May 28, 2016

#cpc16: MP Brad Trost called “bigot” at debate about Conservative Party’s definition of marriage

Faith GoldyArchive

Emotions were running high during a breakout session about the definition of marriage at the Conservative Party convention.

MP Brad Trost tells me what happened behind closed doors.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-05-29 22:40:36 -0400
Consensual relationships of any nature should be permitted. As long as everyone involved is OK with it, it’s none of my business.
commented 2016-05-29 22:27:36 -0400
Michael Mann and Andrew Stephenson, do you believe that incest and polygamous marriage should be prohibited?
commented 2016-05-29 22:10:59 -0400
Keith,

Sorry that the truth hurts you so.

No – The Rebel desperately needs real Canadians like me.
commented 2016-05-29 21:43:01 -0400
Ones sexual leisure is not an identity. It’s like saying I prefer not to have anything to do with tennis. Where I put my pens is a choice.
commented 2016-05-29 20:53:12 -0400
I figure the Quakers were probably the ultimate social conservatives, or maybe the Amish. They would be appalled by the permissive nature of today’s social conservatives. We have to evolve just like everyone and everything. This doesn’t mean sacrificing our principals but rather looking for the commonalities we share and building the relationship from there. I was recently asked if I had accepted Christ as my savior, my reply “how is Odin working out for you?”. I hope my parable is clear enough to have expressed my message.
commented 2016-05-29 17:11:48 -0400
Has anyone ever been persuaded by the words of their opposition? You form your political opinions through hard knocks. So I guess the Conservatives who want to turn left are on the right track in attempting to show socially liberal voters a bit of what they recognise as ‘just’? Unless they are only being two faced to get elected,(like Justin did) the conservative base won’t be happy with them. A new party will emerge in that case.
commented 2016-05-29 16:52:51 -0400
Michael Mann commented 2 hours ago
Straight people have done far more damage to the definition of marriage – than gay people ever could, when you consider the divorce rate and all the Christians that didn’t actually believe in for better or worse and till death do us part.

Buddy, you are nothing but pure white trash. Do fuck off. Go blog at CBC or some other shitbag socialist dump.
commented 2016-05-29 16:42:09 -0400
BRAD TROST , I salute you
Just Take a look at our " families to day , after the indoctrination
Every family is expected to have a transmorphic in it to be normal
Society—-your going to reap worse than what you sow
We’ll so ripe for takeover
commented 2016-05-29 16:19:12 -0400
The problem with that is optics. Most regular everyday guys and girls see social conservatives the same way we see leftists. This means the good part of your message is lost when the ears get turned off. Think about it before you throw the baby out with the bath water.
commented 2016-05-29 16:16:05 -0400
Donald Allan, one of the problems is that when you extend the semantic range of a word to such an extreme it means nothing. If it can mean anything it also means nothing. That’s what is happening to marriage.
commented 2016-05-29 15:45:06 -0400
Ken, the right just became politically weaker, and it wasn’t the doing of social conservatives. It was the doing of the CINO’s. I’ll give the CPC until the next convention to reverse this error, and if they don’t, I’ll tear up my membership card. In the meantime, they have had their last nickel from me, and their last minute of support from me, and I suspect, most other socons. We’ll see if the CINO’s want to go down the path to political decimation and irrelevance in the next federal election (which is what will happen if they don’t reverse this decision), or if they come to their senses and realize the backbone of the CPC is the socons, and reverse course. If not, I guarantee we’ll quit the CPC en mass, group together outside the CPC and take our votes with us. I hope it won’t come to that, but that will be up to the CINO’s. If they think they will be elected as dogcatcher without our votes, they are sadly mistaken. Either they reverse this decision and embrace socons, or they face politically oblivion.
commented 2016-05-29 15:39:20 -0400
Liza,

You are a full blown bigot and I would be more than happy to say it to your face. Shall we arrange a get together for me to do exactly that?
commented 2016-05-29 15:24:31 -0400
The liberals must be laughing their collective asses as they read this thread. The gay marriage issue is over whether you or I like it or not. I personally am a fiscal conservative and probably more of a social libertarian. This doesn’t mean that I think everything is okay, it means I think the government needs to be made consistently smaller and less powerful inasmuch as how it can affect peoples personal lives and choices. It also means i don’t call people bigots for having opinions that I don’t agree with and I don’t drag my personal baggage into the light every time their is a discussion. As long as we keep attacking each other the right will be weaker politically than it should be.
commented 2016-05-29 15:17:28 -0400
…and Mannie, this is the only place you would get away with calling me a bigot. You wouldn’t be saying it to my face.
commented 2016-05-29 15:13:46 -0400
That’s true Marc, they are showing their true colours. It will be helpful to know .
commented 2016-05-29 15:10:50 -0400
There was no talk about rewriting the definition of marriage in the 50’s Mannie.
If most gays don’t want it or actually care, why are laws being written for their right to it? Only one reason I can think of. Its just one more thing to strike off the list of the manifesto.
commented 2016-05-29 15:08:56 -0400
This could be the best thing to happen, to open the way to give hope to the coming of a real political party with real conservative values. The PCC just lost two votes here, we’re not into shifting left……now we know who they really are.
commented 2016-05-29 15:02:42 -0400
MICHAEL MANN

Run along, Bonobo Chimp. You have a lot of humping to do. And be sure to take along your wife, the burro.
commented 2016-05-29 14:56:36 -0400
Straight people have done far more damage to the definition of marriage – than gay people ever could, when you consider the divorce rate and all the Christians that didn’t actually believe in for better or worse and till death do us part.

I guess they let that part of their precious religion slide.

Absolute hypocrisy.
commented 2016-05-29 14:53:24 -0400
Liza,

I said for decades from now AND before your born. Were you born before 1970?
commented 2016-05-29 14:52:14 -0400
https://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/ Gay Marriage IS a Threat — To Gay Sexual Freedom

http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/08/04/leftist-myth-all-gays-support-gay-marriage-no-they-dont/ Leftist Myth: “All Gays Support Gay Marriage!” No, They Don’t

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/ I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

http://thegrio.com/2009/06/09/not-all-gay-people-support-same-sex-marriage/ Not all gays support same-sex marriage

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22758434 The gay people against gay marriage

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/04/not-all-gay-activists-suppor-out-against-gay-marriage/ Not all gay activists support gay marriage
commented 2016-05-29 14:52:09 -0400
“That is a more recent development, and progression of the lefts attempt to dismantle the nuclear family. "

The nuclear family has pretty much dismantled itself, although that too began far more than 20 years ago. Only about 30% of Canadians now live in "traditional"* nuclear families. This has nothing to do with the definitions of marriage.
  • One could argue that the “nuclear family” is something of an historical abberation. Extended families were traditionally the norm, even in Western societies, until the Baby Boom and we’ve increasingly reverted to that model. Late marriage, and yes, “confirmed bachelors” (ie, gay people) were pretty common even in the Victorian era.
commented 2016-05-29 14:39:17 -0400
Decades before I was born would almost take us into the early 1900’s and there was no movement in the first few decades of the 1900’s. The first real movement started in 69 Mannie, so 40 some odd years, but at that time you didn’t see a push on the government to change the definition of marriage. That is a more recent development, and progression of the lefts attempt to dismantle the nuclear family.
commented 2016-05-29 14:28:25 -0400
Liza,

By the way, the definition HAS changed, but feel free to bury your head in the sand. Gay marriage is legal and that will never change.

You seem to live in some delusional world where you think your religion or socially conservative views supersedes government, rights and law. It doesn’t. YOU can think whatever you wish, but that’s not how the real world works. Gay marriage will still be legal long after you are dead and there is one less ignorant and bigoted person in the world.

The conservative party has changed their stance, because they know they won’t win elections otherwise. The majority of Canadians support gay marriage and gay rights. Gay marriage is a battle that conservatives have lost.
commented 2016-05-29 14:15:43 -0400
MICHAEL MANN

How many legs does his “woman” have? If she has four legs, as least she will be useful as a pack animal.
commented 2016-05-29 14:14:38 -0400
When asked about the issue of gay marriage , I just refer to the words of someone far brighter and wiser than myself. “Render to Caesar what is Cesar’s , and to God what is God’s.”
We have Civil Law in Canada which has jurisdiction over marriage as it is a civil contract , totally secular.
Separate and distinct is Canon Law , or the Law of God . In the case of marriage , the contract is spiritual, a contract between the two parties before the church and God. A church has the constitutional right to establish the definitions and conditions to which its members adhere. This is God’s domain.
The secular laws can use the word marriage in whatever form they wish. For those that adhere to the spiritual sense , the traditional definition and sense of marriage, they have the right to hold these beliefs.
The separation of Church and State requires that neither meddles in the affairs of the other.
The traditional definition of marriage is intertwined inexorably with religiosity and spirituality. I would argue that the definition and all it entails is distinct and protected constitutionally and thus cannot be judged as "bigotry’.
commented 2016-05-29 14:11:29 -0400
Liza,

My God, you are so ignorant. It’s actually hilarious – how poorly educated you are or how much your parents sheltered you. Maybe both.

While I am sure you don’t care to learn the history of gay rights – you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
commented 2016-05-29 14:00:23 -0400
The definition never came from government in the first place. It can’t be taken away by government. Go ahead and try.
Trust me gays were not fighting for the right to marry decades before I was born. Gays have only been fighting for that right in what, the past 2? Consider this, not all gays want it or even care, AND there are some that oppose the redefinition of marriage. This is just more Marxist bullshit.

Mannie Jimmy, you still in your mothers basement?
commented 2016-05-29 13:59:21 -0400
Dieter,

Nope – I have been married for 12 years to a wonderful woman. I am just not a bigot like you are.