Leafless

"A total of 175 members of Parliament rejected a Tory motion “to call on government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages” ------------------------------------------ It's extremely disheartening and disturbing to see that 175 members of parliament contributing to the destruction of Christianity. They have directly contributed to transforming Canada into a pagan society driven by an unholy and an unqualified charter, that caters to groups that can be labelled nonconformist and un-Candian and a hazard and danger to mainstream Canadian society. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...d0ffaa3&k=28182

I don't know that it was totally against his will but he is doing it only to keep a promise to the few anti SSM people many of whom felt that as shown. How can you possibly make such a statement when there is NO legal documentation of any kind to establish if what you say is true, pertaining to the citizens of Canada.

What about a foreign-born Alberta nationalist occupying a seat in the provincial legislature and who has in the past served as an adviser to the current Prime Minister of the country? Oh and it's "renounce" not "denounce." That was a typo. Further down you will clearly see 'renounce', sir. BTW- It should be 'Oh,' with a comma, sir.

Still waiting for an answer. Leafless, it's really a simple question, why are you dancing around it and not answering it? Idid answer it: "The homosexual issue though is very different and involves SEXUAL MORALITY in which homosexuals originally discarded the normal morals (RULES) associated with society concerning homosexuality being morally right or wrong. Up to now the government has never bothered to procure proper legal moral documentation to prove, as to produce a STANDARD (since morals are a value of society) via some sort of referendum or similar. IMO homosexuality should never have been made legal as it is not a LEGAL issue, it is a MORAL one concerning what SOCIETY thinks is good or bad not government. Canadians have been duped into believing by fraudulent government involvement that perverted homosexuality and SSM is no different than heterosexual relationships and marriage." What you fail to understand is that Greg is providing a PRIVATE 'service' to those who are interested in participating and has absolutely nothing to do with majorities or minorities nor morals but simply to provide control to avoid abuse. SOCIETY in a democratic society IS NOT A PRIVATE SERVICE PROVIDER and must attend PRIMARILY to the interest of the MAJORITY. Currently the interest of the majority has been badly abused.

Who said the Charter of Rights has anything to do with socialism? I said the socialist leaning Liberals were the party who initiated from the start repatriation of the constitution to the inclusion of the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms. But now that you mention it the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is VERY socialistic in nature concerning the transfer of wealth and rights to groups DEMOCRATICALLY UNQUALFIED. It seems your one of those dreamers who thinks society owes every every Canadian the right, to force Canadians to support Canadian nonconformist in a lucrative way, despite ever even trying to achieve that status by themselves, or even willing to adapt themselves to the ways of mainstream society. But I do agree with you that Mr. Trudeau could have had a hidden agenda favouring homosexuals.

Indeed it does, and it works for public transit...you can bring your dog on the bus if you buy an extra ticket. The problem is that your view of 'admit one' means 'admit one white Christian heterosexual' and that homosexuals are not 'one' that you are willing to admit. That is the crux of the SSM debate...the state is issuing tickest saying 'admit one' [to get married] and you are saying "Whoa, the 'admit one' shouldn't include homosexuals!" Ha-Ha, the only dogs possibly being permitted on public transit are 'seeing eye dogs' and in our city I never seen any type of dog on public transit, although I am not familiar with that legislation. All I am saying is I have never heard of any international agreement relating to homosexuals being part of the 'International Declaration of Human Rights' relating to being accepted pertaining to the word 'everyone'. I have asked for proof relating to this and have yet not seen any.

Still waiting for an answer. The rules concerning morals have been established by the majority of society and morals contributed to the success of this country, not by law, but simple common sense. Sorry to say it looks you don't have any. All you have to do is look at the city of Toronto and how it is experiencing serious social degradation especially relating to crime due to a lack of respect to authorities due to a lax or no morals, ethics or principles. There is no way you can legalize morals, ethics or principles as they must be induced and welcomed NOT rejected by society at large or society will fail, it is inevitable. Christianity is part of Canada's social fabric. Just keep 'kicking Christianity and moral ass'.

How? Many Canadians have dual citizenship now. Many Canadians never made an oath of allegiance to Canada. Like what issue? Wine imports? Many Canadians do have dual citizenship and look what happened when Canada rescued them:" Some 40,000 Canadians were registered with the embassy in Lebanon when the war broke out in July, and Ottawa estimates it spent more than $85 million to evacuate about 15,000 of them to Canada, according to an official in Foreign Affairs who gave what was described as a preliminary estimate. Reports suggest 7,000 evacuees have since returned to Lebanon." You don't view this as serious. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/stor...7390521d&k=5021 Mr. Dion by virtue of being a French Quebecer and citizen of France, could by nature, be MORE inclined to cater to to Quebec's nationalistic and domestic issue's which is serious, since Quebecers view their province has a 'country' and Mr. Dion could very well to.

Dual citizenship has serious implications concerning loyalty. If Mr. Dion says he is loyal to Canada, what about France is he loyal or disloyal to that country? If he was disloyal to France being a Canadian then there would be no reason why he should not denounce his citizenship with France. But if he is loyal to France for whatever reason or reasons this would or could make him untrue or treacherous to his allegiance with Canada for possible specific unknown reasons, known only to Mr.Dion. IMO Mr. Dion has no other OPTION than to RENOUNCE HIS FRENCH CITIZENSHIP or be viewed as a frivolous politician that could even endanger Canada if the proper issue and set of circumstances ever developed by using biased flawed personal logic pertaining to his decision concerning a volatile issue. Perhaps unfortunately, this type of rational could be extended to any Quebecer occupying a federal position as Quebec's nationalism is paramount over Canadian nationalism.

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. "What I reject is even your presumption that you have the right to ask the question". And I thought this was a debate. "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". I think precisely the same way about the Charter relating to special privileges for Quebec, Gays, Aboriginals. So far the Charter has not made me bilingual or convinced me to personally recognize special rights for Quebec, Gays or Aboriginals. I will ONLY recognize these factors, when, if ever, the 'Charter is ratified by ALL Canadians and by not a handful of politicians. "Leafless, you get precious little support even from other posters in this forum" Yes, I noticed this to and have noticed by type of replies to various issues, that the majority of posters on this board are either: many are under thirty with unrealistic opinions , or have strong socialist leanings, or are Quebecers, or are immigrants or are Gays or are atheist, or have strong unpatriotic or anti nationalistic views and feelings as well as other undesirable attributes that make this country the MESS it is to-day. Yes, it certainly seems we have a severe shortage of majority run of the mill Christian, English speaking democratic type Canadians. BTW- relating to: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance". Please show me 'official documentation' proving to me that 'EVERYONE INCLUDES HOMOSEXUALS' and don't tell me it doesn't include heterosexuals as that is the normal 'STANDARD'. Your argument is like a movie theatre ticket where it says on the ticket 'admit one' and you interpret that as justifiable in allowing your 'DOG' ( since there is no reference to define what 'one' means) in which you bought a ticket for, to access the theatre also.

A five hour rum and coke discussion apparently ended his flirtations with the 'Parti Quebecois', APPARENTLY. But the question to be asked is: What party, oh ok, but were his feelings still the same after the booze wore off. Sounds like he was quite the rocker type, each evening with his dad, z-z-z-z-z-z-z. As a teenager, he flirted with the sovereignty movement, campaigning for the Parti Québécois.[2] Stéphane described the experience as follows: "Because the party was there... I wanted to challenge my dad... the way to become an adult sometimes is to say the contrary to your father. Each evening, I would try out a new argument I had heard on the separatist network and my father was demolishing it... My father very quietly and very respectfully was refuting me, without insulting me."[2] Dion has said that his flirtation with the sovereignty movement ended during a five-hour, rum-and-coke fueled discussion with a federalist household while he was going door-to-door for the PQ. Journalist Linda Diebel believes that his flirtation ended gradually, as he completed his university studies and embarked on an academic career in public administration."[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9phane_Dion

This proves how twisted you really are as you have posted NO factual information to support anything you have said outside of resorting to the charter, a flawed piece of legislation invented by socialist for the primary benefit of Quebec that should be scrapped for the salvation of Canada as a country. Your consensus on 'what should be right' makes no sense without some kind of standard, something that is foreign to you, since you naturally do not believe in the 'will of the majority', or for that matter 'international recognition' concerning any point you argued that you view as discriminatory or wrong. If you think my position concerning morality is extreme and isolated, then you should have no problem supporting an initiative demanding a 'national referendum' concerning the issue. Prove me wrong!

No it doesn't. How would you know. You are one of the ones along with homosexuals and Quebec who continually belittles and attacks any type of authority that is the basic requirement of any democratic country. Your little group wants and looks forward to a breakdown of loyalties and devotion to this country that forms Canadian nationalism, a stinking word to you and your anti American pals. Hoping for the system to break down and succumb to your type of ideologies, socialist dictatorship, atheism, perversions and Quebec ideologies will never happen as the Conservatives and the majority of Canadians will prevail with a strong and united country and don't need the help of your kind. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/stor...7390521d&k=5021

Does anyone know, with proof, if Stephane Dion is a dual citizen of both Canada and France? This is important since Mr. Dion is now in the position and could be Canada's next PM. This now raises the basic question concerning his LOYALITIES TO CANADA if he is indeed a dual citizen. Would he be loyal to France and its ideologies, Quebec and its ideologies or Canada and its ideologies.

Your example of Conservative supporters bias or discrimination against Liberal supporters does not compare with the homosexual issue. Of course, pertaining to your example outright discrmination is evident based on the LACK of RULES and the blame rest on Greg's shoulders. But then again the issue is pertaining to your example the question that begs to be answered how the issue is to resolved. The flawed point in your example that you have convientely left out a very important criteria. That necessary criteria is Greg's failure to initially set up rules to ensure this situation cannot happen initially. The homosexual issue though is very different and involves SEXUAL MORALITY in which homosexuals originally discarded the normal morals (RULES) associated with society concerning homosexuality being morally right or wrong. Up to now the government has never bothered to procure proper legal moral documentation to prove, as to produce a STANDARD (since morals are a value of society) via some sort of referendum or similar. IMO homosexuality should never have been made legal as it is not a LEGAL issue, it is a MORAL one concerning what SOCIETY thinks is good or bad not government. Canadians have been duped into believing by fraudulent government involvement that perverted homosexuality and SSM is no different than heterosexual relationships and marriage.

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. If freedom of conscience and religion is a protected constitutional right, then the federal government must defend my constitutional right, that homosexuality is not only immoral being against my religion, but also against my conscience as being perverted and wrong. But it does not defend my rights it only defends the perceived rights of homosexuals. This is based on 'discrimination' which in my view is false since it is not internationally supported and clashes against other constitutional rights. In reality the federal government is discriminating against the citizens of Canada, since homosexuals all along have all the rights of any other Canadian, but by their own hand refused these rights because these rights did not comply to their immoral perversion and wanted and demanded recognition up and above every other non-homosexual Canadian. This is why IMO you cannot separate church and state because of that constitutional fundamental freedom (a) freedom of conscience and religion. This is why this type of constitutional clashes cannot be settled in court since courts are not equipped to handle issue's that pertain to 'conscience and religion'.

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? To obtain the proper criteria to justify SSM, firstly you must acquire a 'STANDARD'. Now in the case of homosexuality and SSM, this 'STANDARD' would have to be based on 'principles of behavior'. Looks like we are back to conscience and morals again. This 'Standard' must be established by society, meaning all citizens of Canada since morals have nothing to do with 'legalities' nor 'government'. Once that 'Standard' has been established so has the criteria to determine if SSM would be made legal or not. Relating to "Your homosexual behavior', yes I assumed you are homosexual due to your anti heterosexual enthusiasm. But if your not, my apologies.

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. I didn't leave anything out as that is the primary FULL definition of conscience. What you are saying though is totally false, as laws are written and based on good and bad behavior. Behavior RULES! Ask any murderer who is serving 25 years and ignored his own morals, but still figures he did nothing wrong because in his mind the guy had it coming to him. Good behavior...pays. But not so in the case of SSM as government supports bad behavior and are to gutless to procure the proper documentation to prove otherwise.

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. BTW- Conscience is NOT the right to believe want you want. It is a moral sense of right and wrong felt by a person and affecting BEHAVIOR. Your homosexual behavior in Canada relates to 1% of the population and therefore unequivocally is WRONG. Well, what we have then is a 'clashing of constitutional rights'. Fundamental freedom of conscience and religion vs. equality rights. These equality rights are freebie government generated constitutional rights to a perverted group without reverting to the 'will of the majority'. Kind of makes it useless for anyone to vote in this country, when only the political elite get a chance to voice their opinion relating to a most important democratic issue a 'clashing of constitutional rights'.

Precisely, what special rights do gay people want? What rights would they get that straight people don't already have? Why are you trying to divide the country on the basis of 'straight' and 'gay'. Constitutional rights are the rights of all multicultural Canadians and should not include EXTRA rights for sub-groups who might think they are of 'special status'. Are you trying to establish a national precedent on the importance of being 'straight' or 'Gay'. Are the only SPECIAL OFFICIAL CANADIANS are those who are French, living in the NATION of Quebec, along with their French cousins scattered throughout Canada, with the GAYS and ABORIGINALS. Maybe the rest of us should consider forming a country of our own. We could call it BANNEDADA!

Constitutional amendments in the US are not subject to public referendum. The process you describe, where elected official propose and approve amendments, is the way the Constitution gets amended in the US. There may be an outcry from some quarters over the subject matter, but there would be no outcry over the process since they would be following the required process. "There may be an outcry from some quarters over the subject matter"- That is an understatement to say the least, because you will NEVER see 'sexual orientation' as part of the U.S. Constitution. Their whole process to amend their constitution basically consist of a referendum anyways, since there are so many states represented in Congress. On top of this twenty-four mostly western states provide for referendums to amend their individual state constitution. Federal referendums in Canada are allowed and can be granted if the federal government chooses to take that route. "Some argue that, in light of the precedent set by the Charlottetown Accord referendum, this may have become an unwritten convention" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Canada

'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' as been recognized and adopted by most modern civilized countries. Equal rights are an artificial fabrication of rights determined in Canada's case in a undemocratic fashion excluding Canadian citizens and are NOT universally recognized or adopted by civilized countries. From the very beginning of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Equal rights are human rights. Stop trying to split a hair that doesn't even exist. Equal rights (relating to Canada) are NOT INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED as human rights and therefore DO NOT constitute a U.N. international human right. "What are Human Rights? Human rights standards have been established by international agreement. They are based on universal norms, applicable to every society. (For the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights see www.unhchr.ch.) "

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. Is Christianity not the the major religion of both Canada and the U.S.?

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. What does 'separation of church and state" have to do with Canadians who think homosexuality is a perversion as one does NOT have to be religious to have morals? Is this not taking one's right away to be moral if one chooses? What your saying is not logical concerning those those who's morals are part of religious beliefs. If this is the case with religious morals pertaining to any law, logic etc. relating to separation of church and state, then government should have no other option than to BAN all religions that interfere with laws based on our constitution. But more importantly it shows homosexuals who are intolerant of concerns related to (a) a persons private belief of morals as a constitutional right relating to 'freedom of conscience and religion'( a persons private religious beliefs of morals coupled with their constitutional right to think this way makes intolerant homosexuals who think this way bigots and unadoptable to the ways of the majority conscience.

What "act of perversion" are you taking about? I never referered to an "act of perversion" and neither does the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. There is in fact no mention of a requirement for any type of sexual activity whatoever. I am saying like many other Canadians who believe moralistically 'SSM is an act of perversion' and that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' does not include or support by definition homosexuals and SSM. If you think the U.N. declaration does support homosexual marriage as a human right, why then are homosexual groups trying to pressure the U.N. to change certain wording in the declaration to include homosexual or lesbian concerns, such as this one. http://transgenderunity.blogspot.com/ If you have documented proof that the U.N. 'Declaration of Human Rights' supports homosexuals and related activities including SSM as 'human rights', please post it.