Renegade

You misunderstand my statement. I don't mean you can't ask me the question. You are free to fire away any questions to me or on the forum. What I reject is the presumption that you can put a question to the people of Canada via a referendum and based upon the answer to that question you can take away the rights of others. It really doesn't matter if the majority or minority suppot your position on the question. You can't by majority concensus, take away the rights of the minority. Since the answer to the question is irrelevant, why pose the question to begin with? I will ignore your comment regarding Quebec and Aboriginals because that discussion is not relevant to this thread. You have not shown that Gays have taken away your rights. You claim that your righs of "freedom of religion" are being violated. I have shown that your definition of "freedom of religion" is not consistent with internationally accepted standards, and by the accepted definitions your right to freedom of religion has not been violated. It is ludicrous to think you can make up your own definition of what a right is and then claim that based upon your own definition that it is being violated. So when you say "ALL" Canadians, you are expecting 100% of all 30 million to agree to it? Do you know how ludicrous a requirement that is? Personally I wouldn't have an issue if at the time it was adopted, it was either an election issue or put to a referendum, but we are well past that window today. BTW, even if you ran a referendum on the charter today, it is still overwhelmingly supported by the majority of canadians. link If you take the Canadian population and remove the under 30, ones with strong socialist leanings, Quebecers, immigrants, Gays, atheists, ones with unpatriotic or anti nationalistic views, or ones with "undesirable attributes", exactly how many do you think will be left? Your support among the population in general would be reflective of the support you get on this forum. For the ones with bigoted and extremist views, that is certainly true, and thankfully so. You have got to be kidding me!! Your argument is that the word "eveyone" doesn't include "homosexuals"?? Let me humour you for a minute and pull up the definition of "everyone" Compact Oxford English Dictionary linkSo unless you cannot read and understand English, you can plainly see that there is no more inclusive word than the word "everyone". Can you think of a single word which would include all people including homosexuals? Or is it your position that the language should include all groups are not the "STANDARD". How about "whites"? Are they included in "everyone" since they are not the "STANDARD" in the world? Well, let's look at your example. Theatres include gays in their definition of "ONE" since they clearly admit them with a ticket even though it is not explicit stated so. Given that by YOUR example, "ONE" includes homosexuals, does not "everyONE" include ALL homosexuals? I'll accept your contention that by conventionals definitions, "ONE" doesn't include dogs, however you must accept that by conventional definitions, "ONE" incudes homosexuals. (Or is it your position that theatres exclude homosexuals from their theatres or sells them separate tickets?)

Only if he allows a free vote, and only if enough Tory MPs vote against it, or if his social liberal supporters think he is diliberately setting up this bill for failure. I'm not sure most people read that much into it. Most socially liberal CPC supporters will just be happy the resolution goes down in defeat, they won't really give props to Harper for engineering the defeat.

It would be interesting to know how many still sitting MPs flip-flops from their 1999 vote: linkThis motion has no chance of passing and even if it does it has no chance of affecting SSM in Canada. That can only be done by invoking the notwithstanding clause. Actually this is a clever move by Harper, in that he knows it will go down in defeat, but he can turn to his religious conservative supporters, shrug his shoulders and say "well, we tried". Better he does this now and gets it over with then when he has a majority and can alienate part of his support base.

That number seems a good estimate. However you should note that there are wide variations by group. For example the average healthcare cost for those over 65 are over $10,000 a person. Do you mean for supplemental healthcare coverage (ie drugs, vision, dental, physio, ...) It would cost you a lot more than $9000 a year. You are in a category which would be expected to consume a lot more healthcare services. Assuming you are in average health for your age, I expect that it would cost you at least $20000/year for equivalent coverage. You are comparing apples and oranges. The $600/month is for suplemental health coverage not for core health coverage. The health care system is funded out of general taxes and the $600 you pay is already to private insurance institutions. ------------------------------------- The question is how much healthcare is enough? There is no shortage of new drugs and procedures available at ever esclating costs. If we don't explicitly ration healthcare, we face rationing anyway in the form of doctor shortages and long wait times. As a first step why not make private care available to those who are willing to pay to avoid the rationing? Is it out of spite (ie I can't afford the procedure, so you shouln't be able to purchase the procedure even if you can afford it)?

Please!!! Enough!!!! Do we need yet one more partisan thread on this?

Well I'm not. This claim that we have most refugees per captia is complete nonsense. Refugees (per capita) by country At least you got right that Canada issues more citizenships per captia. New citizenships (per capita) by country

Actually I didn't quote from the charter even once, did I? You are correct that I don't believe that the "will of the majority" can be used to override the rights of minorities. If there is a flaw in the charter it lies in the ability for governments to invoke the "notwithstanding" clause to override rights. What I reject is even your presumption that you have the right to ask the question. Yes I think your postion is extreme. Do I think some of the Canadian population does not approve of SSM? Certainly. But in no way do I think that faction however large or small they might be, have any right to dictate the rights of others. Leafless, you get precious little support even from other posters in this forum. Why on earth would you think you can get support for your position from the population at large? Outside of the few people who think a theocracy is the rigtht form of government, I see virtually no broad support for your POV.

Leafless, Let me summarize your viewpoint: 1. You don't believe in separation of church and state or that western society can be secular. 2. You think that homosexuality should be illegal. 3. You think that religious views and morality of one group should be imposed upon another. 4. You believe people should be coerced by laws into following your definiton of morality. If you can't see how extreme your position is and how contrary it is to our society's principles, I'm afraid no amount of facts and evidence in the world is going to convince you otherwise.

Congratulations! You finally figured it out. I think I figured out, I'm wasting my time on this thread. Putting together and posting a multitude of facts, cites and logic, seems to serve no useful purpose to those who are blind to it.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that while adultry may be grounds for divorce, it is not illegal.

Your right to "freedom of religion" is completely protected. You have a right to your religious beliefs, and you are free to believe homosexuality is wrong. You are completely wrong in your belief that "freedom of religion" means the government has some obligation to promote YOUR religious standards on others. You fundamentally misunderstand "freedom of religion". Here is the definition from Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the 58 Member States of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948" Show us how any of your "freedom of religion" rights (as defined above) have been trangressed and I'll believe you that this is a conflict of rights. Pure nonsense. This is simply a rant against the government and the gay community without any actual facts to back them up. This is possibly the most enligntening thing you've said in that it gives us a view to your mentality. The separation of church and state is a fundamental construct of most western society. It is universally accepted in western secular societies. The fact that you reject it, would indicate that you reject western secular society, and would feel more comfortable in a Christian theocracy. Unfortunately for you, I know of no country in the world (except maybe the Vatican) which operates as Christian theocracy. If you consider converting to Islam, possibly Iran could accomodate your viewpoint.

Where did you get this "FULL" definiiton? Is it one you made up or does it come from an objective source? Here's the one from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary: Pay particular attention to the word "own" and the latin origin ‘knowledge within oneself’. You will see that the standard definition refers to moral distinctions which are made within onself and not as it applies to others. You are uninformed on this issue. Criminal law is based upon the protection of property and human rights. It only prohibits behaviour that transgresses those rights, not because they are "immoral". Here's but one example: Adultery is considered "immoral" by most of society. Christians have a specific commandment prohibiting it. Yet there is no law against adultery. Why is that, based upon your "immoral behaviour is wrong" argument? I really am perplexed about your rant here. What "proper documentation" are you expecting?

I think you left out an important part. Your sentence should be revised to "It is a moral sense of right and wrong felt by a person and affecting their own BEHAVIOR." Conscience can dicate how a person behaves, but it should not dictate the behaviour of others. So if it was 40% would that then make it "RIGHT"? No? How about 60%? What % makes it right? BTW, what do you mean by "Your homosexual behavior"? Do you infer that I am homosexual because I defend SSM? You seem to misunderstand freedom of religion. "Freedom of religion" refers to the right to believe what you want. It doesn't give you the right to impose your belief system on others. It is completely irrelevant whether the majority believes the same thing you do. It is doubtful in any case that they do. Clashes of rights for the most part are settled in court. In the case of SSM there was no clash of rights, just blatent discrimmination, so it was an easy decision for the court to make.

And you shouldn't go to prison for that either. You should be free to sell your healthcare services to the public.

It expect it is. However your alleged affront is only to those people of ANY religion who believes SSM is immoral and should not be allowed by anyone. My feeling is ALL Christians believe that SSM is wrong, as much as ALL Christians believe pre-marital sex is wrong.

Do you mean other taxes besides road taxes? Do you have any stats which show this, because I find it hard to believe. There should be no protection, neither for the CBC nor for private broadcasters.

Anyone can be as moral or immoral as they choose. The separation of church and state means that a "moral" person, doesn't have the right to IMPOSE that morality on others who don't agree. Please answer a simple question. Do you agree with the principle of the separation of church and state? No there is no need to ban religions itself, only religious practices which interfere with our laws. No, I think you have it backward. People have the right to believe what they want and act according to their conscience. Nothing the homosexual community is asking for is impuning that right. People's right to "freedom of conscience" doesn't allow them the privilege of banning actions of others even if it is abhorent to their own conscience.

No my ass isn't on the line. I have no tangible benefit one way or the other. That allows me to be objective. Those of you who have a vested stake and who's asses are on the line have self-interest at stake and thus come at it from a position of extreme bias.

Yes, it is true that some grain farmers will not survive without supports. Those that do will be stronger because of it. That is the nature of adapting to change, and is not confined only to grain farmers.

It is not homosexuals who made the choice. The government and society usurped the word "marriage" and wrote it into law to denote a civil union between two people, quite outside a religious context. Society has used the word "marriage" to confer recognition of a commitment and relationship between two spouses. Since that is the word society and government uses, homosexuals quite rightly should be using the same term. No doubt you will also object to their use of the word "family" to describe themselves. Do you object to two single people living together who call themselves "common-law married", or is this something you'd like them to invent a new word for as well? It is quite plain that the word marriage has been used outside a religious context for quite some time. Homosexuals for the most part care about the legal and societal definition of marriage and don't give a damn about the religious definition of marriage. Any religion is free to define marriage in as restrictive and bigoted a way as they choose. They are free to not recognize a marriage which falls outside those restrictions, just as some religions today do not recognize "divorce". Since, by your own admission, marriage is a term which is used by multiple religions, I am curious that you now single out Christianity and Christians as being degraded.

This is the American argument and in 2003, the WTO agreed it wasn't a subsidy. The Americans accusing the CWB of being a subsidy is the pot calling the kettle black, regardless, it is a judgement call as to what is a subsidy. I understand the favourable WTO ruling, but in my view, when a government provides a group with something of value it is a subsidy. Mind you, despite the "subsidy" provided, I don't believe that it is material to CWB's existance.

Yes I believe you, however since we live in a secular state where the majority of Canadians support a separation of church and state, there is no reason for imposing what one group thinks is "immoral" and "an act of perversion" on others who do not feel the same. You have not shown that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' excludes homosexuals from the right to marriage. I have repeatedly shown that as written it does do so. LOL. You have now confused transgendered with homosexual. The link you provided shows the transgendered want to generalize the term "Men and women" to "All people". I can understand that there might be some concern that the transgendered would clearly be considered a "man" or a "woman", but clearly non-transgendered homosexuals clearly fall into being considered a "man" or a "woman". My guess is the reason the transgendered are asking for the generalization is to avoid the narrow interpretation of the terms by those who are not broad-minded enough to accept an inclusive society. I already have. Unfortunately your blindness doesn't allow you to see it.

I agree that it is **mostly** not a subsidy. There are elemetns of it which are a subsidy however. There is a government guarantee against losses. When the government takes on risk on behalf of the board without being paid accordingly, it is indeed subsidizing the Board.

*duplicate post

I'd like the farmers to be able to retain the type of Board they want too. Just so long as the don't impose that preference on other farmers who don't agree. Your asking for the right of a majority to bully a minority. I can't agree with that. BTW, I understand the Ontario Wheat Board, does NOT force farmers to sell to it exclusively, unlike the CWB, yet it seems to operate successfully. Why is that?