Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Kenney Pulls Gay Rights from Citizenship Guide


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What about straight/normal people's rights?

What about pet rights?

What about animal rights?

What about plant life rights?

Is there any mention of any of these?

Well that's shocking. So Kenney doesn't make mention of normal people, my pets, animals and plant life? Well that must mean he doesn't agree that these should have rights at all then.

When's the riot scheduled?

The left isn't interested in anything that isn't gay. Maybe if the plants were gay they would get mentioned. :lol:

Edited by MontyBurns
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that if you want to give prospective immigrants a feel for what the country is all about, you'd want to give them the full picture. Holland did something similar a while back. I'm quite sure a lot of the same people who are huffing and puffing about "special rights" for gays here would normally welcome any measure that would restrict immigration to people who share "our" values. But I guess they can't decide if it's gays or immigrants that make them more uncomfortable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you know, Gays cannot reproduce so the only way to increase their numbers is through immigration....

*ducks*

THOSE are not immigrants they are just a bunch of people who want a better life...you know..more designer dogs..cuter straight guys--real nice shoes and an apartment on Church street where going out clubing and coking is just a hope skip and a prance away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Evangelicals had only recently been afforded the same rights as everyone else, you might have a point.

If Evangelicals had ever been a repressed group--instead of having their own boy as PM--maybe you'd be on to somehting.

Besides, let's get serious: you guys aren't suddenly worried about "special rights" because of this pamphlet. For a long time now, y'all have been whining about all the "special rights" afforded to gay people.

without ever being able to name a single one.

To my mind, the "special rights" they don't like amount to "we don't want to see, hear or think about homosexuals, and you homosexuals and your lefty supporters+ won't shut up and are even allowed to talk about."

You should read Mr. Canada complain about a gay pride parade he saw which apparently has permanently scarred him. These guys actually think that being allowed to be openly gay, or fighting for gay rights and acceptance are demands of special rights.

+(Yes, it's true, in their minds civil liberties is left-wing rabble-rousing, been true since the beginning of the US Civil Rights movement when guys like J Edgar Hoover thought they were all pinko malcontents).

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind, the "special rights" they don't like amount to "we don't want to see, hear or think about homosexuals, and you homosexuals and your lefty supporters+ won't shut up and are even allowed to talk about."

You should read Mr. Canada complain about a gay pride parade he saw which apparently has permanently scarred him. These guys actually think that being allowed to be openly gay, or fighting for gay rights and acceptance are demands of special rights.

+(Yes, it's true, in their minds civil liberties is left-wing rabble-rousing, been true since the beginning of the US Civil Rights movement when guys like J Edgar Hoover thought they were all pinko malcontents).

:)

I know, man.

And in a generation, all the people who oppose things like same sex marriage will have magically disappeared from history. In memory, everyone will say they supported it.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

I know, man.

And in a generation, all the people who oppose things like same sex marriage will have magically disappeared from history. In memory, everyone will say they supported it.....

THEN what will you do...maybe have a marriage with a test tube and a very attractive lab full of chickens...no- us breeders will always be around.....come to think of it- I have noticed a lot of young woman are becoming like men- sexual dysfunctionals..so maybe we will be all gone and everyone will speak that silly gay dialect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

I know, man.

And in a generation, all the people who oppose things like same sex marriage will have magically disappeared from history. In memory, everyone will say they supported it.....

Progressive thinking has it's limits. People are people and cannot be moulded into some leftist ideal. Look at what happened in the USSR. They did everything possible to achieve "progress". Ultimately the people revolted and threw the system out. Gay marriage is the same. It is not and will never be the norm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Progressive thinking has it's limits. People are people and cannot be moulded into some leftist ideal. Look at what happened in the USSR. They did everything possible to achieve "progress". Ultimately the people revolted and threw the system out. Gay marriage is the same. It is not and will never be the norm.

And is if to prove my point, one of you guys brings up the USSR.

So... very... predictable...

Link to post
Share on other sites
And is if to prove my point, one of you guys brings up the USSR.

So... very... predictable...

I don't think any of you are providing terribly good arguments. Move to your respective ends of the field, hold your ground at all costs, and volley only veiled insults at each other. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Progressive thinking has it's limits. People are people and cannot be moulded into some leftist ideal. Look at what happened in the USSR. They did everything possible to achieve "progress". Ultimately the people revolted and threw the system out. Gay marriage is the same. It is not and will never be the norm.

Well--and I'll grant that this is not perfect and definitive proof--but according to a recent MacLeans' poll (hardly a bastion of the progressive left) about 70% of Canadians support gay marriage.

That's high--higher than agreement on most social issues you could find.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any of you are providing terribly good arguments. Move to your respective ends of the field, hold your ground at all costs, and volley only veiled insults at each other. <_<

I made the observation that those who rant against civil liberties inevitably bring up the "pinko" card, and lo and behold, within a few posts of that, some guy brings up the Soviets. At this point it's irrelevant, gays can marry in Canada, but still, I don't often have a point proved this quickly.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to post
Share on other sites

I made the observation that those who rant against civil liberties inevitably bring up the "pinko" card, and lo and behold, within a few posts of that, some guy brings up the Soviets. At this point it's irrelevant, gays can marry in Canada, but still, I don't often have a point proved this quickly.

Yes, it was unusually sweet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Progressive thinking has it's limits. People are people and cannot be moulded into some leftist ideal. Look at what happened in the USSR. They did everything possible to achieve "progress". Ultimately the people revolted and threw the system out. Gay marriage is the same. It is not and will never be the norm.

Soviet Society with the exception of the planned economy was incredibly conservative. There was an experiment with the ideal in the 20s but it didn't last at all. Stalin came in and everything went back to the way it was before the revolution. Extreme piety, ferocious anti-semitism and horribly mysoginy. All of that survives into today when talking about modern Russia. Sorry, trying to paint progressives as soviet sleepers just doesn't relate. The comparison is hilarious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soviet Society with the exception of the planned economy was incredibly conservative. There was an experiment with the ideal in the 20s but it didn't last at all. Stalin came in and everything went back to the way it was before the revolution. Extreme piety, ferocious anti-semitism and horribly mysoginy. All of that survives into today when talking about modern Russia. Sorry, trying to paint progressives as soviet sleepers just doesn't relate. The comparison is hilarious.

Very true. Talking to some of these guys...if you avoid economics, they sound exactly like social conservatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soviet Society with the exception of the planned economy was incredibly conservative. There was an experiment with the ideal in the 20s but it didn't last at all. Stalin came in and everything went back to the way it was before the revolution. Extreme piety, ferocious anti-semitism and horribly mysoginy. All of that survives into today when talking about modern Russia. Sorry, trying to paint progressives as soviet sleepers just doesn't relate. The comparison is hilarious.

Well of course it was daft, but the civil rights movement in the US came of age during the height of Soviet paranoia, and bigots and social conservatives (there wasn't really any difference then, and I'm not sure that it's that much better now) were railing against, for instance, miscegenation (mixed-race unions) as being promoted by Communist plotters seeking to weaken God-fearing Americans. The Soviets gave the social conservatives in the US the greatest gift they ever had. If it was seen as liberal or bohemian, it was a Russian plot. Civil rights advocates were labeled as either Communist provocateurs or at least as socialist pinkos. In fact, I'd say the entire tenure of North American debate on extensions of civil liberties to traditionally mistreated groups, that it was all Left wing conspiracies pretty much had its birth in that sort of thinking. The old arguments about destruction of the white races by the lesser dark races wouldn't fly so well, so a new bogeyman had to be invented. Not only that but liberals and socialists could be tarred with that broad brush. I mean, hell, wasn't McCarthyism at its core an attack on liberalism in general?

I kind of feel sorry for wingnut social conservative types like Kenney now. They don't have some big evil superempire to blame and to use as a stick to beat on uppety fags. They've been deprived of the kind of absurd 19th century and early 20th century justifications for this sort of thing, they've been deprived of the Soviets, and are left bitching and moaning about politically active gay-rights groups having the audacity to demand exactly what the heterosexual counterparts, no more and no less. But peal away "gay" or "straight" from these homophobes arguments, and put in "black" or "white", and they're identical.

Of course now to question a black's right to equality before the law is such a given that all but the most rabid bigots will at least pay it lip service, and so it will be, I suppose, in a generation, with gay rights. Guys like Kenney will be dinosaurs, and their intellectual children will have found some other group deserving of their hatred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soviet Society with the exception of the planned economy was incredibly conservative. There was an experiment with the ideal in the 20s but it didn't last at all. Stalin came in and everything went back to the way it was before the revolution. Extreme piety, ferocious anti-semitism and horribly mysoginy. All of that survives into today when talking about modern Russia. Sorry, trying to paint progressives as soviet sleepers just doesn't relate. The comparison is hilarious.

labelling conservative with authoritarian is flat out ignorant and using scare tactics. That's like labelling Liberal with anarchist.

The utter failure that is the USSR should be a stark reminder to us all why we should limit government intervention in economic circumstances.

I'll say that Lenin was a progressive, lets not forget Gorbachev, and look what happened at the mess that happened there. There's more to the USSR than just Stalin...

Link to post
Share on other sites

labelling conservative with authoritarian is flat out ignorant and using scare tactics. That's like labelling Liberal with anarchist.

The utter failure that is the USSR should be a stark reminder to us all why we should limit government intervention in economic circumstances.

I'll say that Lenin was a progressive, lets not forget Gorbachev, and look what happened at the mess that happened there. There's more to the USSR than just Stalin...

History has and will continue to judge Lenin as a mixed bag. His wasn't the nice guy that some Marxist-Leninists in these later days have tried to make him out to be, but neither was he a Stalin. I suspect that if Lenin had lived a bit longer, long enough to assure that Trotsky, rather than Stalin, ultimately inherited his position, the USSR would have been a considerably different place.

As to Gorbachev, he came too late. If he had come ten or fifteen years earlier, he probably would have succeeded. By the time Gorbachev came, the Soviet system was already gasping, and there simply wasn't enough time or political will left to save it. Good for us, I suppose. I'm not too sure I would have wanted the USSR to last any longer than it did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

labelling conservative with authoritarian is flat out ignorant and using scare tactics. That's like labelling Liberal with anarchist.

The utter failure that is the USSR should be a stark reminder to us all why we should limit government intervention in economic circumstances.

I'll say that Lenin was a progressive, lets not forget Gorbachev, and look what happened at the mess that happened there. There's more to the USSR than just Stalin...

What????? Russia's society was very conservative for the time. That's not a scare tactic, that's just the facts. Those things I listed was what Soviet society believed. The idealists were squeezed out and put on trial by Stalin and executed.

If anyone is using the USSR as a political scare tactic it's you. Only idiot teabaggers would make the assumption that a government hand in the economy, no matter how small it would be is tantamount in turning the west into communist states. It shows that you've no idea of the history of the Soviet Union and how the USSR's politics worked.

Lenin wasn't a progressive. He came to power. He set up the CHEKA whcih became the NKVD and eventually the KGB. Their favourite tactic which Lenin encouraged was the boiling of hands so the skin would slip off like a glove. He ordered people executed. The only thing Lenin was a progressive in was economics. He liberalized the economy which lasted until Stalin took complete control in 1929.

What happened with Gorbachev? Whatever modern day conservatives have to say about Ronald Reagan and "tearing down the wall," Gorbachev was single handedly responsible for the destruction of communism in Europe. He started reforms, allowed the Warsaw Pact countries to break away and hold free elections and allowed free elections within the Soviet Union, which, hilariously might be the only free elections Russia has had since 1918 up to the present day.

The USSR and Russia today maybe is "more than Stalin" but ever since the day he died, Russia's legacy has been completely wrapped around Stalin's legacy and legitimacy and therefore the party's. Khrushchev wanted to open it up, he was ousted and stalinist hardliners overthrew him on the basis of Stalin's portrayal in official media as most of the people who overthrew him were involved with Stalin. The minute Gorbachev lifted censorship, the most hard hitting and blatantly anti-soviet articles to come out were based on Stalin and trying to preserve the memory of the dead. To this day, the Russian government is attempting to rehabilitate Stalin's image. The only "free" organization in Russia is called Memorial which is an organization dedicated to compiling all the names of Stalin's victims and building memorials. Most of their offices have been ransacked by the FSB (the KGB of today) and computers stolen on charges of drug trafficking; charges that have never gone anywhere. The only official memorial to Stalin's crime is a small rock on the edge of Lubyanka Square (the old KGB headquarters and today the headquarters of the FSB). So, really, Stalin and his legacy isn't all encompassing, but it's close.

AS for TB's assessment, I don't know. It would've been interesting to see if he could've kept a democratic Soviet Union alive. It was never meant to be but that's what he wanted. Despite how unpopular he became in Russia, a continuing Gorbachev presidency would've been far better than a Yeltsin one proved to be. All of Russia's problems today stem from Yeltsin literally selling off all state assets to a handful (about 20) mafia members now called, "the family."

Edited by nicky10013
Link to post
Share on other sites

What????? Russia's society was very conservative for the time. That's not a scare tactic, that's just the facts. Those things I listed was what Soviet society believed. The idealists were squeezed out and put on trial by Stalin and executed.

There you go again confusing the word conservative with authoritarian again.

If anyone is using the USSR as a political scare tactic it's you. Only idiot teabaggers would make the assumption that a government hand in the economy, no matter how small it would be is tantamount in turning the west into communist states. It shows that you've no idea of the history of the Soviet Union and how the USSR's politics worked.

I wouldn't call CEO's of multinational corps idiot teabaggers. They know how to make money and improve the standard of living far better than the failure that is the USSR and any other socialist out there. Governments waste, the less government in the economy the better. Who am I going to listen to when it concerns economic matters, a multimillionaire CEO or some poli sci prof who can barely afford mortgage payments? Alberta vs. Quebec is a prime example of why gov't intervention causes problems.

Lenin wasn't a progressive. He came to power. He set up the CHEKA whcih became the NKVD and eventually the KGB. Their favourite tactic which Lenin encouraged was the boiling of hands so the skin would slip off like a glove. He ordered people executed. The only thing Lenin was a progressive in was economics. He liberalized the economy which lasted until Stalin took complete control in 1929.

Considering that Tsarist Russia was the gong show it was, he fits the bill as a progressive for that time. As for liberalizing economics, anyone who calls BS on Adam Smith is the polar opposite of a liberalizing force in economics.

What happened with Gorbachev? Whatever modern day conservatives have to say about Ronald Reagan and "tearing down the wall," Gorbachev was single handedly responsible for the destruction of communism in Europe. He started reforms, allowed the Warsaw Pact countries to break away and hold free elections and allowed free elections within the Soviet Union, which, hilariously might be the only free elections Russia has had since 1918 up to the present day.

Reagan and Pope John Paul II had a bigger hand in that, Gorby was playing catch up.

The USSR and Russia today maybe is "more than Stalin" but ever since the day he died, Russia's legacy has been completely wrapped around Stalin's legacy and legitimacy and therefore the party's. Khrushchev wanted to open it up, he was ousted and stalinist hardliners overthrew him on the basis of Stalin's portrayal in official media as most of the people who overthrew him were involved with Stalin. The minute Gorbachev lifted censorship, the most hard hitting and blatantly anti-soviet articles to come out were based on Stalin and trying to preserve the memory of the dead. To this day, the Russian government is attempting to rehabilitate Stalin's image. The only "free" organization in Russia is called Memorial which is an organization dedicated to compiling all the names of Stalin's victims and building memorials. Most of their offices have been ransacked by the FSB (the KGB of today) and computers stolen on charges of drug trafficking; charges that have never gone anywhere. The only official memorial to Stalin's crime is a small rock on the edge of Lubyanka Square (the old KGB headquarters and today the headquarters of the FSB). So, really, Stalin and his legacy isn't all encompassing, but it's close.

The only legacy Russia has is that it showed the world what a failure communism was. Doesn't matter who was in charge.

AS for TB's assessment, I don't know. It would've been interesting to see if he could've kept a democratic Soviet Union alive. It was never meant to be but that's what he wanted. Despite how unpopular he became in Russia, a continuing Gorbachev presidency would've been far better than a Yeltsin one proved to be. All of Russia's problems today stem from Yeltsin literally selling off all state assets to a handful (about 20) mafia members now called, "the family."

Russia was broke, they had no choice but to sell off the assets. Reagan put the screws to the USSR, and the world is a far better place because of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia was broke, they had no choice but to sell off the assets. Reagan put the screws to the USSR, and the world is a far better place because of it.

Yes, by the mid-1980s, the USSR was broke. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the USSR wasn't so far gone that I suspect someone like Gorbachev could have turned it around. Obviously the Central Committee, which ultimately couldn't tolerate the much milder reforms of Khrushchev, would never have allowed someone like Gorbachev to wield power, but consider, if something like Glasnost and the economic reforms Gorbachev started under his term were to have been done in the 1970s, it's quite possible that the decline may have been prevented.

I think Reagan's role is greatly overstated. The decline of the Brezhnev years had much more to do with it, and the car had already run out of fuel by the time Reagan came on the scene. Certainly Reagan's policies hastened the decline, but I cannot imagine a scenario where the USSR would have ever seen the year 2000. Much worse was that Reagan may have aided the decline, but his policies, like the policies of the Great Powers at the end of the 19th century to the Ottoman Empire, failed to take into account a rapid retraction and collapse. In both cases, the central governments basically went kaput in a big hurry. In the late 19th and early 20th century, it hastened the madness in the Balkans which sparked WWI, and in the late 20th century, similar failures to recognize just how fast an empire call fall apart lead to chaos, and in particular again to madness in the Balkans.

The lesson in both cases is this. When you push the pin into the balloon, be smart enough to have a plan to pick up the pieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

It is?!? Holy Crap I'm cured! Thanks Mr. Canada if only I knew that all I had to do was "choose" to be straight I would have done so years ago!

Tell me what day did you wake up and say "I could be gay and well while it is tempting I think that I'm choosing to be straight. Yes I've weighed the pros and cons ever so carefully and straight is definitely the right choice."

Do you even know a gay person? Anyone in your family gay?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What????? Russia's society was very conservative for the time. That's not a scare tactic, that's just the facts. Those things I listed was what Soviet society believed. The idealists were squeezed out and put on trial by Stalin and executed.

If anyone is using the USSR as a political scare tactic it's you. Only idiot teabaggers would make the assumption that a government hand in the economy, no matter how small it would be is tantamount in turning the west into communist states. It shows that you've no idea of the history of the Soviet Union and how the USSR's politics worked.

Lenin wasn't a progressive. He came to power. He set up the CHEKA whcih became the NKVD and eventually the KGB. Their favourite tactic which Lenin encouraged was the boiling of hands so the skin would slip off like a glove. He ordered people executed. The only thing Lenin was a progressive in was economics. He liberalized the economy which lasted until Stalin took complete control in 1929.

...

Please learn the definitions of the words you are using.

Conservative is not a synonym for mass murderer or authoritarian tyrant.

The idea of communism was radical and leftist, that is, the diametric opposite of conservative (as used in the political context).

You have succumbed to leftist propaganda which equates conservatism with evil.

Edited by Bonam
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the points that gets lost in all of this is that Canada's stance on gay rights is not one many other countries in the world hold. What many call "special rights" which is ludicrous at first glance isn't at all that far from the truth; though not in the way they would intend it. Gays do have "special rights" in Canada when we compare them to other countries. They’re special in that they are the same, since 2005 at least, as those of straight people. So vis a vis gay rights in many other countries these are exceptional or special if you prefer that term.

Having said that it's a key part of immigration and refugee status, and gay potential immigrants need to be made aware of Canada’s stance on gay rights. In many countries, Iran and Columbia just off the top of my head people are killed simply for being gay. As such many gays come to Canada from these countries seeking refugee status and rightly so they are generally granted it. I have a friend who moved to Canada from Columbia and recently became a citizen. He holds a job, pays his taxes and enjoys the same rights as the "normal" people. This is all he has ever wanted, sadly he could not do so back home in Columbia, so he moved to Canada where he could enjoy the "special" right of the freedom to live his life the way he wants to without fear of “special treatment” (ie. Persecution) from others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...