Same-sex marriage bill passes

[Snee]

You can't run a country efficiently by deferring to the masses for every decision, not only would it be logistically impossible but also poor choices would be made more frequently, particularly regarding complex issues.

Of course, if the decisions of the government go against the wishes of the masses on several occasions, then it isn't really a democracy.

In fact, what we get with a "representational democracy" is an elite, albeit an elected one, making decisions on the basis that they know better than the rest. This is practically communist.



And, furthermore, it would not be logistically troubling to put issues like the one in question to a vote, as it's hardly integral to the effectivity of a country's economy, or somesuch.

To not put issues that don't really need a quick response, and which are highly controversial to the public at large, to a vote isn't very democratic at all.

As for taxes, I was just discussing this yesterday with someone, more specifically how our, supposedly socialist-democratic, government have made some very poor decisions regarding taxes on property and fortune without consulting the public, decisions that only really benefit the wealthy.

It seems to me that governments, being much smaller units than an entire population of a country, are much more susceptible to the influence of larger corporations and suchlike. And therefore, to make sure that the public get what they want, more decisions should be put to a vote in practically any democracy today.



As for gay marriages, I have no issue with them, except to say that I think it's fairly stupid for anyone to want to marry in a regular church or something, if it's stated in your holy scripture of choice that homosexuality is wrong.

Have the rights all right, that's only fair, but what's the point of marrying under the eyes of a god that doesn't (according to the religion) want you? Better then to marry where you are accepted, which also lets you avoid deeply offending any very literal religious people.

[manker]

You can't run a country efficiently by deferring to the masses for every decision, not only would it be logistically impossible but also poor choices would be made more frequently, particularly regarding complex issues.

Of course, if the decisions of the government go against the wishes of the masses on several occasions, then it isn't really a democracy.

In fact, what we get with a "representational democracy" is an elite, albeit an elected one, making decisions on the basis that they know better than the rest. This is practically communist.



And, furthermore, it would not be logistically troubling to put issues like the one in question to a vote, as it's hardly integral to the effectivity of a country's economy, or somesuch.

To not put issues that don't really need a quick response, and which are highly controversial to the public at large, to a vote isn't very democratic at all.

As for taxes, I was just discussing this yesterday with someone, more specifically how our, supposedly socialist-democratic, government have made some very poor decisions regarding taxes on property and fortune without consulting the public, decisions that only really benefit the wealthy.

It seems to me that governments, being much smaller units than an entire population of a country, are much more susceptible to the influence of larger corporations and suchlike. And therefore, to make sure that the public get what they want, more decisions should be put to a vote in practically any democracy today.

I disagree.

True enough, a proper democracy isn't really what we have (UK) but unless the decision evokes particularly strong feelings; like joining the EU, Leaving NATO/UN, devolution, abolishing the pound/monarchy, it shouldn't be put to a referendum.

Referendums, which are what would need to happen, are particularly time consuming and expensive. They are also impractical for decision making processes. For example, altho' it was a massively important, the Conservative government here a number of years back should not have asked the electorate if we should join/leave of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. People cannot understand the implications of it and the choice should be left to the people elected to do such a job. Taxation is another, the man in the street is going to vote for whatever will result in more money in his pay packet, regardless of the country's interests.

Let the builders build, let the economist economise ... and let the politicians decide upon policy.


The fact of the matter is that these people do know better than you or I and so long as they're accountable for their actions, it's nothing like communism. If they mess up then someone else gets a go next time.

A referendum for the subject of this thread would be okay as a one off but if it was one of a series of similar referendums then the turn out would be negligable. We get low turn-outs for General elections - if we had a referendum every week, the people would stop caring and it would be too easy for extremeist groups to organise themselves and influence policy.

No, we elect politicians to make decisions on our behalf, if they fail to do so with aplomb and good judgement then we'll vote for someone else next time around.

[Snee]

I disagree.

True enough, a proper democracy isn't really what we have (UK) but unless the decision evokes particularly strong feelings; like joining the EU, Leaving NATO/UN, devolution, abolishing the pound/monarchy, it shouldn't be put to a referendum.

Referendums, which are what would need to happen, are particularly time consuming and expensive. They are also impractical for decision making processes. For example, altho' it was a massively important, the Conservative government here a number of years back should not have asked the electorate if we should join/leave of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. People cannot understand the implications of it and the choice should be left to the people elected to do such a job. Taxation is another, the man in the street is going to vote for whatever will result in more money in his pay packet, regardless of the country's interests.

The man on the street, well, men really, or rather, people, is/are the country.
The country's interests should be the same as those of its people, I would think.

The authorities should really be implementing decisions already made, and working to put forth new ones, the actual decisions should be made by the public, IMO, and if they vote wrongly, then the authorities haven't informed the public well enough.

Obviously it is a costly and complicated process, and one that needs to be improved upon, but it's better than letting a handful of people make the bulk of all decisions concerning everyone in the country. (Apart from those that absolutely have to be made immediately, or those which are routine and won't really mean a change, of course)


Especially so as governments such as ours do seem, really, too easily influenced by the wishes of minorities, as long as they happen to be rich.


I reckon there's a fine line between representational democracy and communism.

In one case, communism, an elite from the proletariat, ~working class, (I'm not sure exactly how you are supposed to determine who is part of this elite, election would probably be a good way) should be put in charge of the country. In another case politicians (not necessarily people who have done any actual work in their lives I might add) are elected to be put in charge of the country on the basis that they are the best people for the job, which in my thinking makes them an elite, and one possibly less in touch with the people at that.

The immediate difference is the fact that a democracy sometimes allows the people to directly influence the workings of the nation through votage. I feel, however, that a true democracy needs to be more direct than those of today, more like the communal type governments of ancient Hawaii/Polynesia.


I also think that we are very close to a point where technology should allow us to both more directly and efficiently influence decisions to a much higher degree than now, and to partake of the information we need to make informed decisions.

[bigboab]

I disagree.

True enough, a proper democracy isn't really what we have (UK) but unless the decision evokes particularly strong feelings; like joining the EU, Leaving NATO/UN, devolution, abolishing the pound/monarchy, it shouldn't be put to a referendum.

Referendums, which are what would need to happen, are particularly time consuming and expensive. They are also impractical for decision making processes. For example, altho' it was a massively important, the Conservative government here a number of years back should not have asked the electorate if we should join/leave of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. People cannot understand the implications of it and the choice should be left to the people elected to do such a job. Taxation is another, the man in the street is going to vote for whatever will result in more money in his pay packet, regardless of the country's interests.

The man on the street, well, men really, or rather, people, is/are the country.
The country's interests should be the same as those of its people, I would think.

The authorities should really be implementing decisions already made, and working to put forth new ones, the actual decisions should be made by the public, IMO, and if they vote wrongly, then the authorities haven't informed the public well enough.

Obviously it is a costly and complicated process, and one that needs to be improved upon, but it's better than letting a handful of people make the bulk of all decisions concerning everyone in the country. (Apart from those that absolutely have to be made immediately, or those which are routine and won't really mean a change, of course)


Especially so as governments such as ours do seem, really, too easily influenced by the wishes of minorities, as long as they happen to be rich.


I reckon there's a fine line between representational democracy and communism.

In one case, communism, an elite from the proletariat, ~working class, (I'm not sure exactly how you are supposed to determine who is part of this elite, election would probably be a good way) should be put in charge of the country. In another case politicians (not necessarily people who have done any actual work in their lives I might add) are elected to be put in charge of the country on the basis that they are the best people for the job, which in my thinking makes them an elite, and one possibly less in touch with the people at that.

The immediate difference is the fact that a democracy sometimes allows the people to directly influence the workings of the nation through votage. I feel, however, that a true democracy needs to be more direct than those of today, more like the communal type governments of ancient Hawaii/Polynesia.


I also think that we are very close to a point where technology should allow us to both more directly and efficiently influence decisions to a much higher degree than now, and to partake of the information we need to make informed decisions.

Sorry we cannot allow that. We cant have the majority getting what they want. It is undemocratic.

[Rat Faced]

Well Done Canada, fighting Bigotry and going for equality

[NikkiD]

I have this strange feeling when this type of thing happens that it is not acceptance of moral changes but more to do with votes. Do they know something that they are not telling us? I think I had a thread along these lines earlier about fish changing their sexuality.

In this case you would be right Boab. If it was simply an issue of rights, the bill would have been passed when it first surfaced in 2003, instead of now, when the Liberal government is floundering in the wake of the Gomery inquiry. Most provinces had already adopted same sex rights with regard to marriage. With a possible federal election looming in the fall, they are garnering support where they can get it.

I support the bill, just not the timing. It shouldn't have been tabled in the first place, but passed years ago.

[Busyman]

As long as it's NIMBY I couldn't care either way.

[peat moss]

Oh its in all our backyards , Christ we have the Teachers federation marching in Gay parades now. I say let the gays get married too. I mean why should just us hetro guys be miserable ...........

[Busyman]

Oh its in all our backyards , Christ we have the Teachers federation marching in Gay parades now. I say let the gays get married too. I mean why should just us hetro guys be miserable ...........

I don't like the rise homosexuality as I see it in kids.

You'd be amazed at the number young lesbians I see walking to school.

People equate sexuality to race. Different races became accepted and it seems like different sexualities will too.

Now as it would not have been acceptable for a white woman to date a black fella, now it is (for the most part) and there's nothing wrong with that.

Kids usually are devoid of prejudice until adults bestowed them with it.
Until parents say to a child, "It's okay to like boys or girls" from the start, it unacceptable.

I am totally for my child being with the opposite sex and would tell my child that. So as long as it's NIMBY, I'm cool.

[peat moss]

You don't choose to be gay tho. Some are born that way. My thought is if you can be gay and adopte children why can't you get married ? But understand what you mean It's now socialy accepted in most parts of the free world . For better or worse.