Mad_Michael

Yes, this is a seemingly valid point. However, the fact that homosexuals were not identified as existing prior to the 19th century, does not mean they didn't exist prior to 19th century - identity or act. Indeed, Edward II supplies a 13th/early 14th century example of one who clearly was 'homosexual' as an identity, not just engaging in an 'act'. And I agree, the application of the term to any period prior to the 19th century produces weird anomolies of us calling married people 'homosexuals' (such as Richard Lionheart or Alexander the Great). And I disagree about what you say about the Kinsey scale. That scale is 'anti-categorical' and introduces nothing but 'grey-areas' into the categorical terms. According Kinsey's scale, the vast majority of homosexual 'acts' that occur are committed by non-homosexuals. Most people have trouble with this concept.

This has got to be the shortest thread discussion upon this particular topic that I've ever encountered on any discussion forum. It is most surprising that no one has made any querry about what basis that science can use to make claims of 'scientific knowledge', given that true knowledge is essentially (and categorically) impossible for human beings (as I've argued above). Alternatively, no one has inquired about the ability of science to assert their basis of knowledge as distinct from that of religion, given that both are ultimately predicated upon faith.

You are referring to the old system are you not? Now the Catholic school board is fully funded regardless of who choses to check what box on their property tax forms. And according to Mike Harris' wonderful new funding formulas, property taxes are not directly correlated to education any more.

Don't forget to check it twice!

What events are you referring to? The 'construction' of 'homosexuality' as an identity is contemporary to Victorian England - primarily as a reaction against legal persecution. Surprisingly enough, although homosexuality has been illegal in many places throughout history, the laws were quite rarely enforced. Victorian England was one place it was definitely enforced (but only as a class issue). Indeed, many English homosexuals in the Victorian era took exile to France where they faced no prosecution at all (even though it was equally illegal in France at the time).

Will you be happy when this policy is taken as justification for the requirement that we taxpayers fund Jewish, Muslim and Hindu schools too?

I've caught multiple examples of plagarism amongst 1st year philosophy students (and none were punished). It is quite remarkable that in 90% of the cases, they actually pretend that they didn't know it was wrong. Anecdotal evidence suggests that serial plagarism/cheaters are coming on close to 50% of all university students these days (the numbers apparently are rising very fast in the last few years - becoming epidemic now).

You can chalk up anything you like. Feel free to make a list. At the very least it might give you something to keep you out of trouble.

Bemused giggles. This is slightly more colourful than your usual standard. That you can deluded into thinking that your opinion is relevant to anything or anyone is one of the features of democracy that makes it work.

So who devised this particular plan?

Shhh! It is way more fun to watch ScottSA make his pronouncements!

Quite wrong. Besides, the "middle class" didn't exist prior to the 13th century. The embryonic merchant class was barely begun at that point, and didn't even register on the political spectrum outside of London proper. You are quite amusing with your sweeping statements. I can't be bothered to discuss or debate this topic (or any other) with you, so feel free to keep pounding away. It is nothing if not entertaining.

And my point is that it is none of the consumer's business what the shareholders what to do, provided it is legal. If the consumers don't like it, there are other options/products available.

That the law gives the government permission to regulate as such does not negate the fact that there is no substantive or rational justification for the absurdity of this policy (which was my point). I know perfectly well that the Government has the legal authority to interfere in just about anything and everything in this country.

Universities have been here for a long time. Apparently, if we penalise plagarism, over half of our students will fail or be expelled. We can't have that, so...

Neither Bell nor Telus had a monopoly here, nor will they have one when merged. Indeed, if Bell had a real monopoly, they wouldn't be bothering to merge with a minor competitor. I didn't know they had any of those. All the top execs always seem to have French-Canadian names.

I can't imagine any basis upon which government interference into this merger of two private sector companies could be justified. It is none of the government's business whether or not the shareholders of BCE and Telus wish to combine their assets and operations, or not.

You've established your national security discussion credentials right there. Anyone who takes your posts seriously deserves what they get.

I do believe the poster is talking about the aristocracy......the peasantry, having no property to contract in marriage may have had even more plastic arrangements..... Indeed. As far as I know, prior to the 13th century when the Christian Church developed a passion for regulating marriages, marriages (per se) were actually very rare amongst anyone save the nobility and middle class. As you rightly point out, historically speaking, marriage has always been most closely related to issues of property rights and the poor don't have property and thus, didn't need or benefit from marriage. Btw, Elenor (probably spelt wrong) of Aquitaine is one of my favourite historical characters. What a colourful family she raised!

Yes. A culture that is officially dominated by men and where women have few rights, if any at all.

Yes, it wouldn't be too difficult to list all the multiple marriages of the English kings (and queens) of the medieval latter medieval era. Given that the average life expectancy in 16th century England was 35 years.

As for 16th century England, it is to be noted that Henry VIII suffered politically far more for his break with the Church of Rome than he ever did for all of his 'wife troubles'. In other words, the rank and file of English society at the time didn't seem to care at all about Henry's wives. Indeed, I suspect half of them supported Henry's desire for a legal male heir (and willing to do whatever it takes to get one). A few well-born women might have died for the 'cause', but the alternative was perceived to be Civil War (as per the prescendent set in the 12th century with the coronation of Matilda/Maud and the ensuing 'time of troubles'). The English society of the 16th century was far more excised by the break with Rome for which Thomas More (amongst others) was a martyr.

Agreed. Blair's personal qualities, N.Ireland experience and international connections make him ideal for the position. Blair's complicity in the Iraqi debacle and his support of Bush make it unlikely that he will be trusted by anyone or that he will achieve anything. Oh... and there's no way you can blame the Middle East mess on colonialism. Certainly Britain and France have historically done their best to screw the place up for their own fun and profit, and lately have been joined in the same game by USA and USSR/Russia. But one only has to survey 18th & early 19th century Middle Eastern history (mostly prior to substantive colonialist involvement) to see that every problem presently identified in the Middle East was already in full bloom at that time. Western colonialism has only magnified or excentuated (and complicated) the inherent problems and tensions that have long inhabited the Middle East.

It was never a good time to start. Premier Bill Davis deserves to be reviled as one of the all-time worst Premiers in Ontario history for this monstrosity of public policy. Though, I think Mike Harris' poll position is safe - the sheer magnitude and quantity of his monsterous policy decisions dwarf's Bill Davis' single example of idiocy.

People aren't stupid. They know that as soon as one portion of the healthcare sector is 'profit-driven' that will act like a wedge to drive down service levels across the board - and one by one, various services would become 'pay-services' in the future. And of course, the existence of a private option removes the impetus to keep the present system functional and responsive. If you have alternative choices available, that will encourage the tax-paid system to sink to the lowest common denominator of bare-minimum service (let people pay for their 'premium' services). Before you know it, we will have EXACTLY the same healthcare system that we abandoned in the 1950's as unworkable and non-functional. If we are lucky and follow the advice of all these ideological commentators & think tanks with vested interests, maybe we can have a system that is unworkable, nonfunctional and outrageously expensive, just like our American neighbours!