[Fighting Madd]

The issue is that if we or our elected officials are unwilling to pay the price of ensuring a good public health system, then people have a right to a private system.

Our elected officials, beyond their own paycheque deductions do not pay for healthcare; so ask the taxpayers why they are not willing. People do not have a right to a private system, at least not with regards to Canada's bill of rights, constitution or charter.

Myself, I've got no complaints about the health care system in Canada. I'm likely a usual user of the system, and have not experienced any overly low waiting lists. I've had two children brought into this world through its excellent services, with lots of timely prenatel and follow-up care. I have (and had) several family relations and close friends obtain timely and successful cancer care. My grandmother had knee surgery just five years ago, and did not have to wait more than a few months. I've never had trouble finding a family GP. IMO, the system needs some improvement, but it's not on the brink.

 

[shawnmicallef]

I haven't been to the doctor since like 1996 or 7 when my GP retired. It's my effort to save the system.

 

[Suicidal Gingerbread Man]

I haven't been to the doctor since like 1996 or 7 when my GP retired. It's my effort to save the system

Thank you!


Yes, people have a right to health care. The Supreme Court said that people can opt for private where reasonable care is not provided publicly. I think the message here is fix the public system--it should not welcome private health care.

As for our politicians being "unwilling" to pay the price for improved public health care. It all comes down to OUR unwillingness to pay the price for public health care, and in some cases, our willingness to pay for private. Its the "f*ck everyone else" attitude that threatens what is great about this country.

 

[shiftcontrol]

Look at what 'liberal' MP Tom Wappel has to say about Same-Sex Marriage:
www.tomwappelmp.ca

" I have crisscrossed the country, trying to raise awareness amongst Canadians that the institution of marriage was under attack by the activist homosexual agenda."

Guess his knickers must be all knotted up now that the "homosexual agenda" was a success! Poor Tommy...its not so easy being a bigot these days. I suspect he would be much happier in Alberta or the US :lol

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

For me, marriage is not a "human right", but rather a privilege extended by society, on certain conditions. For example, two persons today DO NOT HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO MARRY. They must comply with societal rules, such as proper age, mental capacity, non-close relative and of course, for millennia, they must be of the opposite sex.

Right to marriage by itself isn't a "human right" - right to marriage, on the basis of understanding the nature of relationships, is.

As to compliance with societal rules, the last time I've checked, that particular excuse had also been thrown at preventing marriages between different families, classes/castes, races, etc. for millenia.

Since 1994, I have crisscrossed the country, trying to raise awareness amongst Canadians that the institution of marriage was under attack by the activist homosexual agenda.

On this issue, for those who hold an opposite view, let us respectfully agree to disagree, without rancour or pejorative name-calling.

It takes one to know one, indeed.

GB

 

[EnviroTO]

In my opinion there was three ways to deal with the equal rights issue dealing with gay marriage:

1. Strike down all laws dealing with marriage or civil unions making "getting hitched" something that has nothing to do with law or government.

2. Replace "marriage" in all laws with "civil unions" and ensure "civil union" doesn't deal with gender. People would get married in the church and sign a "Civil Union Licence" instead of a "Marriage Licence". This would not prevent gay marriage or allow gay marriage, but it would remove government involvement in the debate. Churches and groups could still permit and not permit marriage but since the government would not track marriage nor define it, only tracking civil unions, people would be basically free to call whatever they want marriage.

3. Allow gay marriage and leave laws dealing with marriage pretty much the same way they are with the understanding that gender is irrelevent.

 

[bizorky]

The sad thing is that this battle is all about a word now. Same sex relationships that are defined by marriage will now provide a legal guarantee that gay and lesbian couples get equal recognition under the law as hetero relationships.

Finally!!!

Personally speaking, I am glad to live in a time and in a country where this has happened. We have come a long way since it was punishable by death to be gay.

Yet so far as rights go, there are still going to be people who will preach intolerance and practice hate. As it is said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

 

[spmarshall]

This sure makes me proud to be a Catholic...Not.>:

Catholic church disciplines NDP MP
Joe Comartin banned from church activities

CANADIAN PRESS

LONDON, Ont. — A federal NDP politician has been disciplined by a southwestern Ontario Catholic diocese for supporting same-sex marriage.

The Diocese of London is barring Windsor-Tecumseh MP Joe Comartin from full involvement in church activities.

In a letter, Ronald Fabbro, the Bishop of London, says the measure will remain in effect until Comartin has "a change of mind" in using the term marriage with reference to homosexual unions.

It's not clear whether Comartin has been banned from receiving communion.

Comartin has been an altar server, administered the Eucharist and recently taught a marriage preparation course.

Comartin says in a statement the bishop's action have deeply hurt him and his family.

 

[Fighting Madd]

Poor Tommy...its not so easy being a bigot these days.

I don't think, in this case, the bigot label is appropriate. I could be against polygamy and believe that marriage should only be between a pair of people. That doesn't make me bigoted against polygamists. Now if you run around the country using nasty names, humour and slang, etc... that might be bigotted, granted.

As for the Catholic Church disciplining Joe Comartin, well, that's their right. If you don't believe in the teachings of the church on such a key matter as what makes a union and family then that's not the church for you anyway.

Joe could argue that he had to do the right thing and represent all his constituents regardless of his own faith, which is IMO the right thing for a MP to do. However, he has to accept that there will be negative consequences. I'm sure the United Church would welcome him, so all's not lost.

 

[JoeyCuppa]

Remember that hubbub a few years ago about an MP not wanting to help a constituent with something because they had not voted Liberal (meaning he looked up how they voted)?

Yeah, that was Tom.

 

[Fighting Madd]

And yet the people of Scarberia, including the riding association, continue to vote for Tom.

 

[unimaginative2]

You can't "look up" how someone voted.

 

[Fighting Madd]

JoeyC is referring to the constituent who told Wappel that he didn't vote for him. No need to look anything up.

 

[JoeyCuppa]

Ahh, okay... I misunderstood how Wappel knew how he voted.. Thanks Fighting Madd.

 

[1Voltaire1]

The Diocese of London is barring Windsor-Tecumseh MP Joe Comartin from full involvement in church activities.

Evidently the Diocese of London isn't as forgiving as Jesus purportedly is. :lol It seems they have seen fit to ostracize him for his lack of conformism. I suppose it just shows one of the many internal contradictions within the leadership of many Christian churches.