and make the spewing of hatred a key part of government tactics. That would be just terrible.
And anyone who uses Bill Clinton's views on any sort of marriage really needs to have read at least one newspaper from 1996-2000.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
