Welcome to Gaia! ::

Somewhat onn topic (what? this thread has a topic?):

I figured out what really bugged me about the "Gay Pro-Lifers - taking away rights so we can get rights" or whatever it says, signature. The justification was that it attacks an issue, but it doesn't (ok, I'm a little slow).

There is no explanation. There is nothing that backs up the statement it makes. It doesn't even make sense. Advocating to make abortion illegal doesn't help to further the cause that Gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else.

I really don't understand why anyone would choose to attack a group like Homosexual Pro-Lifers (or even Feminist Pro-Lifers -- a whole other rant). It isn't as though being Pro-Life makes one less Gay. It isn't as though one needs to be Pro-Choice in order to advocate Gay Rights (isn't that the Pro-Lifers can't be Feminists argument? that you have to be in favor of legal abortion in order to believe that women should be treated equally to men?).

The only (lame) argument that could be used is that Homosexuals do not (usually) need abortions...and so should not have an opinion on them...? That whole "men shouldn't get a say in abortion" BS changed a little...

My rat is trying to type (a lot of spaces -- she keeps standing on the space bar), so I guess I'll end my rant.

Now if only I had thought of this like a week ago, when it would have been useful as a rebuttal. *grin*

Yeah, I was going to say, the Church isn't controlling. But there are certain things that being a Catholic means following, and if you don't follow those things than you aren't Catholic. I mean, if someone claimed to be Christian but claimed that Christ is not divine and that many of his teachings are wrong, you would say that they are only nominally Christian.



@Zin: Yeah, but the thing is, if it actually worked like that, Divine's idea of everyone in the world laying down their guns and living in peace would work. I'm only one guy. If I change parties, nothing happens except that someone who has a chance to get elected loses a vote, and someone who has no chance of winning gains a vote.

You also did not address my argument that, even if we did all vote for the "perfect candidate," the votes would be spread so thin that no one would win. This is why there are only two parties; With the current system, you have to win 270 out of 538 votes to win the Presidency. Very few people actually fit perfectly into Democrat or Republican, so let's say that three quarters of either party would leave for another minor party. But not all of each of these quarters is going to go to another party either. So, instead of having a two party system where someone wins by being elected democratically, we would have, say, an 8 party system where someone would be elected by Congress, and no one's vote mattered. And 8 is a very conservative guess. I don't know about you, but my particular combination of political beliefs are rather unique.

It sounds great and Democratic to say, "Just vote for who you want to win," but if everyone believed and followed this we'd just end up with a pseudo-Oligarchy run by Congress.

@Waters: It's at least somewhat on topic. It's why people would vote Republican even though they don't agree with all the Republican policies.

But then we would be ruled by a minority. confused No matter who voted for the winner, there would be more people who voted against the winner.

What? That makes no ******** sense. confused

How can a minority control the election if it's a pure popular vote system?

XD

Basically the Canadian system works 2 ways, you have the parliment and the Senate. When you vote you don't vote for the leader or for the party, per se, you vote for the person that you want to represent your "riding" in parliment. This is called a seat, so you elect a representative to have a seat in the parliment.

The party with the most seats in parliment becomes the party in power, and the head of that party becomes the prime minister. If the party doesn't have a majority of seats in parliment it's called a minority government, if it has the majority it's a majority government. So for instance my riding in Dartmouth (which is split up into different ridings) is represented by the MP (Member of Parliment) called "Michael Savage", he's liberal, however the federal government is conservative.

So if Stephen Harper (the Prime Minister) was try and get gay marriage to be illegal again, he'd have to pass it through parliment. My MP would vote against the bill. Because the conservatives have a minority government they would have to convince members from other parties, who are in parliment to vote for their bill as well, in order to get a majority to pass the bill.